PDA

View Full Version : My thoughts on Illegal Immigration



KSigMason
11-24-2007, 07:20 PM
Here is another article I wrote on my blog (http://political-compass.blogspot.com/2007/04/illegal-immigration-issue.html) (FYI: My username used to be IDARNG_Loki or just Loki):


My thoughts on Illegal Immigration
by IDARNG Loki

This topic is a touchy one with many people, but though our attention is constantly being taken to international affairs such as the Middle East, I believe, we should keep our attention on our own domestic issues.

I should first give my definition when I use the word “illegals”, which I say is any citizen of another country who is residing within the US illegal, not just Hispanics like some have stereotyped the phrase. I am one who is against giving amnesty to illegal immigrants because I am not one to reward those who break the law. Why should any illegal immigrant get amnesty when others have waited to get into this country legally?

We need to amend Section 1 of the 14th Amendment so it rids the part that says anyone born on US is a citizen. This is a key battle in the immigration issue. Someone born in America should only become a citizen if their parents are citizens! Otherwise it allows illegal alien mothers to come over, run to the nearest hospital, and give birth to a new burden of the state.


14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We need to send National Guard forces to the border, not just as a support unit, but also as an active unit who can arrest and deport the illegal. Engineer units could build a good border fence and build a trench that would stop illegals from even reaching the fence, plus make tunneling impossible without detection. Use Unmanned Ariel Vehicles (UAVs), sniper teams, radar units, and scouts as surveillance along the border. UAVs would be able to survey the parts of the border that are harder to traverse by foot or vehicle. Sniper teams, as a none combative role, have the ability to track illegals while radar units have the capacity to track even the slightest movements all along the Mexico border. The MPs can become the border patrollers who have training in law enforcement and procedures. Send our Tactical Human Intelligence Teams (THT) assets across the borders to collect intelligence and counter the illegals crossing by using GPS devices. We need to close down the border because you can’t heal a wound unless you stop the bleeding.

To combat the illegals already in the US the best strategy is to give power to the State and Local law enforcement because local authorities have a better understanding of their city and where the illegals are living. The feds should give the state some kind of grant depending on certain factors such as location and perceived number of illegals. The locals can easily round up the illegals since they deal with them every day. The State and Local enforcer’s grant should increase with their successes.

Once apprehended the illegals, whether on the border or in the country, biometrics should be taken. If the illegal has been living in the US and is caught then all of their financial assets should be frozen. The costs to send them back to their country should be taken thence from their accounts, plus any taxes they have not paid should also be paid. Their employers should be fined; the severity of the fine should depend of several factors such as knowledge of employee status and number of illegals working for him.

Medicaid/Medicare, school assistance, and welfare programs should be off-limits to anyone who cannot prove citizenship, to a point. I don’t like the welfare program, but I’d rather help an American than an illegal. Plus you take away the incentives you take away their reason to come across.

As I said earlier, “you can’t heal a wound if you don’t stop the bleeding.” Now I’m all for immigration into this country because my family came across the ocean too and I think that everyone should have a chance to have the freedoms we have here in America. What I am against though is illegal immigrants coming over leeching off the system while not contributing anything.

I am also irritated by the state of our prison systems. Illegals have increased crime, especially in larger metropolises. Now I’m not saying illegals are the only one’s who commit crimes, but if we were to deport them then it would ease up on our prisons. We also know that terrorists have partnered with the gang known as the MS13 to help bring terrorists cross the border.

I hope one day this issue will be fixed, but with partisan politics in play in our Congress I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Remember though immigration is great thing, but it is a double edged sword when we allow the illegals to throw away the law book then try and hide behind it. As I said in the first weeks of class during our political party assignment, “We're not closing the door, just locking the windows."

NOTE: 1 out of 10 of all illegal immigrants that cross the US-Mexican border are not Hispanic

SOURCE (http://political-compass.blogspot.com/2007/04/illegal-immigration-issue.html)

goofythekiller
11-27-2007, 02:34 PM
I think the 14th Amendment should be repealed. It was originally intended to prevent Southern states from denying citizenship and voting rights to black people. We're obviously over that today, so it really serves no purpose but on the other hand encourages people to come here, have babies, and leech off the welfare system.

As far as I know Ron Paul is the only candidate that has called for it to be repealed.

thumbelina
11-27-2007, 06:01 PM
Doesn't need to be repealed...
The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) has become the key Constitutional issue of the immigration mess. The relevant section reads,

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The problem is that this has been misinterpreted in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S, under any circumstances, is an American citizen. This is neither the original intent of the law nor the way it was interpreted by the courts in subsequent decades. Some Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were an immutable law of nature. It is not, and most other nations do not, in fact, recognize it. It is only a bad habit that could be broken with a simple Executive Order.

According to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year. Once a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws. Even before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority. "The situation we have today is absurd," alleges Craig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, a group of attorneys and immigration experts that is trying to do something about the problem. "There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. This was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship." Source (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={62ABC9F7-4274-4E09-87A4-5BDC94D65700})

goofythekiller
11-27-2007, 07:11 PM
^So, what do you propose? Can you amend an amendment? I think the whole thing needs to be repealed. I don't see how you can constitutionally just get rid of one part, but not the whole thing.

KSigMason
11-27-2007, 07:36 PM
^So, what do you propose? Can you amend an amendment? I think the whole thing needs to be repealed. I don't see how you can constitutionally just get rid of one part, but not the whole thing.Why wouldn't we be able to amend must a specific part. That is the very definition of amend; to change, make better, etc. You are thinking of repealing the 14th Amendment.

goofythekiller
11-27-2007, 08:03 PM
Why wouldn't we be able to amend must a specific part. That is the very definition of amend; to change, make better, etc. You are thinking of repealing the 14th Amendment.

I don't really know how you'd go about amending an amendment. I was thinking something more along the lines of the 21st amendment, just repeal the 14th amendment and transfer anything non-related to citizenship to the new amendment.

PonsAsinorum
11-27-2007, 08:06 PM
I don't really know how you'd go about amending an amendment. I was thinking something more along the lines of the 21st amendment, just repeal the 14th amendment and transfer anything non-related to citizenship to the new amendment.

And amendment simply becomes a part of the Constitution once it's passed. From there, all that's needed to amend it, as with any other part of the Constitution, is another amendment.

goofythekiller
11-27-2007, 08:16 PM
And amendment simply becomes a part of the Constitution once it's passed. From there, all that's needed to amend it, as with any other part of the Constitution, is another amendment.

An amendment is also used to repeal another amendment as it was the case with the 21st amendment. However, has there ever been a case where an amendment was amended but not repealed? I don't think there's any precedence of such a scenario.

KSigMason
11-27-2007, 08:19 PM
I don't really know how you'd go about amending an amendment.What!? Did you not take a government class?

The Amendment Process (http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process)

goofythekiller
11-27-2007, 08:27 PM
What!? Did you not take a government class?

The Amendment Process (http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process)

That has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. But let's just leave it at that.

KSigMason
11-27-2007, 08:29 PM
You got it.

PonsAsinorum
11-27-2007, 08:47 PM
An amendment is also used to repeal another amendment as it was the case with the 21st amendment. However, has there ever been a case where an amendment was amended but not repealed? I don't think there's any precedence of such a scenario.

No amendment has ever been amended in part. But since amendments are treated as part of the Constitution, and amendment could be passed to modify a previous amendment without repealing it.

AccountRed
12-05-2007, 01:36 PM
So you get rid of illegals. More or the same ones will come back.

You GOTS to go to the roots of it and START having some white collar police enforcement and bankrupt though damn basterds hiring the illegals in the first place.

KSigMason
12-05-2007, 01:53 PM
You GOTS to go to the roots of it and START having some white collar police enforcement and bankrupt though damn basterds hiring the illegals in the first place.I'm constantly updating my material. I do need to focus on the company side, but that's where I was leaning with giving grants to State & Local law enforcement since they will be able to investigate those cases.

Dr. Madd
12-05-2007, 02:30 PM
So you get rid of illegals. More or the same ones will come back.

You GOTS to go to the roots of it and START having some white collar police enforcement and bankrupt though damn basterds hiring the illegals in the first place.


I like my solution.. Build the wall, put guard towers on it and charge hunters to shoot at the illegals. It would take half the border guards, make the people up there more willing to shoot, because they're paying for the privilege, would be one heck of a deterrant, and make money.

AccountRed
12-06-2007, 01:10 PM
charge hunters to shoot at the illegals

IDK dude. That would have psychological effects on hunters who may or may not be trained and mentally ready to shoot at people.

Killing a human is a big step up from killing an animal.

Dr. Madd
12-07-2007, 09:12 AM
IDK dude. That would have psychological effects on hunters who may or may not be trained and mentally ready to shoot at people.

Killing a human is a big step up from killing an animal.


You'd be surprised, and It wouldn't be bloody as all that. I give it two weeks and there wouldn't be any Mexicans on THEIR side of that river.

Sir Archangel
12-07-2007, 02:23 PM
this is stupid one cannot afford to mend the 14th Amendment. I don't think any representatives from any real states will support this and thus, it will not get the 3/4 approval to pass.

And the whole shooting illegals as they are crossing is ridiculous too. It goes against God's word.

KSigMason
12-07-2007, 04:41 PM
this is stupid one cannot afford to mend the 14th Amendment. I don't think any representatives from any real states will support this and thus, it will not get the 3/4 approval to pass.Doesn't mean it's not a solution or atleast a step in the right direction. The truth and doing what is right isn't always popular