Should Obama Increase Deportations of Illegal Aliens ?

[protectionist]

Should Obama Increase Deportations of Illegal Aliens ? There has been talk of decreasing deportation of illegal aliens. There even has been talk of eliminating deportation alltogether, and giving illegal aliens amnesty.

In 1954, huge numbers of illegal aliens were deported under the program of President Eisenhower and Gen. Joseph Swing, called "Operation Wetback". *** Immigration agents went house to house in Southwestern states, hunting down illegals, arresting them and deporting them. Huge numbers more fled back to Mexico.

Some say, if Ike and Swing were here now, they would do the same thing all over again, and illegal residency would be stopped quickly. I tend to agree. I think the open borders crowd (a motley collection of vested interest supporters of illegal immigration) probably agree also, except they would never say so. Instead. they pretend that mass deportation could not occur, and recommend what they laughably call "comprehensive immigration reform".

Only trouble is, this amnesty they support isn't "reform" one iota. It is nothing but a means of legalizing millions of illegal aliens who by various ways, perform some kind of function helpful to THEM,, while negatively impacting all the rest (great majority) of the rest of the American people.

Obama is obviously leaning toward DECREASING deportations, and recently has made it easier for illegal aliens to remain in the US. Here's another question. Has there been a lack of opposition to Obama's leniency ? If so, why ?

*** Officially, just over 2.1 million were recorded as having been deported or having departed under threat of deportation, in Operation Wetback (more than any other president) Hoover, Truman & Ike: Mass Deporters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._enough_in_deportations_14_say_too_aggressive

 

[protectionist]

It might be noted that we've heard a lot about Obama having deported more illegal aliens than any other president. This is absurd. First, In George W. Bush's 8 years, he deported 2 million (that's more than Obama so far). On average, Obama (not yet in office for 8 years) has deported more than Bush.

But both of these do-nothings are pale in comparison to Eisenhower, who, during operation Wetback, deported more illegal aliens (2.1 million) in two months, than Bush did in 8 years.

 

[Unkotare]

"In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens."

The Border | 1953 Operation Wetback

 

[OriginalShroom]

DUH..

Every Illegal should be deported, along with their entire family, including children.

Children of Illegals should not be considered Citizens.

 

[Unkotare]

DUH..

Every Illegal should be deported, along with their entire family, including children.

Children of Illegals should not be considered Citizens.

Anyone born in this country is a citizen. Change the Constitution or change your attitude, because that's how it stands right now.

 

[protectionist]

"In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens."

The Border | 1953 Operation Wetback

Collateral damage is always present. Actually, why shouldn't the kids go with their parents ? That's where kids should be.

 

[protectionist]

DUH..

Every Illegal should be deported, along with their entire family, including children.

Children of Illegals should not be considered Citizens.

Anyone born in this country is a citizen. Change the Constitution or change your attitude, because that's how it stands right now.

He's 100% right. When Jacob Howard authored the 14th Amendment, he wasn't intending to provide a pathway to citizenship for any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy. And he outspokenly said so too >> "[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." (Jacob Howard, US Senate, May 30 1866)

The Constitution absolutely should be changed, or legislation passed abolishing birthright citizenship.

Good post, OriginalShroom.

 

[Steven_R]

Obama doesn't need to go after illegals directly. Just go after anyone who employs them, houses them, provides them with banking or cashes their checks, Western Union, stop providing taxpayer funded services to them (e.g. school, drivers licenses, welfare) and grab the ones who are arrested for something else. Make it uncomfortable enough and they'll leave on their own.

As far as their kids getting deported with them, fine. The kids can stay, either with a legal relative or an orphanage, or the parents can choose to take the kid with them. It's up to the parents.

 

[protectionist]

Obama doesn't need to go after illegals directly. Just go after anyone who employs them, houses them, provides them with banking or cashes their checks, Western Union, stop providing taxpayer funded services to them (e.g. school, drivers licenses, welfare) and grab the ones who are arrested for something else. Make it uncomfortable enough and they'll leave on their own.

As far as their kids getting deported with them, fine. The kids can stay, either with a legal relative or an orphanage, or the parents can choose to take the kid with them. It's up to the parents.

I agree 90%. One important ingredient is missing from your scenario though. Mexico (et al countries). Since conditions in the home country are just as bad (if not worse) than here in the US, even with everything you said, why should the illegal alien bother undertaking a long, arduous journey to go back there ?

This is the missing 10%. I think in final analysis, deportation by attrition is the way to go, yes, but it will take strong pressure on Mexico, from a strong US president,and that's not gonna happen until after Obama leaves office.

When we get a tougher president, we should give Carlos Slim and all the rest of his plutocrat rat pack 3 months to break up the monopolies, and initiate reforms that would open Mexico's economy to Mexican small business entrepreneurs, who then could hire millions of Mexicans to good jobs. This would also create some badly needed respect for Mexican authority, and help to spur public cooperation in stamping out the drug gangs.

This would have to be backed up by a stern warning that non-cooperation would result in US military action against Mexico, which would likely result in the complete conquest of Mexico, and establishment of it as a US territory or state, under full US control. A buildup of Army & Air National Guard military along the Mexican border, including fleets of US warships along both Mexican coasts would be in order as well, to give teeth to the demand. It all goes a lot deeper than just illegal aliens here in the US.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

 

[Nutz]

DUH..

Every Illegal should be deported, along with their entire family, including children.

Children of Illegals should not be considered Citizens.

Anyone born in this country is a citizen. Change the Constitution or change your attitude, because that's how it stands right now.

He's 100% right. When Jacob Howard authored the 14th Amendment, he wasn't intending to provide a pathway to citizenship for any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy. And he outspokenly said so too >> "[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." (Jacob Howard, US Senate, May 30 1866)

The Constitution absolutely should be changed, or legislation passed abolishing birthright citizenship.

Good post, OriginalShroom.

I don't think you fully understand the quote you highlighted.

 

[protectionist]

Anyone born in this country is a citizen. Change the Constitution or change your attitude, because that's how it stands right now.

He's 100% right. When Jacob Howard authored the 14th Amendment, he wasn't intending to provide a pathway to citizenship for any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy. And he outspokenly said so too >> "[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." (Jacob Howard, US Senate, May 30 1866)

The Constitution absolutely should be changed, or legislation passed abolishing birthright citizenship.

Good post, OriginalShroom.

I don't think you fully understand the quote you highlighted.

That's nice. And what exactly do you think I don't understand about it ?

 

[Nutz]

He's 100% right. When Jacob Howard authored the 14th Amendment, he wasn't intending to provide a pathway to citizenship for any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy. And he outspokenly said so too >> "[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." (Jacob Howard, US Senate, May 30 1866)

The Constitution absolutely should be changed, or legislation passed abolishing birthright citizenship.

Good post, OriginalShroom.

I don't think you fully understand the quote you highlighted.

That's nice. And what exactly do you think I don't understand about it ?

Read it again and tell my how he is against birthright citizenship for every other class of person.

And just to note...I always admit when I am wrong. I believe your interpretation is incorrect. I just don't see how you can interpret that passage as meaning birthright citizenship should not be Constitutional.

 

[protectionist]

I don't think you fully understand the quote you highlighted.

That's nice. And what exactly do you think I don't understand about it ?

Read it again and tell my how he is against birthright citizenship for every other class of person.

And just to note...I always admit when I am wrong. I believe your interpretation is incorrect. I just don't see how you can interpret that passage as meaning birthright citizenship should not be Constitutional.

"Interpret" ? There is no interpreting here. Howard stated clearly. "...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 you think he wants to include any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy, for the sole purpose of using his amendment, to crash the nation, and scoop a lifetime of benefits ? Yes or no ?

He is FOR birthright citizenship for every other class of person (anchor babies not included). Get it ?

 

[Nutz]

That's nice. And what exactly do you think I don't understand about it ?

Read it again and tell my how he is against birthright citizenship for every other class of person.

And just to note...I always admit when I am wrong. I believe your interpretation is incorrect. I just don't see how you can interpret that passage as meaning birthright citizenship should not be Constitutional.

"Interpret" ? There is no interpreting here. Howard stated clearly. "...will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens..."

So, this having been said, you think he wants to include any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy, for the sole purpose of using his amendment, to crash the nation, and scoop a lifetime of benefits ? Yes or no ?

Continue on with the sentence. He is talking about ambassadors to the US.

 

[protectionist]

Read it again and tell my how he is against birthright citizenship for every other class of person.

And just to note...I always admit when I am wrong. I believe your interpretation is incorrect. I just don't see how you can interpret that passage as meaning birthright citizenship should not be Constitutional.

"Interpret" ? There is no interpreting here. Howard stated clearly. "...will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens..."

So, this having been said, you think he wants to include any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy, for the sole purpose of using his amendment, to crash the nation, and scoop a lifetime of benefits ? Yes or no ?

Continue on with the sentence. He is talking about ambassadors to the US.

I DID continue on with the sentence. Reread the post. (# 14 - it doesn't match your quote). And no , he's not talking about ambassodors. He's talking about anchor babies ("who belong to the families of ambassadors") and as such, sets the precedent for anchor babies - no birthright citizenship.

Now, you're invited to answer my question >> You think he wants to include any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy, for the sole purpose of using his amendment, to crash the nation, and scoop a lifetime of benefits ? Yes or no ?

 

[Nutz]

"Interpret" ? There is no interpreting here. Howard stated clearly. "...will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens..."

So, this having been said, you think he wants to include any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy, for the sole purpose of using his amendment, to crash the nation, and scoop a lifetime of benefits ? Yes or no ?

Continue on with the sentence. He is talking about ambassadors to the US.

I DID continue on with the sentence. Reread the post. And no , he's not talking about ambassodors. He's talking about anchor babies ("who belong to the families of ambassadors") and as such, sets the precedent for anchor babies - no birthright citizenship.

You just said what I was saying; but, you omit: "but will include every other class of person."

 

[Nutz]

"Interpret" ? There is no interpreting here. Howard stated clearly. "...will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens..."

So, this having been said, you think he wants to include any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy, for the sole purpose of using his amendment, to crash the nation, and scoop a lifetime of benefits ? Yes or no ?

Continue on with the sentence. He is talking about ambassadors to the US.

I DID continue on with the sentence. Reread the post. (# 14 - it doesn't match your quote). And no , he's not talking about ambassodors. He's talking about anchor babies ("who belong to the families of ambassadors") and as such, sets the precedent for anchor babies - no birthright citizenship.

Now, you're invited to answer my question >> You think he wants to include any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy, for the sole purpose of using his amendment, to crash the nation, and scoop a lifetime of benefits ? Yes or no ?

You edited while I replied to your response. The answer to your question is that I believe in the Constitution of the United States. If a pregnant women is clever enough to cross the border and give birth to a child in the US for the sole purpose of that child having US citizenship...good for her. She is not a citizen and should be sent back. But the child is an American as defined by our Constitution. Period.

 

[Crystalclear]

No, the government should not support an increase in deportations or should even eliminate it. I believe that everyone has the right to choose where they want to live. The only thing is that aliens (who are not citizens) should not get welfare or other government programs funded by citizens' taxpayer money.

 

[protectionist]

Continue on with the sentence. He is talking about ambassadors to the US.

I DID continue on with the sentence. Reread the post. (# 14 - it doesn't match your quote). And no , he's not talking about ambassodors. He's talking about anchor babies ("who belong to the families of ambassadors") and as such, sets the precedent for anchor babies - no birthright citizenship.

Now, you're invited to answer my question >> You think he wants to include any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy, for the sole purpose of using his amendment, to crash the nation, and scoop a lifetime of benefits ? Yes or no ?

You edited while I replied to your response. The answer to your question is that I believe in the Constitution of the United States. If a pregnant women is clever enough to cross the border and give birth to a child in the US for the sole purpose of that child having US citizenship...good for her. She is not a citizen and should be sent back. But the child is an American as defined by our Constitution. Period.

No, it is NOT defined that way by the Constitution, because it wasn't meant to be that way, and the meaning has been twisted. "Period" only by a misinterpretation of the Amendment, and further copying, for over 100 years, of that misinterpretation. That should be corrected now with mass deportation, including anchor babies, retroactive to 1866.

And by saying > "if a pregnant women is clever enough to cross the border and give birth to a child in the US for the sole purpose of that child having US citizenship...good for her." .....this makes you a traitor to this country, who is in support of those who are invading it. Fundamentally no different than someone who would have said if a Japanese soldier, in 1943, is clever enough to cross the border,...good for him.

And NO, you did NOT answer my question. Now, you're invited to answer my question >> "You think he wants to include any Mexican who could get across the border in her 8th month of pregnancy, for the sole purpose of using his amendment, to crash the nation, and scoop a lifetime of benefits ? Yes or no ?"

 

[protectionist]

No, the government should not support an increase in deportations or should even eliminate it. I believe that everyone has the right to choose where they want to live. The only thing is that aliens (who are not citizens) should not get welfare or other government programs funded by citizens' taxpayer money.

You can "believe that everyone has the right to choose where they want to live." until you are blue in the face, but the fact is you are 100% WRONG. Everyone most certainly does NOT the right to choose where they want to live. This is subject to US immigration LAW, and those who violate it are subject to fines and imprisonment.