Bill Pruett
Both political parties have each been in control in this country over the last few years and there has been minimal effort to protect our borders. Polls show Americans overwhelmingly want our borders defended but both parties seem to have their own agenda, instead.
The Democrats see potential Democratic voters.
- The Democrats look at the illegal immigrants as future Democratic voters because they are primarily Latinos. A Pew Hispanic Center poll released recently finds that two thirds of Latino registered voters plan to support the candidates from the Democratic Party. There are an estimated 11-12 million illegal immigrants in our country today and another half million pouring across our southern border every year. In 2008, Latino voters supported Barack Obama over John McCain by 67% to 31%. The Democrats can see a day when those numbers will give their party a majority stranglehold in our national elections.
The Republicans see cheap labor.
- The Republicans look at the illegal immigrants and see cheap labor for business, always a fuel for our economic engine. Many unemployed American citizens would rather milk the welfare system than subject themselves to manual labor, so Republicans view illegal immigrants as the answer to the worker shortage problem. If business is good, the Republicans feel the elections will take care of themselves. The Pew poll cited above also indicates that two thirds of Latino eligible voters reside in four key electoral states: California, Texas, Florida and New York .
EXCUSES FOR LEAVING OUR BORDER OPEN
Both parties fear the outcome if Mexico has to put on its “big boy pants” and take care of its own citizens.
- Both parties decry the poverty the illegal aliens face at home. Neither party wants to face the diplomatic problems with Mexico if we began to enforce our laws. Mexico is coaching illegal immigrants how to cross our border including routes to take and legal advice if they are detained to prevent them being returned to Mexico. In 2004, Mexico began distributing comic books with these instructions to their own people. As always, the foreign government is giving us their criminals, their single mothers carrying “anchor babies”, unskilled workers and those dependent upon government assistance.
Both parties worry about the cost of defending our border. Really?
- Both parties wring their hands about the high cost of enforcing our immigration laws. There is no shortage of money for the things Congress wants to do but they fake budget concerns if they don’t want to do something. They are, however, OK with the great cost of the immigration bureaucracy we pay to NOT enforce our laws. It’s kind of heart warming, isn’t it?
- Attorney General Eric Holder testified in court that the federal government could not afford to enforce its immigration laws. I guess the federal government needs more stimulus money! I wonder if General Motors or AIG is available to bail them out?
Many maintain we can’t build a fence and defend it over such a great distance.
- Oh, if we only had the Chinese of centuries ago who not only built a fence, but a Great Wall, and defended it over its great length. In fact, their “super fence” can be seen from outer space today. They did centuries ago what we say we can’t do today. But as the old saying goes, “Can’t never did nothing!”
Some hide behind the Posse Comitatus Act, saying it forbids the U.S. military from being involved in defending our borders.
- “Posse Comitatus” (which is fun to say, by the way) simply means ‘power of the county.” The legal meaning is that the county should take care of its own law enforcement and the U.S. military should be not be used for domestic law enforcement.
- Not one single individual has ever been successfully prosecuted under the 1878 Act. The Act ended the Reconstruction Period practice of federal troops patrolling Southern cities and towns, enforcing the law.
- It is a statutory act and not a constitutional prohibition. As such, it has not been used to override constitutional concerns, but rather the constitutional issues are considered first and foremost.
- The last fifty years have seen numerous exceptions and waivers to Posse Comitatus. The Civil Rights movement, the war on drugs, the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Katrina, and domestic terrorism are a few examples where various legal and constitutional reasons justified the use of federal military personnel without concerns about Posse Comitatus. It does not limit our response to any other national security situations, and it cannot be used as a flimsy excuse to gut our border-control policies.
- Using soldiers to defend a nation’s borders is simply common sense and it is unquestionably legal. Isn’t it the first purpose of a nation’s army?
The most popular refrain of liberals is, “We will grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants now and we will vigorously enforce the border from now on.”
- This was the song Ted Kennedy and the liberal Congress was singing in the mid-1960 when amnesty was granted. There was no increase in border security.
- This was also the song Ted Kennedy and the liberal Congress was singing in the mid-1980s when amnesty was granted. Congress, again, went back on their word and there was no effort to increase border security. This was surprising, too, because they said they really meant it thsi time!
- On cue, here we are two decades later and the liberals want to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and THEN increase border security. They really mean it this time! I see a pattern developing!
- Note – The root word of “amnesty” is “amnesia!”
Some will say that America was founded by immigrants and we are all 'immigrants.' The implication
- First, our ancestors did not immigrate here illegally. They did not begin their lives in America as criminals, flouting our laws.
- Secondly, they did not come here to take advantage of our government programs such as 71 welfare programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and a literal host of other nanny-state programs. They often have more benefits available to them than our own citizens. Benefits that law-abiding citizens pay for. Illegal immigrants are not law-abiding and they are not citizens of the U.S.
AN ALTERNATE THEORY – The liberal elites, or humanists, have a goal of one global government without nations. Humanist Manifesto I (1933) called for a “free and universal society” and it stated, “Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.” Forty years later, Humanist Manifesto II stated, “We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate.” The government would be some flavor of Socialism. The United States would not exist as a nation and there would be no borders. Open borders today are a way of moving us down the road toward one worldwide government. Think not? Environmentalism, energy, gun control, and Supreme Court precedents have all been made global issues, bypassing our U.S. Constitution. Each of these moves undermines the sovereignty of the United States, just as open borders do. They export our sovereignty to foreign capitals, piecemeal. Maybe the elites are controlling both parties????
Reasons for defending our borders will be covered in a subsequent article.
No comments:
Post a Comment