CDZ Bill O'Reilly: Wrong on Immigration

[protectionist]

On his highly rated Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly came out in favor of granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Just to keep us all on the same page, I define anything less than deportation as amnesty.

And Bill said that because "we" allowed illegal aliens to come here, therefore we should allow them to become legalized (under certain conditions) I think this is absurd. Maybe Bill never read my list of Harms of Immigration (which includes BOTH legal & illegal immigration). Whatever. In any case, protection of the American people comes first, above all else, and that means getting every single illegal alien in this country OUT of here, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Would Bill say it's OK for a bunch of street creeps to enter a man's house and rape his daughters, if the man happened to be a total jerk, and invited the creeps to come in and do that ? That would exonerate the rapists creeps ? I don't give a rat's ass who said what, and I strongly object to what appears to be the wrong doer's getting a pass here, just because some unscrupulous vested interests here in the US wanted the illegals to come in.

I don't see it proper for Mexico to be getting off the hook. Or the 3 Central American countries,and their shakedown artist presidents . Or a pass given to the illegals, disrespecting our LAWS, and us.

For reference: List of US Vested Interests for Illegal Immigration

1. Businesses wanting cheap labor to boost their profits.

2. Churches wanting parishoners to fill their empty pews.

3. Unions wanting members to replace their declining memberships.

4. Spanish media NEEDING Spanish-only speakers.

5. Ethnocentrist organizations wanting immigrants to multiply their race, for racist reasons (ex. La Raza- "the race")

6. Democrats seek VOTES (and get them).

7. Terrorists come in to enact terrorism (ex. the 9-11 hijackers came in on visas)

8. Anchor baby parents who become LEGALLY entitled to welfare benefits by having the pregnant woman give birth on the American side of the border. And then help themselves to a lifetime of benefits (more immigrants are receiving welfare benefits than native-born Americans).

9. Mexico - remittances$$$ from the USA are their second largest source of income (second only to their oil exports) Mexico also benefits immensely by dumping their poor people on the US, as we then stupidly pay their poverty bill for them. Other countries also benefit from remittances and poverty dumping.

10. Mexico's reconquista of the American southwest. I take the Mexican govt at it's word when it says that is exactly its plan.

Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($123 Billion year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases.

 

[TemplarKormac]

“Now, Talking Points believes it is meaningless, meaningless, to debate the merits of amnesty for illegal aliens, the far left, the open border people, some in the Hispanic American precincts, will not be dissuaded. They want few limits on immigration. Nothing I can say, nothing you can say will change their minds."

-Bill O'Reilly

 

[jwoodie]

OP is like a football team running out the clock when they are BEHIND. Mass deportations are NOT going to happen, and every year will produce more anchor babies who will vote Democrat for the rest of their lives. Shut down the border NOW, with some sort of amnesty LATER. If we were smart, that is.

 

[protectionist]

OP is like a football team running out the clock when they are BEHIND. Mass deportations are NOT going to happen, and every year will produce more anchor babies who will vote Democrat for the rest of their lives. Shut down the border NOW, with some sort of amnesty LATER. If we were smart, that is.

Dozens of Democrats in 1954 all said > "Mass deportations are NOT going to happen", They included Adlai Stevenson, EstesKefauver, Hubert Humphrey, Robert S. Kerr, J. William Fulbright, Richard Russell Jr., William O. Douglas, et al. A few months later Opertion Wetback was launched. The largest mass deportation in US history.

Eisenhower paid no attention to these Democrat losers, and went ahead full speed with Operation Wetback in 1954. He enlisted General Joseph Swing to head the operation,and together they got bunches of Democrats who were tied to then Senator Lyndon (an open borders supporter in Texas) out of key immigration positions, and moved them to unrelated jobs.

Once that was done, Swing's INS agents swept through southwestern states, going house to house, hunting down illegal aliens and deporting them. 2.1 Million were deported with another million who fled back to Mexico on their own. The illegals were shipped to the south of Mexico where the Mexican govt objected loudly. Ike paid ZERO attention to the Mexicans and ordered the illegals to be dumped in the shallow Gulf water, where they simply waded ashore. The ships then simply returned to the US. Ike and Swing had the will to do this, and they did it, despite loud dissents. Where there's a will, there's a way. If Ike and Swing were here today, they'd have this problem wrapped up in 3 months.

The last thing Americans should be doing is putting this issue into the Democrat's format and policy perspective. They're the ones who just got their asses kicked in the last election, and I suspect this issue is one of the reasons why.

PS - by 1959, illegal immigration, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist in the US.

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico - CSMonitor.com

 

[protectionist]

Shut down the border NOW, with some sort of amnesty LATER. If we were smart, that is.

"Smart" ? Smart for whom ? To answer that, here's a multiple choice you can choose from, of all the vested interests who might benefit from amnesty >>>

1. Businesses wanting cheap labor to boost their profits.

2. Churches wanting parishoners to fill their empty pews.

3. Unions wanting members to replace their declining memberships.

4. Spanish media NEEDING Spanish-only speakers.

5. Ethnocentrist organizations wanting immigrants to multiply their race, for racist reasons (ex. La Raza- "the race")

6. Democrats seek VOTES (and get them).

7. Terrorists come in to enact terrorism (ex. the 9-11 hijackers came in on visas)

8. Anchor baby parents who become LEGALLY entitled to welfare benefits by having the pregnant woman give birth on the American side of the border. And then help themselves to a lifetime of benefits (more immigrants are receiving welfare benefits than native-born Americans).

9. Mexico - remittances$$$ from the USA are their second largest source of income (second only to their oil exports) Mexico also benefits immensely by dumping their poor people on the US, as we then stupidly pay their poverty bill for them. Other countries also benefit from remittances and poverty dumping.

10. Mexico's reconquista of the American southwest. I take the Mexican govt at it's word when it says that is exactly its plan.

And here's a list of why amnesty is anything but smart for the American people >>

Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($123 Billion year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases.

 

[jwoodie]

The U.S. Constitution does not permit ex post facto laws (bills of attainder), so "anchor babies" will remain citizens for the rest of their lives, as will their descendants.

 

[protectionist]

The U.S. Constitution does not permit ex post facto laws (bills of attainder), so "anchor babies" will remain citizens for the rest of their lives, as will their descendants.

Not correct. Anchor babies have never been US citizens. The Constitution has never allowed it.

 

[jwoodie]

Chil

The U.S. Constitution does not permit ex post facto laws (bills of attainder), so "anchor babies" will remain citizens for the rest of their lives, as will their descendants.

Not correct. Anchor babies have never been US citizens. The Constitution has never allowed it.

Wishful thinking?

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. (Wikipedia)

 

[protectionist]

The U.S. Constitution does not permit ex post facto laws (bills of attainder), so "anchor babies" will remain citizens for the rest of their lives, as will their descendants.

Not correct. Anchor babies have never been US citizens. The Constitution has never allowed it.

Chil

The U.S. Constitution does not permit ex post facto laws (bills of attainder), so "anchor babies" will remain citizens for the rest of their lives, as will their descendants.

Not correct. Anchor babies have never been US citizens. The Constitution has never allowed it.

Wishful thinking?

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. (Wikipedia)

Notice the words "NEARLY all". But not all. And why not all ? I'll let the AUTHOR of the 14th amendment (Senator Jacob Howard) answer that >>

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." (Senator Jacob Howard, May 30, 1866)

Senator Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment

 

[jwoodie]

The U.S. Constitution does not permit ex post facto laws (bills of attainder), so "anchor babies" will remain citizens for the rest of their lives, as will their descendants.

Not correct. Anchor babies have never been US citizens. The Constitution has never allowed it.

Chil

The U.S. Constitution does not permit ex post facto laws (bills of attainder), so "anchor babies" will remain citizens for the rest of their lives, as will their descendants.

Not correct. Anchor babies have never been US citizens. The Constitution has never allowed it.

Wishful thinking?

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. (Wikipedia)

Notice the words "NEARLY all". But not all. And why not all ? I'll let the AUTHOR of the 14th amendment (Senator Jacob Howard) answer that >>

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." (Senator Jacob Howard, May 30, 1866)

Senator Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment

Because ambassadors and foreign ministers are under diplomatic immunity and are not considered residents.

 

[protectionist]

The U.S. Constitution does not permit ex post facto laws (bills of attainder), so "anchor babies" will remain citizens for the rest of their lives, as will their descendants.

Not correct. Anchor babies have never been US citizens. The Constitution has never allowed it.

Chil

The U.S. Constitution does not permit ex post facto laws (bills of attainder), so "anchor babies" will remain citizens for the rest of their lives, as will their descendants.

Not correct. Anchor babies have never been US citizens. The Constitution has never allowed it.

Wishful thinking?

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. (Wikipedia)

Notice the words "NEARLY all". But not all. And why not all ? I'll let the AUTHOR of the 14th amendment (Senator Jacob Howard) answer that >>

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." (Senator Jacob Howard, May 30, 1866)

Senator Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment

Because ambassadors and foreign ministers are under diplomatic immunity and are not considered residents.

His point was (and he stated as such) that they were foreigners, born here, to the parents of foreigners. He didn't say anything about residents. YOU said that.

 

[jwoodie]

The U.S. Constitution does not permit ex post facto laws (bills of attainder), so "anchor babies" will remain citizens for the rest of their lives, as will their descendants.

Not correct. Anchor babies have never been US citizens. The Constitution has never allowed it.

Chil

The U.S. Constitution does not permit ex post facto laws (bills of attainder), so "anchor babies" will remain citizens for the rest of their lives, as will their descendants.

Not correct. Anchor babies have never been US citizens. The Constitution has never allowed it.

Wishful thinking?

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. (Wikipedia)

Notice the words "NEARLY all". But not all. And why not all ? I'll let the AUTHOR of the 14th amendment (Senator Jacob Howard) answer that >>

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." (Senator Jacob Howard, May 30, 1866)

Senator Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment

Because ambassadors and foreign ministers are under diplomatic immunity and are not considered residents.

His point was (and he stated as such) that they were foreigners, born here, to the parents of foreigners. He didn't say anything about residents. YOU said that.

You forgot "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." How else would YOU define "foreigners?"