Arpaio: ‘Border Patrol Is Too Busy Changing Diapers’ To Go After Illegal Immigrants
There is no question in my mind that this "crisis" was manufactured by the administration to grease the skids for unilateral executive action to make those who illegally entered our country "legal citizens".
This is one of the changes from the first Progressive era, W. Wilson and friends. Approximately 100 years later this is the result of 1 change to the US Constitution. The founders knew what they were doing. The Union of the States may never have happened without a check in the system to protect State's rights. Appointed Senators was that check.
Unfortunately, NEITHER side of the aisle seems to want enforcement of those laws.
If nothing else the stated policies of our Executive are definitely encouraging illegal entry. A lot of things seem to be being done to undermine the sovereignty, property rights, and general welfare of the legitimate taxpaying citizens and legal immigrants.
The Constitution by virtue of the tenth amendment leaves border control within the province of state powers. It only mandates a uniform rule of naturalization. It does however provide that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion. [See Article IV, Section 4] If aliens entering into a State from a foreign country constitute an invasion, then the federal government is constitutionally mandated by this provision to intervene and protect the State."
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/10/...
invasion
Syllabification: in·va·sion
Pronunciation: /inˈvāZHən /
NOUN
1An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force:
the Allied invasion of Normandy
in 1546 England had to be defended from invasion
1.1An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity:
stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans
1.2An unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain:
random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy
Respectfully,
O.A.
The tenth amendment has been neutered by the Federal Government through a poor interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. We have a (Federal) Customs and Border Protection Agency "ensuring the borders". That is not working, and States have been disallowed from performing their own border protection and immigration efforts.
In short, where does one turn when the Government won't enforce its own laws, and seems to value those outside its borders more than those within (excepting April 15, mind you)?
But then, you don't believe in countries.
So why, exactly, should the rest of us protect your rights?
I notice you didn't answer my question.
And yes, you are correct that there would be no way of defining culture. That's part of the point. Culture should not be defined, regulated, or controlled in the first place.
"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
~ Martin Luther King Jr.
Our immigration laws are here for a reason, and I certainly do not view them as unjust. There is a process that immigrants may follow to arrive here legally. Following that legally prescribed process has gone out the window for many years, unfortunately.
This is a country that like it or not has - or had - a culture. The influx of illegal immigrants has NOT adapted to the culture of this country... and bringing thousands more into this country is going in the wrong direction. The social safety nets of this country - as generous as they are - cannot sustain this incremental loading.
You seem to be advocating completely open borders. Are there other countries who have such a policy? I'm certain that Mexico vigorously enforces its borders and its immigration policies, as does Canada...
As for the social safety nets, I actually think we ought to have government work programs instead of government welfare programs. That way people are doing something to earn their keep, rather than just receiving a free handout.
The culture of a nation is important, and we are losing ours by virtue of this and other administrations turning a blind eye to the "law of the land". It is the intent of this administration, in my personal opinion, to flood this country with as many immigrants as possible for purposes of garnering votes of those new slaves as well as for building a new country based on our Dear Leader's socialist leanings.
And the reason why our government makes an exception for immigrants from India is because of the H-1B immigration visa, which exists to compensate for the fact that our own educational system is terrible. Michio Kaku has more info on that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0Y9j_C...
Culture does change over time, but it is over tens of years. Dear Leader is attempting it over his remaining 2.5 years in office.
I essentially agree with you on opening the borders to non-violent people, but I don't know if it should be 100%. I'm for doing it slowly. We should have some form of limited amnesty for people who are here illegally already UNLESS there is some easy way to find them and deport them. It's very unfair I'm saying to partially restrict immigration but then let people who sneaked in stay. I just don't have a better program.
I would rather restrict immigration and enforce the laws better than just look the other way. Looking the other way is a horrible policy. The more things that are illegal but not enforced, the easier it is for corrupt officials to accuse anyone they don't like of a crime.
"Doing the jobs Americans won't do"... That is only possible today because our entitlement system has grown from a safety net to a hammock.
The part about a social safety net leading to immigration doesn't ring true to me. I think automation has had more impact on the domestic labor market that trade and immigration combined.
I think it's completely caused by what you said: turning a willful blind eye to our immigration laws. It's almost our official policy to just look the other way.
So, you're saying that MLK told me it's my moral responsibility to disobey the 1964 civil rights act, and all of the affirmative action laws on the books?
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Yeah, that doesn't have anything to do with immigration, except to say that immigrants can't run for the office of President. It doesn't say anything about whether or not they can enter the country. And personally, I actually think this particular part of the Constitution ought to be repealed through an Amendment, anyway.
" immigrants can't run for the office of President."
Hi there. Make up your mind whenever you're ready.
I'm sure you do think it should be repealed.
You sure talk like an anarchist.
Or is it just the U.S. you want destroyed?
Again you duck my question.
This makes two questions you failed to answer...
I do believe in a society where people are free from the tyrannical oppression of an authoritative regime, which I suppose is sort of an anarchist ideology, though at the same time I don't believe it's even possible, let alone desirable, to create a society without some form of government. In this light, the matter then becomes a question not of abolishing government, but rather of restricting its power and authority as much as possible.
I also believe in a society where people are free from the tyrannical oppression of an authoritative regime...
Which has nothing to do with letting every barbarian who has the urge come storming in to said society and thereby destroying it.
You DO remember Rome, right? The barbarians who "migrated"... until they started flooding?
Don't see Rome around much anymore. And the dark ages came AFTER Rome was invaded and destroyed by the barbarians... not while the Romans were securing the borders of their empire...
As for your claims about Rome, what history book are you reading?
Tacitus, Gibbons, others... what history books are YOU reading?
How did you manage to reach adulthood NOT knowing that the barbarians overran Rome; not knowing that the Dark Ages were a result of Rome's collapse?