Posted on 08/23/2015 3:33:06 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
By John Dillin JULY 6, 2006
Save for later WASHINGTON George W. Bush isn't the first Republican president to face a full-blown immigration crisis on the US-Mexican border. Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond. President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
I don't understand how you think people can self-assure their legitimacy. Auditors would have a severe problem with your approach. It's like trusting everyone in your business to do everything right with a guarantee of no controls being in place.
E-Verify was created by executive fiat, and it was designed to morph over time into something more and more restrictive. It was always intended to eventually become mandatory.
If you don’t think that process is intended to continue to its logical conclusions, which is maximum governmental power and minimal citizen liberty, you’re too naive for words.
Go after the illegals and stop going after innocent Americans.
E-Verify can't hurt an American. It does nothing to stop any employer from hiring someone who doesn't “check out.”
It does properly put the onus back on the employer when the person hired was not checked and found to exist. It is this that allows the feds to prosecute the employer for inappropriately hiring illegals.
However, for you Chamber of Commerce types, I can understand your repulsion.
No. I’m against what it is, and will it will certainly become.
But I'm not a "Chamber of Commerce type." Not even close. So you're mistaken again.
What I am is a lover of liberty and the Constitution type.
You, Jeb Bush, Lindsay Graham, Barak 0bama, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton have this in common.
You’re in EXCELLENT company, Comrade!
My position on immigration and border security bears no resemblance to that of any of those you listed.
And Jeb Bush supports E-Verify, by the way.
Perhaps it’s you that’s really him?
How else do you think government finds out who is legally here and who isn't? You want the government to get rid of illegals but you don't want government to have any way to identify an illegal.
Are you sure you're a conservative? You can't even come up with a viable alternative to accomplish this supposed “desire” you have to get rid of our illegals.
Yup, you are a Chamber of Commerce plant.
Get real.
Give a dang option to actually accomplish the goal of getting rid of illegals already here.
Otherwise, you are pro-illegal.
Our elected officials and law enforcement officers already know who most of the illegals are, and mostly where they are.
But heck, they can fool people like yourself into thinking they’re actually doing something about it by setting up another unconstitutional government program and database and decide whether or not you get to eat.
A system the illegals will simply avoid or scam some more, while elected officials do nothing about it.
Congratulations.
Nonsense.
Employers are not agents of the Federal government. You propose to put them in jeopardy unless they perform to a degree statistically exceeding what we expect of law enforcement officers in a function for which they are not trained. They have plenty of challenges providing jobs alone. To ask an owner of a dry-cleaning shop or restaurant to be able to check the veracity of documents is ridiculous. I propose to train those who would seek to perform investigative work on a voluntary basis. Let them figure out how to meet clearly defined standards of evidence.
The whole point of the Second Amendment was to make the whole people the national militia, such that we would not need a standing army to operate with powers that threaten the liberty of citizens by precedent. The militia were to get practice, such that they were "well regulated" under State command. It is a truly libertarian idea much like the Swiss Army.
More importantly, this plan IS what the Supreme Law of the Land specifies. What you propose is not, and for damned good reason. I think it preferable to learn to use the tools we were given instead of inventing new illegal powers by an unconstitutional executive process, powers that have terrible potential for abuse.
You are talking major profiling with your perspective. Interesting. It still won't have any assurance of finding everyone.
Any other options?
Profiling works. I could walk you through any American city and point out illegals to you by the thousands, with almost 100% accuracy. It’s not rocket science.
And E-Verify will?
Interesting. I’ll bite.
When employers are found giving comfort to the enemy, you will want to try them for aiding and abetting a criminal, or for possible treason. The employer’s defense was that the US government was responsible for ensuring only legal people were available for hire, so there will be a lot of lawsuits as finger-pointing ensues. Employers will say they had no way to confirm this “legitimate” ID was faked, because people like you took that option away. The Supreme Court will rule that all such employers were being held to an impossible standard and throw out all expectations against employers hiring illegals and we will be stuck with every dang illegal that can make it here.
You have an interesting future in store for us.
So does Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, Draft registration, Driving License, or haven't you noticed.
At some point, people will either need to get money to live on. When arrested from a crime, they can be checked, when picking up money, they could be checked, and when getting a job, yet again.
Of course, you’d want everyone to show a birth certificate for all such activities, but that’s not really enough.
The first three are unconstitutional. The third one only includes draft-aged young men, and the final one is a state function, not federal.
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.