Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Immigration
See other Immigration Articles

Title: Perils of Executive Action on Immigration
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://absoluterights.com/perils-of ... terights&utm_content=12.2.2014
Published: Dec 1, 2014
Author: David Fast
Post Date: 2014-12-02 17:35:00 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: None
Views: 57
Comments: 13

Perils of Executive Action on Immigration

Posted by: David Fast December 1, 2014

There is more at stake here than just the work situation, in fact, there are some very dangerous things that are happening because our current president, and nearly every president before him have refused to enforce the immigration law to any great extent. I have written before about the drug smuggling, the human trafficking, the drain on State and local budgets, and the budget of the Federal Government as well. Still, it occurs to me that we should be perhaps more concerned about a couple of other potential problems that arise when the government does not do its job.

For one thing, failure to protect our borders is actually violating the oath of office which in part states that the person taking the oath will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. A subpart of that Constitution is the laws of the land that have been dutifully written and passed by the legislature and signed into law by the president, and I believe those would cover the immigration laws.

More importantly, in recent years we have seen a huge change in the world. There was a news report that stated thousands of people were being killed by the warring factions of various religions. Those are a lot of people to be killed for some religion’s idea of what God wants. The United States has its collective fingers in every insignificant disagreement happening in the entire world.

So, I wonder what exactly prevents these warring factions from sneaking in a few thousand of their more dangerous members into America in preparation for acts of extreme terrorism. If close to 12 million people have entered the country illegally and most of them are still here, how many could there be who are already waiting for some lunatic in some other country to order them to take action? If you guessed no one knows, you are right! We know that many who cross the border are or have been criminals. However, of the 11 to 12 million total we have here, by estimates, since no one has an exact count, illegal immigrants don’t always participate in a census.

We don’t even have a clue what their backgrounds might be or how dangerous they might be. The only way we know many have criminal backgrounds is that they have been caught and checked, then much like the fishing shows on television, they are released back into the wild, so they can reproduce more and ensure we will not run out. There is more at stake here, than just a lot of people crossing the border looking for work. What about the health issues that may be entering with these people? How do we know what they may have been exposed to before they made it across the border into our lives? How many are there, who don’t even know they are sick yet? If they do know they are sick, they may be trying even harder to get here for medical treatment!

Can we really afford a major health epidemic? Are we even prepared to deal with such an event? We know that people from any nation in the world can walk across the border and disappear into the night, so we have no real idea what may be here already, let alone what may be on the way.

Any action by the President, or Congress, that does not first seal the border, and I mean seal it tight and then proceed to catch, tag and remove all the illegal immigrants in the country, is of no value to America or the people who live here. The people who have fought wars to keep it a free nation, or those who have paid taxes to keep it working and make it healthy should deserve better than this. The idea that it costs money to enforce the immigration laws of the land is no reason for those laws to be abandoned or revised. Enforcement cannot be an option. It must be applied exactly as written by those who are and were responsible for the enforcement of those laws from the day they were enacted. That means the president and the Congress together working to support the agents, and the courts charged with the control and removal of the criminals who violate our laws.

We have a group of people who have shirked their duty to enforce the immigration laws until we are so overrun by illegal immigrants their method for dealing with it now is to change the law because it will just be too traumatic and costly to do what should have been done from the very first minute they began to arrive. I am not a mean or vengeful person necessarily, but when it comes to America, I am not a very generous person with our resources toward the criminals who lack the respect for our laws and our customs to do anything but violate them.

So, while I do understand that these people, some who have been in America for years and have, in fact, reproduced until they now have several children who qualify for citizenship because they happened to be born here. However, every day or two lately I seem to be reading about someone who managed to dodge the law for a crime they committed for years but who have finally been caught and are now going to jail.

❝ So I fail to see how these illegal immigrants are any different than any other criminal.

It is because of the very act that brought them to the United States also makes them criminals. Causing me to feel we as a nation had no duty to support them or to change our laws to accommodate them. Whether the crime is a misdemeanor or a felony really does not matter much in this instance because the crime was the very act of coming here! They violated the law of this land before they ever even tried to do it the proper way by following the law, and they must pay the price for that. If we have no respect for our laws, and we let them have no respect for our laws, then by default we don’t really have any laws!

As a nation we have to stand up and say to the world, “Your initial duty is to respect the law of our land, our preliminary duty is to ensure that you fulfill your first duty.” My proposal is hard, rapid, and designed to make sure that a clear and concise message is delivered to every person in the world who might be contemplating illegal entry into this country. If we need to change any law, in my opinion, it would be the law that gives any person born in this country automatic citizenship, and thus makes them eligible not only to remain here but to aspire to the highest office in our land, which is the presidency. As we should have learned already, not every person who seeks to administer our nation is going to be good for the nation, no matter how popular they might be, or how compelling their campaign might be.

That law should be amended to state that no person born on our shores or within our borders to persons who are illegal residents of this nation, cannot be awarded citizenship. No person born to parents who have willfully violated the laws of the United States by entering illegally can receive citizenship. These persons born under these conditions could perhaps be given some priority in the future if they should want to apply for citizenship or naturalization, but only by following the current laws for immigration. With that law in place and a one hundred percent commitment to sealing the borders of the nation, which includes money allocated specifically for this one task each year in the budget and which cannot be discretionary for the president to decide whether he will spend it for that or not. It is that important for our borders to be safe. We cannot afford to allow people to roam freely across the border, because we have a right to be a secure and sovereign nation.

The one thing we know for sure is that so far we have allowed our nation to get to this point where we have no idea what sort of people have entered our nation, or for what reasons. We know that a good many of our illegal immigrants who Obama wants to make legal, have criminal backgrounds. They may have been members of the various drug cartels in Mexico, gang members from all over central and south America and Mexico, kidnappers, murderers, etc. Then we must also consider how many of them may be entering the United States at the behest of the ISIS or some other radical group that is intent on punishing America for its support of their opponents in other nations!

There is still the threat of other extremist organizations sending suicide bombers or other terrorists into our nation across the same border that our last several presidents have treated as no problem at all! We are currently engaged with Russia in throwing spit balls at each other, except they are tossing the majority of them! How many operatives do you suppose they could walk across our borders from places like, oh say, Cuba? These people already have friends and relatives in Florida, so they could just fit right in and could be sending information back home in a matter of days. Then I would like to propose another possibility.

What about some members of factions in other nations like oh, let’s say, Africa, possibly having been exposed to something like Ebola, walking across the border? Or maybe they might manage to find a way to carry the virus across the border and release it in some heavily populated area in our nation? Do you think our current system would catch any of these people? If they did catch any of them, I would be willing to bet they would be given bus tickets or airline tickets to wherever they said they were trying to get to, and sent on their merry way! Whatever the international accords may have said about the use of chemical and biological weapons in war. It is of little value when someone decides to unleash some biologic agent on another nation.

First of all, there are plenty of countries around the world who hate America for no particular reason, and would be more than willing to smuggle in a good quantity of Ebola if they could. As it stands with our borders right now, there is pretty much nothing stopping them from doing so! Same is true about smuggling a nuclear device into the nation and detonating it in some crowded area. If we allow our political leaders to continue to allow people to enter this country of their own free will, we will see something like this happen. It is not speculation. It is a matter of fact. It happens all over the world, so why not here? Just because they have to get the money to buy a plane ticket, or a boat ticket, and then take the trouble to walk across the border, is really not much of a deterrent to me!

Our leader has laid out the welcome mat, and has made it plain with anyone who will listen, that he has no intention of fixing or correcting any of the prospective problems. Instead, he is welcoming these unknown “DREAMERS” into our nation with open arms, while completely ignoring the possible dangers that are present in this kind of actions. Then he says he will make those who are already in this country legal as he can, so they can stop worrying about how to avoid deportation! If he really wanted us to be safe, he would be doing everything in his power to show them that they were being actively hunted and deported soon as transportation could be arranged, just like how they got to America in the first place.

However, our government is living in denial, certain that no one who means any harm to America would ever walk across our open borders and attempt to deliver a death blow to this nation! That is a complete denial! The United States seems to be about the most unpopular, disliked, and hated nation on the planet! How much prestige would some other country enjoy if they could pull off an attack from inside our own borders? It is a new world out there, and the size of an ocean does not offer the kind of protection it once did.

There are people now who cross the ocean in a row boat, how hard would it really be to sneak in a biological or chemical weapon? How difficult would it be to send someone across our border with some deadly agent to contaminate our water supplies? Right now, it would be so easy that it almost makes me shiver, and the only thing that might happen to such a person would be to have the Homeland Security people help them to get transportation to their target!

This is not just about work, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, educational resources, housing and illegal voting. This is far more serious than that, and until someone besides me sees the danger and somehow gets the attention of the people who are offering a free pass to these potential threats, and causes them to change from the direction they are now headed and instead toward a means of securing the borders and removing every likely threat that has possibly crossed the border in years.

That means every illegal immigrant, and their offspring must be located as quickly as possible, captured and returned to their homeland without any hesitation, because as soon as they figure out what we are doing, they will attack if they are here, perhaps sooner than they wanted to, but they will do the dirty work they came here to do.

No, not all illegal immigrants are dangerous, and not all of them are or could be involved is this kind of plot, but there is no way to look at them and tell which ones are and which ones are not, so to be safe. They all have to be removed, quickly and quietly. Then they can be allowed to reapply for entry into the country legally which is how they should have done it in the first place. It won’t be cheap. It won’t be popular, but it is the best way to ensure that our nation continues. Besides, they all broke the law to get here, so they have already proven a total lack of concern for the country they have entered.

No I am not insane. I am not paranoid. I am just being realistic as to what could happen because of the lack of concern paid to our borders by those who are supposed to looking out for us and keeping us secure and safe. This is the security of our nation. We are facing here, not some Hollywood movie. If you leave the door to your house open and go out for the evening, you would not be surprised when you came home and found it empty, but you are ok with doing it to the entire nation?


Poster Comment:

Obummer has screwed us all with this amnesty to the illegals.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)

And congress does not have the balls to take Berry on. What has happen to this once great country?? Just for the record, this all started with the Regan Admin. and their amnesty program (only 300,000 but 3 million got a free pass)

Darkwing  posted on  2014-12-03   7:59:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: BTP Holdings (#0)

Congress is ordered by the Constitution to have a uniform rule of Naturalization -- no exceptions. Any that don't want to do that Constitutional duty aren't really of America's Congress. Replace them by special elections.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2014-12-03   12:50:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: GreyLmist (#2)

Replace them by special elections.

Any elected official CAN be impeached. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2014-12-03   16:34:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: BTP Holdings (#0)

If we need to change any law, in my opinion, it would be the law that gives any person born in this country automatic citizenship....

I support that 100%. Great article.

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat

James Deffenbach  posted on  2014-12-03   23:31:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: BTP Holdings (#3) (Edited)

Any elected official CAN be impeached. ;)

Congress presumes that it is exempt but it isn't. Non-elected officials can also be impeached and they can all still be impeached even when they are no longer in office. Example: Secretary of War Belknap in Grant's administration. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal process or immunity from criminal prosecution. If convicted, the person is removed from office and can be disqualified from practicing law and/or holding any office again. State officials, including Governors, can be impeached too according to the Constitution of their State.

CIVIL OFFICER. The constitution of the United States, art. 2, s. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments; of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy.

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia

At the Philadelphia Convention, Benjamin Franklin noted that, historically, the removal of “obnoxious” chief executives had been accomplished by assassination [or judicial execution]. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal — impeachment — would be preferable.[1]

Congress seems to prefer avoiding their duty to impeach, probably because nearly all of them are impeachable themselves for crimes against the Constitution by their wrongful legislations and for bribery from campaign contributors and lobbyists.

Edited for formatting.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2014-12-05   9:45:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: All (#5)

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia

When an Impeachment process involves a U.S. President, the Chief Justice of the United States is required to preside during the Senate trial.[5] In all other trials, the Vice President would preside in his capacity as President of the Senate. Some academics have suggested that due to an omission in the Constitution, the Vice President also would preside over his or her own impeachment trial,[6] but the logic of this argument has been questioned.[7]

References:

7. Articles And Essays: Can The Vice President Preside At His Own Impeachment Trial?: A Critique Of Bare Textualism. Litigation- essentials.lexisnexis.com. Retrieved on 2013-07-12. [Full article requires a lexis.com ID]

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2014-12-05   10:16:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: GreyLmist (#6)

Some academics have suggested that due to an omission in the Constitution, the Vice President also would preside over his or her own impeachment trial,[6] but the logic of this argument has been questioned.[7]

That would be ridiculous. One of the core principles of common law is that no man may be a judge in his own cause.

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends. Paul Craig Roberts

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." Frederic Bastiat

James Deffenbach  posted on  2014-12-05   10:29:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: BTP Holdings (#3)

Me at #2: Congress is ordered by the Constitution to have a uniform rule of Naturalization -- no exceptions. Any that don't want to do that Constitutional duty aren't really of America's Congress. Replace them by special elections.

You at #3: Any elected official CAN be impeached. ;)

Just noting here that we don't have to depend on a rogue Congress to impeach themselves. They can be recalled and they can be replaced by special elections, then impeached by a Constitutionalist Congress to prevent them from holding office again or positions of trust such as attorneys.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2014-12-05   10:30:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: James Deffenbach (#7) (Edited)

That would be ridiculous. One of the core principles of common law is that no man may be a judge in his own cause.

Right, it would be ridiculous but not on the grounds of Common Law, imo, which is different than Constitutional Law. I couldn't read the whole article linked about it because I'm not a Lexis member but it cited the example of Spiro Agnew. This is what I could copy of that:

Copyright (c) 2000 Saint Louis University School of Law Saint Louis University Law Journal ARTICLES AND ESSAYS: CAN THE VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDE AT HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL?: A CRITIQUE OF BARE TEXTUALISM
Summer, 2000
44 St. Louis L.J. 849
Author
JOEL K. GOLDSTEIN*
Excerpt

Turn the clock back for a moment to August 1973. In the midst of the burgeoning Watergate scandal, the nation discovered that Vice President Spiro T. Agnew was being investigated for allegedly accepting bribes from contractors, and for committing tax fraud while Governor of Maryland and Vice President. The investigation, by attorneys in the United States Attorneys Office in Maryland, ultimately gathered sufficient evidence to present to a grand jury. To avoid the spectre of likely indictment and prosecution, Agnew elected to resign his office and plead nolo contendere. 1

But suppose Agnew had decided not to go quietly. 2 Instead of resigning and pleading, imagine he decided to go to Congress, to challenge the House to impeach him and, if it did, the Senate to convict him. Although this possibility may seem far-fetched now, Agnew did at one point appear headed in that direction. 3 Suppose the House had charged Agnew with committing impeachable crimes that, if proven, justified his removal. As the House considered impeaching President Nixon, the Senate would have faced a trial to determine whether Agnew, the person first in line to succeed Nixon, must be removed.

As the Senate began its deliberations, with Senate president pro tempore James Eastland presiding, let us suppose Agnew entered the Senate chamber and strolled to the front. "I'm here to preside," Agnew told a startled Eastland. "Give me the gavel. Get out of my chair."

Agnew's presence in and of itself, was something of ...

At the time the Constitution was ratified, Vice Presidents were whoever came in 2nd place during a Presidential election -- expected to be a rival from a different party, so not thought to be as prone to becoming impeachably complicit in the rogue actions of a President or impeachable at the same time, is my supposition.

Edited last paragraph + spacing.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2014-12-05   10:44:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: GreyLmist (#9)

At the time the Constitution was ratified, Vice Presidents were whoever came in 2nd place during a Presidential election -- expected to be a rival from a different party, so not thought to be as prone to becoming impeachably complicit in the rogue actions of a President or at the same time, is my supposition.

The founders had many great ideas that have been discarded by design, to the detriment of the Republic.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2014-12-05   10:55:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Lod (#10)

The founders had many great ideas that have been discarded by design, to the detriment of the Republic.

Yes and we should discard all those altered designs and all who hold to those counterfeitings.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2014-12-05   11:02:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: All (#9)

In the case of a Vice President's impeachment, I'd have to research it further to be sure but the next highest ranking official of the Senate would probably preside there for those proceedings, although there might not be any tiebreaking vote mechanism if they could vote too and cause a tie. [Ref. President pro tempore of the United States Senate - Wikipedia] If a VP resigned before their impeachment proceedings reached the Senate or during that stage, they could still be convicted of that but whoever replaced them as VP would then preside over the case there as the highest ranking Senate official.

This is noted at that Wikipedia link:

Until the 1960s, it was common practice for the vice president to preside over daily Senate sessions, so the president pro tempore rarely presided unless the vice presidency became vacant.[10]

Until 1891, the president pro tempore only served until the return of the vice president to the chair or the adjournment of a session of Congress. Between 1792 and 1886, the president pro tempore was second in the line of presidential succession following the vice president and preceding the [House of Representatives] speaker.[10]

When President Andrew Johnson, who had no vice president, was impeached and tried in 1868, [My note: there was no Vice President to preside over those proceedings in the Senate and the] Senate President pro tempore Benjamin Franklin Wade was next in line to the presidency. Wade's radicalism is thought by many historians to be a major reason why the Senate, which did not want to see Wade in the White House, acquitted Johnson.[11] The president pro tempore and the speaker were removed from the line of succession in 1886, but were restored in 1947. This time however the president pro tempore followed the [House] speaker.[8]

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2014-12-05   11:58:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: GreyLmist (#5)

Congress seems to prefer avoiding their duty to impeach, probably because nearly all of them are impeachable themselves for crimes against the Constitution by their wrongful legislations and for bribery from campaign contributors and lobbyists.

This is true. That is why we call it the DISTRICT OF CRIMINALS. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2014-12-06   11:25:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest