Republicans for Illegal Immigration

Frontpage Magazine ^ | 12-29-03 | Steve Brown & Chris Coon

[Klickitat]

Okay thanks.

[Klickitat]

"They asked for public comment, they got it...where were all the letters of opposition?"

One of the letters of opposition was from me. In fact I think we had a thread on that here on FR encouraging people to write in on the topic.

[wingster]

"400 more immigration and naturalization inspectors" and investigators is like tossing a cork into a waterfall to help stop the flow of water over the top.

"We need Courts which will enforce the old one and legislators and executives with the testicular fortitude to IGNORE them when they don't."

Who in politics has such "testicular fortitude" these days.

What we need is people, you, I, and everyone else in society, starting to tell people who are offended at Christmas stuff that we're offended at their being offended! Anything they say, tell them that we're offended at that!

I had a conversation w/ some relatives at a Christmas party this past Sat. night who said that they are afraid to say anything but "Happy Holidays" anymore. I said screw that! When people say happy holidays to me I say Merry Christmas. If they are gonna tell me they're offended, then I'm gonna tell them that I'm offended at that. Then I'm sure a lively discussion will follow.

My first question to them is "if you don't believe in God, then why not simply take a 'oh, those silly people' approach instead of demanding that no one else does either!

I'm tellin' ya, the people to blame for much of this is the masses who simply acquiesce to all of this nonsense. I hope there are so many lawsuits next year over "people being offended" that it bogs the courts down so as to give the judges and system absolutely no choice but to label all that nonsense what it really is, frivolous!

Perhaps then we'll have some people strapping on those "testicles" and giving our politicians an opportunity to grow some too. It's truly unbelieveable. Where have all the men gone!

P.S. I also have no aversion to wishing someone a Happy Hannukah, merry Kwanzah (sp?), or whatever else it is that they celebrate whenever they celebrate it. I'm not offended, neither should they be! I think God/Christ is gonna come and "clean it all up" soon. Unfortunately for many, that makes the current issues pale in comparison, eh. The question is how much more evil can the world become. I realize it can get quite a bit more evil and immoral, but again, how much so.

[moehoward]

I think our priority needs to be on providing employers with easy access to the workplace verification system so they can easily verify someones information. Then crack down hard on those who hire illegals using existing law.

This is the key. This program needs to be mandatory.

Encourage congress to start cutting off federal funding to any states counties or cities that have some form of recognition for matriculas or local amnesty for illegals along the lines of what Rep. Tancredo proposed re: cutting of highway funding to Calif. if they allowed drivers licenses for illegals.

The best route here is through litigation. Tancredo has been reaching out to victims of crime committed by Illegals, the theory goes something like this. If an Illegal has presented a matricula in the process of applying for public assistance or during a traffic stop. The city or county could be held liable for damages. They failed to enforce Immigration laws so they are responsible for subsequent damages caused by the Illegal Alien in question.

Work to prevent allowing illegals access to social benefits at any level. In most states it is already against the law, so it would be up to citizens of those states to call for their local government to cut off access illegals are getting to social services.

Agreed.

Punish banks or other financial institutions that recognize matriculas to establish accounts, credit, loans etc.

A tax on remittances for starters would slow the transfers to Mexico to a crawl.

Put more resources on those parts of border where illegals are still crossing in large numbers.

Agreed again.

[no_problema]

the arizona "republic" is owned by gannett = usa today and they recently editorialized for immigration. surprise, surprise.

the mexican national is the guy who slams the circle-k door in your face. just in case you were wondering how to i.d. illegals.

[DumpsterDiver]

And this is where I think you've heard the President, as a Texan, someone who has seen some of the tragedies that have taken place on our borders,

Only if the tragedies happen on the Mexican side of the border.

because the President looks at this, he looks at it as a matter of values, of, as he puts it, a woman, a mother, who wants to feed a child and come to America for more opportunity.

Or, as I put it, a woman, a mother, who will be on welfare at my expense.

And we need to find a way to welcome people, to have opportunity in the United States.

We do have a way. It's called legal immigration.

she's going to try to come into the United States and give her child a better life.

She's going to come here illegally and end up on the dole.

This is why he was working so hard prior to September 11th to have a reform of our immigration laws.

Normalize, regularize, give legal status to, but not a blanket amnesty, of course.

And it is a very sensitive and, I think, matter of compassion with the President.

Does the sensitive, compassionate [puke!] President realize that he represents Americans? If he feels so deeply about the Mexicans, then let him wire some of his money to Mexico. His pal Vicente could use the money.

[elli1]

The reason I went into some background history was primarily for Atlantic Friend's info. AF is posting from overseas, I believe--France?

On the other hand, it is normal for people who arrive in a new culture to gravitate towards other individuals who came from the same Country, share the same language, religion, customs, etc.

I live in central Wisconsin where we have a sizeable Hmong population which isn't particularly well-received. Here is a situ where they have arrived somewhat in mass & in waves and form a distinct community and who haven't assimilated particularly well because they could form a community. As something of a new-comer to the region myself, I've been interested in learning more about them...so, I have made it a point to attend a couple of their annual festivals which draws other Hmongs from points all across the US. My sons & I were very nearly the only non-Asians in attendance. I actually began to wonder if I was intruding somewhere where I wasn't welcome--so much so that I asked several of the Hmongs there if they minded that I was there. Quite to the contrary, I was assured. Realizing that I was probably seen as a consumer, I still wasn't real sure. Since then, I've had the opportunity to quiz other Hmongs in other settings about it & have been told the same. The point of this being that assimilation is a two way process and that both the newcomers & the greater community would benefit from making more efforts to reach out to the other.

The key factor here is border control and enforcement of our immigration laws. Its especially important in light of the new threat from Islamic terrorists. The other factor is language. This bi-lingual crap has got to go or we will wind up like Canada - a Balkanized nation based on language.

Agreed, and very well said. I would add that the current policies & laws are unworkable &, for all practical purposes, unenforceable IMO. No system will ever be perfect, but what we have now can most certainly be improved upon.

[Klickitat]

Agree with you both. As Federalist 78 points out in this post number 1 on a different thread, the legislative body has resources beyond wringing their hands over a decision they allegedly disagree with.

(FYI Federalist 78 also has a great profile page with lots of useful information and links.)

[Klickitat]

Okay, let's try that post 1 again.

[ravingnutter]

I do not believe that Bush and crew are going to do anything meaningful when it comes to illegal aliens.

WASHINGTON - After dealing with privacy concerns, the House agreed Wednesday to expand a program giving employers access to a federal database to help them confirm that their workers are not in the country illegally.

Bush to Get Immigrant Background Bill

Environmentalists in California are trying to block a federal plan to build a new security fence to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into the United States from Mexico. The 14-mile fence would accompany an existing 40-mile fence that has been credited with causing a massive drop in illegal border crossings since its construction in 1993.

Border Fence Plan Riles Environmentalists

Despite an increased push to enforce immigration laws at the federal level, some localities still maintain “sanctuary policies,” which bar local police from asking suspects about their immigration status or reporting them to immigration authorities.

Non-Cooperation Policies: "Sanctuary" for Illegal Immigration

Then you have the "you are forcing them to cross at dangerous areas" whiners [this also answers your question about illegal crossings vs. ports of entry]:

On June 10, 2003, the Bureau for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP), under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), announced the implementation of "Operation Triple Strike." 1 This was nine months into the ninth fiscal year of a seismic policy shift that began in 1993. Since then, INS budget and personnel for border control has ballooned to higher and higher levels reaching more than $2.5 billion per year and some 16,000 Border Patrol agents.

"Operation Triple Strike" is a variation of a nearly decade-old strategy that continues to heavily concentrate enforcement resources in urban border areas to force would-be migrants to risk crossing through hostile desert and mountainous terrain. 2

The DHS's "triple" strike consists of: More border region checkpoints and militarization forcing migrants into even more dangerous and isolated terrain - ever-increasing the likelihood of migrant disappearances and deaths, making them hostage to smugglers and vigilante violence; Immigration raids against alleged smuggler's "safehouses," cracking down on immigrant neighborhoods in key Arizona cities in the process; and Racial profiling of passengers going through the Phoenix airport, Sky Harbor, to detect and detain suspected immigrants.

This new border militarization initiative also places at least two more helicopters and stations 200 more Border Patrol agents on the Arizona border purportedly to deter smuggling and prevent migrant deaths. Over 1700 Border Patrol agents already guard the Arizona sector with nine helicopters. The 200 new agents are part of a group of 585 new hires by the DHS in 2003.

Migrant Watch

Another more recent and still ongoing operation:

A recent crackdown on illegal border activity in Cochise County demonstrated how effective it can be to focus efforts near the border in a way that catches immigrants and smugglers off guard.

The Border Patrol launched "Operation Pipeline" on Nov. 17 at a time when agents were catching about 320 illegal immigrants every day. By the time the operation ended last week, apprehensions had dropped to 23 per day.

The difference? Instead of agents being stationed at the same highway spots day after day, the Border Patrol added dozens of agents on horseback and all-terrain vehicles. A special response team and more search and rescue agents also were sent into the area.

During Operation Pipeline, the Border Patrol confiscated 4,835 pounds of marijuana and seized 145 vehicles. More than 3,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended during the month-long operation.

It didn't take long for border crossers to figure out where the agents were and avoid the area. But the Border Patrol will be launching similar operations at undisclosed locations next month.

Tuscon Citizen

He has even deployed the National Guard at ports of entry.

[ZULU]

THIS is an alternative to handwringing - from some legislators in New Jersey. KNowing that state, it'll probably never pass, but these two did their best.




"ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 190





STATE OF NEW JERSEY

210th LEGISLATURE



INTRODUCED DECEMBER 11, 2003





Sponsored by:

Assemblywoman ALISON LITTELL MCHOSE

District 24 (Sussex, Hunterdon and Morris)

Assemblyman GUY R. GREGG

District 24 (Sussex, Hunterdon and Morris)









SYNOPSIS

Proposes constitutional amendment authorizing Legislature to invalidate certain court decisions.



CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT

As introduced.





A Concurrent Resolution proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the Legislature to invalidate certain court decisions.



Be It Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of New Jersey (the Senate concurring):



1. The following proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of New Jersey is hereby agreed to:



PROPOSED AMENDMENT



Amend Article VI by adding a new section IX as follows:

1. a. As the people possess the exclusive authority to ordain or amend constitutions, all courts shall interpret this Constitution in a manner consistent with the intention of the people when ordaining or amending the same. Any court which declares an act of government contrary to the provisions of the Constitution shall do so in writing, setting forth in specific detail the section violated and the history of the provision which supports the decision. No court shall expand a constitutional provision beyond, nor constrict a constitutional provision below, the scope actually intended by the people. Furthermore, as the power of the purse is solely that of the Legislature, no court shall issue any decision, whether under this Constitution or otherwise, which shall have the effect of compelling the State or any of its subdivisions to expend any money, or restraining the expenditure thereof, without the express consent of the Legislature.

b. The Legislature may review any decision to determine if the decision violates the provisions of subsection a. of this constitutional amendment or is otherwise inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature. The Legislature may invalidate the decision, in whole or in part, by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the authorized membership of each House in favor of a concurrent resolution providing for invalidation.



2. When this proposed amendment to the Constitution is finally agreed to pursuant to Article IX, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, it shall be submitted to the people at the next general election occurring more than three months after the final agreement and shall be published at least once in at least one newspaper of each county designated by the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the General Assembly and the Secretary of State, not less than three months prior to the general election.



3. This proposed amendment to the Constitution shall be submitted to the people at that election in the following manner and form:

There shall be printed on each official ballot to be used at the general election, the following:

a. In every municipality in which voting machines are not used, a legend which shall immediately precede the question, as follows:

If you favor the proposition printed below make a cross (X), plus (+), or check (*) in the square opposite the word "Yes." If you are opposed thereto make a cross (X), plus (+) or check (*) in the square opposite the word "No."

b. In every municipality the following question:













A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING THE LEGISLATURE TO INVALIDATE ANY COURT DECISION WHICH VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR IS OTHERWISE INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE.











YES
Shall the amendment to Article VI of the New Jersey Constitution, which authorizes invalidation of any court decision in which it is determined by the Legislature that the decision violates the provisions of this constitutional amendment or is otherwise inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature, be approved?






























NO


INTERPRETIVE STATEMENT



This constitutional amendment limits the authority of the court when the court issues a decision which is inconsistent with the intention of the people or the decision has the effect of compelling the State, or any of its subdivisions, to expend any money or restrain the expenditure thereof, without the express consent of the Legislature.

This proposed constitutional amendment would authorize the Legislature, by a two-thirds majority vote of each House, to invalidate, in whole or in part, any decision made by the courts in which the Legislature determines that the court has violated the provisions of this constitutional amendment or is otherwise inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature.

This constitutional amendment provides that, upon such a determination by the Legislature, the Legislature may invalidate the decision, in whole or in part, by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the authorized membership of each House in favor of a concurrent resolution providing for invalidation.






STATEMENT



For many years, courts in general, and the New Jersey Courts in particular, have assumed the authority to impose policy determinations upon an unwilling populace under the guise of "interpreting" the Constitution. Too often, these determinations, on matters such as land use and school funding, lack even a hint of true constitutional authority.

The right of the people to avail themselves of their elected officials is the most basic feature of a republican form of government. When an unelected judiciary usurps the policymaking power of the Legislative branch, this right is significantly diminished. The people, in establishing and amending the Constitution, did not intend to disenfranchise themselves. This amendment seeks to ensure their right of participation.

This constitutional amendment provides that the Court shall, when considering constitutional challenges to actions by government, interpret the provisions of the constitution consistently with the intention of the people adopting them. The proposed amendment makes it clear that it is the people, not the courts, who establish the appropriate scope of constitutional provisions. Judges are not, simply by virtue of the office they hold, endowed with the authority to second guess the people, to "fill gaps" that the people might have left, to establish new rights, or to circumscribe old ones. To the extent that a particular provision of the Constitution may not be sufficient for modern circumstances, it is for the people, not the courts, to address that change.

In the school funding cases, the courts have commandeered the uniquely legislative authority to determine what to spend and where to spend it. The people have never delegated this authority to an unelected judiciary. This amendment ensures that the courts are deprived of any jurisdiction to limit the authority of the Legislature to spend as it sees fit. At the same time, it preserves the ability of the court to act in such cases as the Legislature permits it to act, such as in tort claims cases, etc.

This constitutional amendment provides that if the Legislature determines that any decision violates the provisions of this constitutional amendment or is otherwise inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature, the Legislature may invalidate the decision, in whole or in part, by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the authorized membership of each House in favor of a concurrent resolution providing for invalidation"

[hosepipe]

[ During a press conference in mid-December, President Bush told reporters that "this administration is firmly against blanket amnesty" for the 13 million "undocumented" aliens in question. However, he believes there is room for a guest worker program. “I have constantly said that we need to have a immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee,” the President stated. "We're in the process of working that through now so I can make a recommendation to the Congress." ]

Must be talkin about some other form of amnesty... maybe serape amnesty... or sweatshirt amnesty... surely not blanket amnesty... whoever wrote this should be bitch slapped with a burrito...

[moehoward]

"serape amnesty"

LOL.

[ravingnutter]

What we need is the U.S. military guarding our borders

Oh really now...you think that is smart? Maybe you never heard of the Posse Comitatus Act?

And we already have the National Guard, who do not fall under that act, assisting on the borders per Bush's directive. No, militarizing the border is not a solution.

[ZULU]

"The PCA generally prohibits U.S. military personnel from interdicting vehicles, vessels and aircraft; conducting surveillance, searches, pursuit and seizures; or making arrests on behalf of civilian law enforcement authorities. Prohibiting direct military involvement in law enforcement is in keeping with long-standing U.S. law and policy limiting the military's role in domestic affairs."

"limiting the military's role in domestic affaris."

I think that is the rub. I do not believe defending our borders is a civilian function. If it were, INS wouldn't be handling immigration issues.

You're not Tom Ridge in disguise are you?? An ARMY of illegals pours across our borders EVERY NIGHT. If the Federal Government can't keep out invaders from our shores and borders, what good is it, really? Most libertarians beleive in extremely limited government functions, but even THEY recognize defense of our borders is one of the Federal Government's responisbilities.

I think the ONLY way we will ever get back control of our borders is with the military. It is an issue which transcends state and local jurisdictions and lines and is an issue that local government can't handle.

If the Russians still had Cossacks, I'd suggest we subcontract with them to do it for us - complete with horses, sabers, whips and lances.

[ravingnutter]

The INS is a FedGov agency, not a civilian agency. Hillary Clinton would just LOVE your idea of subverting the PCA.

[ZULU]

"The INS is a FedGov agency, not a civilian agency. Hillary Clinton would just LOVE your idea of subverting the PCA."

That's my whole point. INS is a Federal Agency. They, a Federal Agenc, are charged with controlling immigration and apprehending and deporting illegals. So, how does having the military keep out illegal invaders violate the Posse Commitatus Act? If it does, the Act needs revision. One of the PRIMARY functions of ANY government is to secure its borders against foreign invasion.

And I doubt if Hillary would like me at all. I'm a Certified Member (Membership # 2021334) of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy".

[superloser]

Thanks for the ping! Appropriate phone calls and emails made.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...point me to one source that shows Bush is for driver's licenses for illegals...

I didn't mean the specific of driver's licenses. I meant that Arnie stood firm on illegals, where that was the immediate issue related to them in the Californian campaign. And his firmness drew votes from the Left (like the two Californians I mentioned.)

Arnie has better political antennae than Bush, RN. The President's Achilles heel is his tendency to take his own supporters too much for granted. That was his father's problem, too. A pol can get away with here in Australia, where voting's compulsory. Stateside, it can be deadly.

[Federalist 78]

Speaking before a town hall meeting in Miami recently, Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge let slip a prospective plan to legalize 13 million illegal aliens currently in our nation. He told the crowd that the government has an obligation to "afford some kind of legal status" to the 13 million who have snuck across our borders or who have committed visa violations.

''I'm not saying make them citizens,'' Ridge said. "They violated our laws to get here. You don't reward that kind of conduct.'' However some level of reward is implied by his statement.

None Dare Call It Amnesty

US Constitution - Preamble

You, the people of the United States, in order to form voting blocks for the DNC, establish cheap labor for the RNC, insure multiculturalism, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare OF THE WORLD and forsake the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Amnesty for the United States of the Americas.

Where is the support for this Statement or this bill H.R. 2671 introduced 7/9/2003, with only 112 Cosponsors-even after the testimony of John Morganelli & Kris Kobach