Posted on 12/03/2015 4:27:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Self-deportation was the mantra of the Mitt Romney campaign. At the time, it was seen as a kinder and gentler alternative to forcibly deporting illegal aliens, because even Republicans became afraid of being supportive of enforcing our immigration laws, for fear of being viewed as cruel or heartless by the liberal media.
The politics has moved in four years on the Republican side to the point where we have three kinds of candidates: Trump, who calls for mass deportations, Ã la Operation Wetback; nearly everyone else, who calls for no deportations and varying states of legalization; and Ted Cruz, who calls for tightening E-Verify and cutting welfare to persuade illegals to deport themselves (with the exception of "criminal" illegals who will be deported, which confuses me, because all illegals, by definition, have committed a criminal act).
We are already quite familiar with Trump's position, and the position of the other candidates doesn't really merit any analysis, but Ted Cruz's plan does. The question is, can he make it difficult enough for illegals to get jobs and social services to make them want to go home?[continued]
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The “welfare spigot” is brought to you courtesy of the Federal Reserve, its completely unbacked dollars, manipulated interest rates and massive debt creation - all at the service of the progressive state.
The effects of a socialized, corrupted, centrally-controlled money supply has 1000 consequences in society.
Yet, somehow inland enforcement kept the illegal immigration problem in check for years and years. Until we STOPPED doing it.
I simply do not believe that it is illegal to withhold from illegals benefits meant for citizens, and that we cannot do it.
There are three groups of illegals. Welfare dependents, narco gangsters/criminals, gainfully employed. Turning off the welfare spigot will get rid of the first group but not the other two. We’ve got to turn things around and vigorously go after the criminals. My personal opinion is that we can deal with the employed group as long as they are vetted. The last is the problem as I see no real intent to deal with and vet anyone. See the Syrian plan to bring in a brand new group of potential terrorists. I’m increasingly convinced that Islam is poison to any culture they force themselves on.
Well, considering is wife was an architect of the North American Union, I really don’t think he will.
Of course, the most effective way of encouraging self-deportation is eliminating incentives of being here.
Lord, give that nonsense a rest.
That is what both Cruz and Trump will do.
This article is off the mark.
Illegals know to just wait for the next uniparty election. They won’t self deport. Obama’s given them the impression that we owe them the “right” to invade.
You mean the North American Union that doesn’t exist?
Without means of survival they won’t have a choice.
I agree. This is two days in a row this same author has talked out his rear and gotten Cruz’s position entirely wrong. It has to be intentional. He seems to be working for Rubio.
I don't believe that's a Constitutional issue, though. Only a matter of current law.
Amend the law to spell out that illegals are ineligible for benefits and the problem is solved.
The only answer is strident enforcement of existing law.
Deport them all. No quarter.
“Ted Cruz, who calls for ... cutting welfare to persuade illegals to deport themselves (with the exception of ‘criminal’ illegals who will be deported, which confuses me, because all illegals,by definition,have committed a criminal act).”
Good point. Illegals are, indeed, criminals by definition.
Do those things and illegal aliens will deport themselves and pay for the trip. Motivation is a powerful force.
The Supreme Court disagrees.
The Fourteenth Amendment uses the terms "person" and "persons" to define equal protection, illegal aliens are clearly persons.
The solution is forcible deportation. If you don't support that, you're pissing in the wind.
Double bullseye.
1. Prior to Nixon, local law enforcement enforced deportation. I worked with Chicago Cops on several deportations in the 60s. Nixon centralized immigration enforcement in INS (now ICE). That centralization was the start of the downward spiral.
2. The authors of the Constitution carefully chose their words. RIGHTS come from God/Natural Law and not from man or government. Thus the first 10 are the Bill of Rights. But later amendments are mostly about privileges, not rights.
The 14th carefully and self-consciously defines CITIZEN for the specific purpose of clarifying that CITIZENS have equal protection of the law...of privileges that come from man and government and not from God. Thus voting is a privilege, driving on the public road is a privilege, etc. There can be no discrimination against CITIZENS in granting these privileges.
But the 14th does not guarantee equal protection to non-citizens. Non-citizens can be optionally granted some privileges. But it can be in a discriminatory and un-equal manner if government so chooses.
It's not nonsense.
It may or may not be important. Her influence (and her income) may be important to Cruz, or it may not.
If you think the Democrat running against Cruz, in the unlikely event he is the nominee, will think his wife's relationship with Goldman Sachs is "nonsense", you're dreaming.
How can you deport people entitled to equal protection?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.