The immigration solution isn't on the border

LTP

Mar 2018
1,480
290
Grayson
I'm looking for ward to the later!
So I see other posts and almost want to drift off topic. Hegelian Dialectics = problem, action, solution. If you are not reading the entirety of this thread, my response is one long running one where you have to look at posts 2, 23, 26, 29, and 43 to see what all this typing is about.

The question is, Why would any governmental body, organization, or power structure create a problem just to solve it? In order to answer that, I have to go back down Memory Lane. Humor me on this:

In 1987 some friends and I organized the Militia of Georgia. It was the largest and remains the most continuous civilian militia in the United States (though admittedly a shell of its former self.) We aligned ourselves with the Georgia Patriot Network which called itself a constitutional study group. I began renting the banquet room twice monthly in a restaurant called Ryan's Steak House. Once a month the Georgia Patriot Network would meet and have at least one featured speaker. The John Birch Society were regulars as were tax protesters, gun Rights speakers, people fighting eminent domain abuse, people who were against National ID, etc., etc. If it meant fighting big government, you could come and speak to a captive audience. The other meeting each month focused more on the militia, but still had speakers from the Georgia Patriot Network.

In my mind, we were fighting big government. In about 1998 / 1999 Alex Jones came out with Police State 2000. Police State was a video proving that the U.S. military was working with foreign militaries on U.S. soil doing things like house to house - search and seizure exercises. My own U.S. Congressman at the time, John Linder introduced the Fair Tax. I won a couple of fights against SSN based ID. In short we were killing it.

When 9 / 11 happened (and sorry, but I believe it was allowed to happen - even if those who allowed it to happen didn't know how severe it was really going to be.) I believe it because the globalists already had the legislation ready to deal with the aftermath. For instance, the so - called "Patriot Act" was passed in only six and half weeks after 9 / 11. ANYBODY who thinks a bill can be written, researched, shepardized, re written, etc. and consists of 300 pages that can withstand most of the scrutiny of the judges doesn't know squat about civics. BTW, I had spoken at one of Rep. John Linder's Town Hall Meetings in 1998 and said that a major terrorist attack would be launched against America and most intelligence agencies were aware of the danger, but doing very little to stop it.

Linder laughed at me and chided me, asking why would they do that? When I reminded him that most Americans wanted rid of the income tax and that globalists wanted us to have National ID, Linder scoffed and said I read too many Internet rumors (actually nothing I said that day came from any Internet source.) But, on the 10th day of September 2001 approximately 86 percent of Americans were against National ID. They were opposed to the income tax and the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number" AND there were more people involved in both monitoring the government and preparing for various apocalyptic scenarios than at any time in my life (before or since.)

The day after 9 / 11 attitudes changed rapidly and people were looking for all kinds of pretexts, settling on immigration - and for what reason, I don't understand. Within weeks after 9 / 11. Interest in the Fair Tax began to dwindle, National ID went from 86 percent of ALL Americans against it, to most for it. And, when Ranch Rescue got their butts kicked in court, the government became the good guys; our new boogeyman became people called "illegal aliens" and I attribute it to one major thing:

IN MY OPINION, the intelligence community knew a 9 / 11 event was being planned. I think they underestimated how successful the attackers would be. But, that event gave the globalists all the ammo they needed to flip the right. Today, there are no Liberties that Trump supporters won't surrender; no infringement they won't endure if they can just get the wall up. And the real issue is, while the xenophobes with Socialist, National Socialist and Communist "solutions" (if you can call regression a solution) are worried about a freaking wall, we are losing ground on Gun Rights, eminent domain abuse, the Right to Privacy, the loss of the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, and the Freedom of Association. Instead, we are settling for racial / cultural profiling (setting the stage for when the posterity of the founders /framers will be haunted by their own bad decisions); the right now wants the National ID / REAL ID Act E Verify, womb to the tomb surveillance, a government god that will review our every purchase and our every decision to make sure they will "allow" it.

Thesis - Immigrants from south of the border are destroying America
Anti-thesis - Implementation of National Socialist talking points to justify the chaos, confusion, and controversy
Synthesis - Forfeiture of the Bill of Rights in exchange for a silly wall ... the ironic part, the wall will be torn down within two election cycles of its completion (if it's completed at all.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr

LTP

Mar 2018
1,480
290
Grayson
So what you’re saying is there is no such thing as illegal immigration and the federal government has no authority to regulate immigration?????
I do believe that is what the United States Supreme Court is saying. All you're accomplishing is a forfeiture of your Rights based on an illegally ratified amendment.

We're still being flooded with foreigners, but the same people who created the problem gave you pre-planned "solutions" (if you call regression a solution) to deal with it. And most people cannot think outside the box. I can think of many ways to resolve this without a wall. But, you would have to look at what you're giving up - the real cost of the wall and if gun Rights, the Right to Privacy, the Right to own property, Liberty and all your other unalienable Rights have no value, then you will stick to the pre-planned "solutions" that Socialists, National Socialists and Communists fed you. Corporate interests will ultimately control every individual and - surprise, the United States Supreme Court will bring back most of the people they deported. Why? Entering into the United States is a federal civil misdemeanor and separating families over such a trivial statute will be deemed to be in violation of the 8th Amendment. Quote me on it and watch it play out.

The Constitution does not give Congress any authority over temporary workers or guests. This job was being handled by the states until 1875 (the time it took between ratification of the 14th Amendment and going through the court system) for the United States Supreme Court to grant "plenary powers" over all aspects of foreigners to the federal government. I'm sorry, the United States Constitution simply does not give the United States Supreme Court ANY authority to bestow any powers to another branch of government. Anybody who tells you differently is taking a giant sh!+ on the Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr

LTP

Mar 2018
1,480
290
Grayson
Here ya go, Sweetie.
8 U.S. Code § 1324a.Unlawful employment of aliens
You're welcome, Honey!
There is NO constitutional authority to enforce this law. The United States Supreme Court is just tangled up in their own web of lies until our form of government is officially proclaimed over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr
Sep 2019
1,074
423
Texas
I do believe that is what the United States Supreme Court is saying. All you're accomplishing is a forfeiture of your Rights based on an illegally ratified amendment.

We're still being flooded with foreigners, but the same people who created the problem gave you pre-planned "solutions" (if you call regression a solution) to deal with it. And most people cannot think outside the box. I can think of many ways to resolve this without a wall. But, you would have to look at what you're giving up - the real cost of the wall and if gun Rights, the Right to Privacy, the Right to own property, Liberty and all your other unalienable Rights have no value, then you will stick to the pre-planned "solutions" that Socialists, National Socialists and Communists fed you. Corporate interests will ultimately control every individual and - surprise, the United States Supreme Court will bring back most of the people they deported. Why? Entering into the United States is a federal civil misdemeanor and separating families over such a trivial statute will be deemed to be in violation of the 8th Amendment. Quote me on it and watch it play out.

The Constitution does not give Congress any authority over temporary workers or guests. This job was being handled by the states until 1875 (the time it took between ratification of the 14th Amendment and going through the court system) for the United States Supreme Court to grant "plenary powers" over all aspects of foreigners to the federal government. I'm sorry, the United States Constitution simply does not give the United States Supreme Court ANY authority to bestow any powers to another branch of government. Anybody who tells you differently is taking a giant sh!+ on the Constitution.
Funny you should mention the above "plenary powers"- I just read this today

92 The Federalist Society Review Volume 20

This essay updates and supplements an article published last year in the Federalist Society Review entitled The Founders Interpret the Constitution: The Division of Federal and State Powers.1 That article explained how during the Constitution’s ratification debates (1787-90), leading Federalists (the Constitution’s advocates) issued authoritative enumerations of powers that would remain outside the federal sphere under the Constitution if ratified. Most of the enumerators were highly respected American lawyers. The two most important non-lawyers were Tench Coxe and James Madison. Coxe was a Philadelphia businessman and economist, member of the 1789 Confederation Congress, and future assistant secretary of the treasury.2 Coxe’s ratification-era writings were highly influential among the general ratifying public—perhaps as influential as the essays in The Federalist.3Subsequent interpreters of legal texts generally give considerable weight to representations of meaning presented by a measure’s sponsors.4 The Federalists enumerating powers the Constitution denied to the central government clearly intended that the ratifying public rely on their representations. These representations squarely contradict claims by some commentators that the Constitution conferred near-plenary authority on the federal government.

https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/enum-III-final.pdf

Personally, I have long believed that the power to regulate didn't give authority to favor- regardless of interpretation. I believe that representatives were primarily to help ensure that no one district had a legal advantage over another district in the arena of commerce and trade-
Taking a dump on the Constitution seems to be a fad now days- some want to abolish it and start all over- I remember reading that Bush Jr whispered to someone "it's just a Goddamn piece of paper"- which corresponds, in my mind to, "it's a living document"- ala Nancy Pelosi of the astro turf fame- and I'm pretty sure Harry Reid of "stinky tourist fame" would agree- I've yet to have it explained how an inorganic piece of goddamn paper learned to breathe, or bleed or think or act- but, there you have it- lawyers educated beyond their intellect and zealots clambering in their wake-
I saw in another post something about altruism- which is rarely altruistic- which is what the Constitution is- it's an altruistic endeavor with practitioners of altruism at the helm- elected representatives- altruism is filtered through the prism of human eyes- that automatically denies altruistic endeavor-

And, another belief this time about the SC- it's job was to determine if a law was constitutional- not write law or interpret it- can we say, it's a tax and not a fine?
Another personal thought- lawyers, which is what the SC is composed of, as are other "judges", are from a group of people who pay others to teach them to lie, albeit legally- they all are taught the same nonsense- and I guess they missed the part about no jurisdiction, by the federal government, was granted to mandate a Dept of Education-

As for 9/11- I've seen way too much evidence for me to be convinced that the gov't wasn't at the very least complicit- and I will trust civilians before I'll trust an "official" anything-
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTP
Apr 2019
3,055
506
America
The solution to our immigration woes, lies in the Mexican economy. If they could make a decent living, they wouldn't even want to come here.

No more eminent domain on our borders.
No more immigrant back logs.
No more, or very few border patrol.
No more coyotes.
No more dead Mexicans in the desert
Very few immigrant detention centers.

In fact, if their economy was close to ours, we'd only need a small fraction of what we have on our southern border.

Come to think of it, our southern neighbors would be about like our northern ones.

Fact: Minimum wage in Mexico is $5 per DAY (not hour) $5 per hour down there, would be a middle class wage. IF those American companies that build manufacturing plants down there would pay $5 per hour, (and the other big companies) Mexico's economy would grow a lot faster than it's growing now.

If I was the president of Mexico, I make all foreign companies pay at least $5 hr.
Maybe if Mexicans stay there and try to change things it might get better. Young men leaving any country is such numbers almost guarantee nothing will change.
 

LTP

Mar 2018
1,480
290
Grayson
Maybe if Mexicans stay there and try to change things it might get better. Young men leaving any country is such numbers almost guarantee nothing will change.
Have you ever looked for a job in another state other than where you live? Have you ever moved from one state to another?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr
Mar 2013
10,154
10,959
Middle Tennessee
I do believe that is what the United States Supreme Court is saying. All you're accomplishing is a forfeiture of your Rights based on an illegally ratified amendment.

We're still being flooded with foreigners, but the same people who created the problem gave you pre-planned "solutions" (if you call regression a solution) to deal with it. And most people cannot think outside the box. I can think of many ways to resolve this without a wall. But, you would have to look at what you're giving up - the real cost of the wall and if gun Rights, the Right to Privacy, the Right to own property, Liberty and all your other unalienable Rights have no value, then you will stick to the pre-planned "solutions" that Socialists, National Socialists and Communists fed you. Corporate interests will ultimately control every individual and - surprise, the United States Supreme Court will bring back most of the people they deported. Why? Entering into the United States is a federal civil misdemeanor and separating families over such a trivial statute will be deemed to be in violation of the 8th Amendment. Quote me on it and watch it play out.

The Constitution does not give Congress any authority over temporary workers or guests. This job was being handled by the states until 1875 (the time it took between ratification of the 14th Amendment and going through the court system) for the United States Supreme Court to grant "plenary powers" over all aspects of foreigners to the federal government. I'm sorry, the United States Constitution simply does not give the United States Supreme Court ANY authority to bestow any powers to another branch of government. Anybody who tells you differently is taking a giant sh!+ on the Constitution.

So what do you propose as a solution ?? Do you even see illegal or shall we say undocumented immigration as an issue ?? Why even have borders ?? Are we to let ANYONE into the country ?? More 9/11 terrorists maybe ?? More criminals ?? What about birthright citizenship ?? Is simply being born here enough ?? If congress doesn't have the authority to regulate immigration, when, where and how, did we go from WHITES ONLY ?? to all races as full citizens ??

Not being hyperbolic here. Just wanting to see where you're going with this !
 
Sep 2019
913
558
Here
Maybe if Mexicans stay there and try to change things it might get better. Young men leaving any country is such numbers almost guarantee nothing will change.
Horse pucky. They can't change their government anymore than we can. Every 4 years we vote for someone we hope to do it for us. Because we can't. And every 5 years, we're let down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr
Mar 2013
10,154
10,959
Middle Tennessee
In the late 1990s and early 2000s there were civilian militias and popping up to fight eminent domain abuse AND to help protect private property along the border from foreigners attempting improper entries. In 2003, a group called Ranch Rescue had an encounter with some Salvadorans who were attempting to cross into the U.S. over property owned by a rancher named Jack Foote. Ranch Rescue confronted the Salvadorans at the behest of Mr. Foote. A fight broke out and the Salvadorans lost. The matter ended up in court and I will defer to the victors as they did win the case:

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

Basically, the judge ruled that the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans trumped the private property Rights of Americans. I was personally dumbfounded and tried to get Ranch Rescue and Foote on board to appeal this even if it had to go to the United States Supreme Court. They refused. Ranch Rescue members were imprisoned for a time and Foote loses his property... no idea where the million dollar settlement was supposed to come from.

OK now I'm really confused. You have essentially said there IS NO illegal immigration. No such thing as an illegal worker. And that the government has no authority to enforce any of our immigration laws. So OTHER than simple trespassing, a minor offence usually resulting in a rather small fine, WHAT exactly were these Salvadorans doing that warranted being confronted, detained and apparently rather severely assaulted by these self proclaimed guardians of the border ? What exactly were they "protecting" if the Salvadorans weren't (according to you) breaking any laws beyond simple trespass ?? Are you saying that if you step foot on my property, uninvited, that I am within my constitutional rights to do substantial physical harm to you simply because you entered my little piece of dirt ?