digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Easy to get rid of illegal aliens

worldnetdaily.com — It's a simple matter of using existing law enforcement resources wisely and efficiently and providing the proper incentives for illegal aliens to leave and the proper disincentives for them to stay. It's a simple matter of using existing law enforcement resources wisely and efficiently and providing the proper incentives for illegal aliens to leave

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MaDeuce, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Look, it's simple. Enforce the laws we already have. I'm tired of watching the Feds ignore immigration laws that are already on the books.
    • emfb, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2The problem now is that the immigrants are too intertwined with our economy to just deport them all. The other thing to consider is the potential of mass deportation inciting the mostly peaceful latino immigrant population to riot.
  • dhope, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Pres. Bush recently said that the 1985 immigration law was a failure because "it" failed to enforce the borders. He is wrong. It is the duty of the Executive branch to enforce the laws. The Executive Branch, in collusion with most members of Congress, has blatantly refused to secure our borders and enforce laws against employing, aiding and abetting illegal aliens. They have undercut the Border Patrol at every turn. The President has appointed personnel to the various security branches specifically NOT to enforce the laws. They have encouraged illegal aliens to become entrenched in our society (e.g., advertising welfare programs to illegal aliens). Do you hear the U.S. citizens yet, you people in D.C.? Enforce the laws we already have.
    People who entered this country illegally and/or who remain here illegally are not welcome -- ever. They and their opportunistic employers need to be shown that we are a nation of laws.
  • saltlight, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8What is really sad is that when the amnesty fans finally see results from their plans, it will be like the smoker who smoked for 20 years and never had trouble till the cancer showed up and spread to all the other vital organs. BOOM! Life as you know it is OVER!
  • Ruler4you, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3This is exactly what needs to be done and it is also why government will never do it.

    Fairness, even to the laws we've made for our own protection, in the eyes of government means victimizing at least one group as the 'compromise' portion of any action.

    Government doesn't even stand for it's self any longer. It's a pitiful waste of confiscated tax payer dollars to have to pay for this crappy government.
  • CCoburn3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Alas, he had to mention the Constitution. That is the biggest problem with the entire argument. None of what he suggests is authorized by the Constitution.

    Let's go back to first principles. The federal government is only authorized to perform those functions specifically delineated in the Constitution. Does the federal government have the authority to regulate who can or cannot be hired? Absolutely not. Does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can have a driver's license? Absolutely not. Does the federal government have the authority to do ANYTHING Farah suggests? Absolutely not.

    Does the federal government have the authority to control immigration? I wish they did, but the honest answer is no they do not. Look at the Constitution. The only place it mentions immigration is in a limitation of federal authority -- Congress could not limit the IMPORTATION of immigrants. This was clearly understood to mean that they couldn't stop the slave trade before a certain date.

    Furthermore, if we look at the Declaration of Independence, we find that King George's attempts to limit immigration was one of the reasons listed as justifying the Revolution. It is inconceivable that the states would have intended the federal government to control immigration but forgot to mention it.

    Now some argue that a sovereign nation must have the authority to control immigration. But the United States government only has limited sovereignty. The states are the sovereign entities & they did not give up control of immigration to the federal government.

    Farah and others try to argue that this is an invasion & that the federal government is authorized to repel invasion. But this is dishonest & they know it. The Constitution authorizes the federal government to repel the armed invasion by another country. No one understood the Constitution to refer to immigration as an "invasion". Farah is trying to make the Constitution into a "living document" that can be changed at the whim of the reader.

    What can be done? Clearly, the states can act to rid themselves of the unwanted immigrants. Given the grave security threat imposed by terrorism, I would say that it is well within the federal government's authority to restrict access to certain defined points of entry. We could even amend the Constitution to allow federal control over immigration. (Now that's a novel approach -- actually amending the Constitution instead of offering some tortured interpretation of what it means. But perhaps that's too conservative for Farah and his crowd.) We can boycott those companies who hire illegals.

    There are any number of things we CAN do and still abide by the Constitution. My favorite would be to instigate state action on the issue.
    • Enchantrem, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"The federal government is only authorized to perform those functions specifically delineated in the Constitution. Does the federal government have the authority to regulate who can or cannot be hired? Absolutely not. Does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can have a driver's license? Absolutely not. Does the federal government have the authority to do ANYTHING Farah suggests? Absolutely not."

      US Constitution, Article 1, granting Congress the right to make Laws. Article 2, Section 3, entrusting the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

      The federal government is authorized to respond to issues by making and enforcing new laws. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be, toothless. I agree that localized action would be effective, but this issue requires federal attention, and there is nothing unlawful or unconstitutional about that.


      also, "Does the federal government have the authority to control immigration? I wish they did, but the honest answer is no they do not. Look at the Constitution. The only place it mentions immigration is in a limitation of federal authority -- Congress could not limit the IMPORTATION of immigrants. This was clearly understood to mean that they couldn't stop the slave trade before a certain date."

      Additionally, your reference to the Declaration of Independence is most definately out of place in this discussion. The Declaration is archaic, it was drafted to express one party's concerns about specific, real problems of that day. It is not Law, and it was not intended to be a guide for our country. However, if we must address that issue:
      "He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."
      The segment (referring to King George as He) deals with the immediate issue of an oppressive tyrant refusing to allow an even apportionment of lands. A wealthy aristocracy was being granted land on basis of favoritism, and potential migrant workers were being offered no opportunities. However, since we no longer have an abundance of spare land, and since our government is not of the habit of gifting it to wealthy nobles, this does not adequately support your argument.
      I'd also like to point out that this quote refers to the king "obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners", showing that the founding fathers approved of the idea of regulated immigration, as long as it was fair. We have legal immigration process, and very few of us have a problem with legal immigrants.

      Your loose and slightly distorted view of Article 1, Section 9 should be reexamined. The aforementioned section does not in any way even address the issue of the immigration of free persons, or of any persons after the year 1808. Since the current issue deals with people coming into our country both of their own free will, and nearly 200 years after the "limitation" you pointed out expired, I think you should find a better basis for your argument.

      Now, I do agree with your contention about Farah's argument against the Constitutionality of "Anchor Babies". The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, clearly states that any person born in the United States is a US Citizen. However, I believe that Farah's contention is not so much with these citizens, as with the parents and families of them who try to use them as rationalization and excuse for staying.
  • nutz2u2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Amen, Joseph Farah.
  • OutragedPatriot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Joseph Farrah did a GREAT job on this one folks !! WE CAN STOP THIS !!!
  • mary1982, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0It's sad when Americans are now becoming the minority in our own country
  • ruthiness, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0In case anyone had a shred of a doubt about the intent of the 14th Amendment regarding anchor babies, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the Amendment's citizenship clause, wrote in 1866:

    "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens..."


    During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. Howard said:


    [Full Quote]
    "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
  • ruthiness, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0This incursion into our country by millions of illegal aliens is NOTHING LESS THAN A WAR. Now there are reports that illegals and drug cartels are setting fire to our national forests along the border to distract the border agents. Is this any different than launching bombs into our country? Where is the military protecting OUR border? Why is our government doing nothing about this obvious declaration of war on the US by Mexico? Is Bush being blackmailed by the Mexican drug cartels?
  • xxulyssesxx, on 07/11/2008, -0/+0The easiest way to get rid of illegals is to make all unemployed U.S. citizens take over an illegal immigrants job. Since unemployment is roughly 7% I would believe there are enough people to take over all illegal immigrants jobs. This should become law.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.