Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Failure of the Federal Government to Secure Borders is a Breach of Contract

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


You have narrowed the scope of your argument to just the drug cartels because it keeps your argument simple and defendable.

My argument is simply this : enforce the laws on the books, or all subsequent laws are invalid.

I don't care if they grant amnesty to those here - let them commit that political suicide and reap the consequences and add to social dissent.

The plain facts are this - Illegal immigrants from Mexico are for the most part NOT deported per current law. The logistics of deportation would bankrupt the government faster than anything because our borders have more holes than a colander. Any illegal immigrant from other countries who breaks the terms and conditions of their being here are deported promptly because it's easier to deny them re-admittance.

This whole thread is a call to either "crap or get off the pot." Fix the incompetence. Impose tougher guidelines. Make immigration less profitable for those here illegally.

The country is only as strong as it's weakest link. Any failure to enforce a law that is on the books makes every law just as weak.




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Can you please direct me to the website of the program you were part of so I can make a separate thread exposing that as well?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
The federal government actually has quite a limited and clearly defined set of job responsibilities and duties. Securing the borders is one of them. Enforcing federal laws is another. They've failed miserably at both, probably because they're too busy overstepping their boundaries.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
S& OP! this is IMO the BEST thread ive read (that i didnt create
:lol
in months on here!

You have a very valid point! This idea needs to be worked upon and taken somewhere!

Im sick and tired of The BS that is going on with our government. I dont think i have been duely represented once in my life by these people!



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PayMeh
 


Why don't I make you do the legwork "exposing" federally funded programs where people provide pro bono tax advice?

You got me though. I guess providing tax advice to people free of charge subverts the constitution. You might want to go after the food bank down the street that is not checking green cards. Heaven forbid if an illegal alien walks off with a couple of cans of soup.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


I think an expose on lawyers who are willing to do pro bono work for illegal immigrants would be much more effective.

You know, considering that the law is 'deportation upon discovery.'

Failure to report to proper authorities is at least obstruction of justice.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PayMeh
 


People in this country have always been able to consult with attorneys confidentially. Attorneys may not disclose information they receive from clients unless it is reasonably to prevent death or severe bodily injury.

I could lose my license if I "ratted out" the illegal aliens I helped. On the other hand, I keep my license if I keep my mouth shut.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by PayMeh
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


I think an expose on lawyers who are willing to do pro bono work for illegal immigrants would be much more effective.

You know, considering that the law is 'deportation upon discovery.'

Failure to report to proper authorities is at least obstruction of justice.


You do realize it is illegal for a lawyer to share information given to them with anyone beyond those their client has authorized? Lawyers, Doctors, Nurses, Real Estate agents etc. all are bound by privacy laws. You assume this poster somehow knew at the time the person was an illegal alien. I have done volunteer work myself. I had my suspicions about some people, but at the end of the day, if I wanted to keep my position I couldn't go to the cops. I had to go to my superior and say there might be an issue. I never did as issues for us involved serious threats to one's person. Granted, all I did was teach people basic math and reading. Yes, I aided and abeted the enemy


Volunteer organizations are not allowed to turn people out except in cases of safety issues. It's not like s/he would have had a choice anyway.

As for the border issue, I agree with Jam on this. The resources required are staggering. We've got more people down there than we ever have in history. This is a demand side problem. The only way to solve it is to go after employers and force them to pay equal wages and benefits to all their workers. Then there would be no more incentive to hire illegals.



[edit on 22-6-2010 by antonia]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Funny how the same people who complained about the iron curtain are now building one here.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I never understood this... they need to just build the damn wall already. A monolithic wall like in the movie Escape from L.A.

Put a sniper rifle, with a thermal scope on a tower station every mile or so, and take care of business as they approach the damn wall. I'd like to see the drug cartel, climb the wall, i mean cmon if they get passed a 50 foot wall, and a rifleman hasn't seen them yet, then you can put your money down that we're letting them in.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
People, it's all about oil and who we import it from. Mexico is ranked #3 importer to the US. This is nothing more than a trade off by ours and there governments. We need oil and they need to export there poor and undesirables.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by PayMeh
 


Absolutely correct. "To provide for the general welfare" means to protect the Citizenry from insurgents. Does not matter if they are friendly or not. The armed Citizens are correct in forming malitias'. It is now OUR duty to protect each other. The government is guilty of treason in allowing the borders to be ungaurded.

Nuff said.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by kozmo
 


And with due respect, you should also admit that no border is secure and never have been. Trespassers have always come across that border and will always continue to do so.

Setting goals so high when they have never been so high is also disingenuous.



Not to piss on your parade, but that's not true. The East German border was pretty secure. Not saying that's what I want, but even if it was the difference would be that we wouldn't be forcing our people to stay in, only keeping those that shouldn't be here out.

Me personally, I don't think that we should be focusing on keeping the border closed off. I think we should be focusing on getting rid of all of these entitlement programs.

Instituting a foreign worker program that automatically puts foreign workers in the upper tax bracket regardless of how much they make (how quickly would people vote for a fair across the board tax then? and I don't make enough for a family of three to even pay taxes and I would prefer a fair income tax system, or no income tax at all).

I say repeal the 16th amendment, get rid of social security, welfare, etc. This is a nation based on personal responsibility and equal opportunity, not equality. That is something called socialism and ALWAYS fails. Equality doesn't exist, only equal opportunity.

We used to be a nation of equal opportunity and now we are failing at maintaining that. Free markets, and I mean truly free are the only way to ensure that. Limited controls are necesary to prevent abuse of a free market system, but for the most part it is self correcting.

Short of getting rid of these entitlements, securing the border is the only thing we can do to make sure we have a viable sovereign nation in the foreseeable future.


Jaden



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by PayMeh
 


I wonder where in the oath it says in plain terms , " I solemly swear to prevent illegal immigration in all its forms, regardless of cost in lives and resources. I solemly swear to prevent anyone not already fiscaly impressive from entering this nation and benifiting from our enourmous abundance"
I dont believe those words appear in your oaths of office . In fact I would be suprised if the oath contains any loophole through which a politician or president can be sued, or punished, or evenly accused in an officialy recognised manner for this percieved failiure.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
It would be interesting if the Governor of Arizona sent her National Guard to Washington DC.


That's been tried before. It didn't work out so well for the side that tried it.

And 8,000 troops wouldn't stand a chance. I'm sure people think "Oh, the military wouldn't fire on Americans," but again - it happened in the 1860s. They take their oath regarding domestic threats just as seriously as foreign ones.

You take up arms against the Constitutionally elected government of the United States and you are a traitor. Treason is still unAmerican.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by PayMeh
 


Absolutely correct. "To provide for the general welfare" means to protect the Citizenry from insurgents. Does not matter if they are friendly or not. The armed Citizens are correct in forming malitias'. It is now OUR duty to protect each other. The government is guilty of treason in allowing the borders to be ungaurded.


People keep throwing around the words "treason" and "traitor," but none of you seem to know what they mean.

Try reading the Constitution sometime:

Treason

Article III Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


Unless I missed something, we're not at war with Mexico. And I haven't noticed illegal immigrants committing acts of war. Are some criminals? Sure. But crime and war are completely different. Using the word "insurgent" just makes the position look more ridiculous.

People who talk about taking up arms against the Obama Administration? According to our Constitution, THAT is treason.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Revolution is what gave birth to this nation.

The tyrants the founding fathers were forced to live under considered their actions treasonous too.

The time is getting closer and closer.


Mexico has committed numerous acts of war against the U.S., and the illegal aliens must be considered invaders.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by brainwrek]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by PayMeh
reply to post by jam321
 


How are they securing the border in any way? They flat out claim they will not enforce border security until amnesty is granted for those already here.


Please provide citations. And no, hearsay doesn't count.

Kyl's comment is hearsay. He has no evidence, only his word that the President told him so. KYL is the one claiming that, and the White House denies it.

And it turns out that Kyl is the one who wanted everyone other than him and the President out of the room. It's almost like he wanted there to be no witnesses so he could say whatever he wanted after the meeting...

www.nytimes.com...

In setting up his story, Mr. Kyl said “just the two of us” were in the Oval Office after Mr. Kyl “kicked the rest of the people out,” including Gen. James L. Jones, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser. When Mr. Kyl quickly says he actually asked the others to leave, a man is heard saying he prefers the “kicked out” version.

And he makes this claim at a Tea Party event...rather than on the floor of the Senate, or in a public announcement. Just playing to his audience...and now he has to stick by the story to avoid losing them.

This is the same guy who says he's against earmarks...but has $118 million worth of them. Another hypocrite? Say it ain't so!

And he only wants to extend unemployment benefits if the super-rich get another tax cut.

But if you guys want to hitch your wagon to a piece of work like him - a shining example of what's wrong with DC, more power to you.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Revolution is what gave birth to this nation.

The tyrants the founding fathers were forced to live under considered their actions treasonous too.


So...we should destroy the Constitution in order to save it?

A "revolution" would necessarily require a new founding document. One created by the people who think that since they guy they wanted didn't get elected then the whole system needs to be redone. But they still claim to support the Constitution, even as they pretty much declare themselves to be domestic enemies and traitors to the republic it created.

If people were honest and said they wanted to start over, I'd accept that as legitimate. But this "cafeteria revolutionary" garbage is just laughable.



Mexico has committed numerous acts of war against the U.S., and the illegal aliens must be considered invaders.


What acts of war has Mexico committed? And why "must" illegal aliens be considered invaders? Are they being armed and deployed by the Mexican government?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


How about numerous mexican military incursions into the U.S.?

Yet again

And another


I could post more than you would ever want to read.

Now, as for the illegal aliens themselves....

in·vade (n-vd)
v. in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades
v.tr.
1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate

Check out #2. They are by definition, invaders. Whether people want to face the ugly truth or not, we are in fact being invaded, and the federal government is failing in its Constitutionally mandated obligation to defend this nation against invasions.

Most people think an invasion must be an armed force, when that simply isnt true.




[edit on 22-6-2010 by brainwrek]





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join