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

It has become apparent that the federal government is unwilling to secure our borders.

Illegals Right to Fair Wages
US Cannot Secure Arizona Border
Instruments of War against a Sovereign US

I propose the following assumption to be from the information we are being told by our federal government.

OATH REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND BY LAW TO BE TAKEN BY ELECTED OFFICIALS

"I, A__ B__, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." (5 U.S.C. 3331.)

A failure to protect our borders is a direct violation of this oath, thereby, making the federal government operate in a de facto state.

They have broken their contract with the states and the American people. Their power is null and void. They have all failed to uphold the oath they took, and should be duly removed and court-martialed on charges of high treason.

Whether or not those in the federal government agree or disagree with Arizona's laws is a moot point. It does not give them the legal grounds to abandon their sworn duty.

Since the federal government has not performed it's sworn duty to the states and the American people, the states and American people are no longer bound to recognize the federal government as legitimate.

It is nothing more or less than a breach of contract.

This is not a call for revolution or secession as that in and of itself would be a dangerous can of worms.

I am stating, that in fact, the federal government has removed itself from the union by failing to represent the ideals set forth in the definition of a sovereign union. It has always been a two way street. However illegal it has been for states to secede, the same laws bind the federal government to uphold it's own laws.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by PayMeh]

reply to post by PayMeh


I agree. Read my Signature. Nobody said it better than John Adams. Government was designed for the common good not for profit or agendas of groups of people. It was designed to hold together the commonality of all of us. We all need certain basic rights. Security is among them and if the AZ people feel not safe in their home and state it is their right to overthrow the shackles which bind them.

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

Just because the fed isn't securing the border to one's liking, doesn't mean they aren't trying to secure the border.

reply to post by jam321


Jam, could you please provide us with some concrete examples of how the federal government is "Trying to secure the border."

A fence that was budgeted by Congress to be built hasn't been built. Troops that should be sent to secure the border remain absent. Technology that could be deployed to help us monitor the border has not been deployed. And now we read about Kyl's private discussion with the president where he claims that it is not in his interest to secure the border as it would hamper his amensty agenda. So again, I ask you, provide us with concrete examples of how the federal government is working to secure the border.

Thanks!

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.

It's flat out extortion. Securing the border does not leave legal room for stipulations to be attached. Grandstanding on the issue is nothing but childish behavior and does not relinquish sworn duties.

reply to post by kozmo


The reality is that nothing they do will ever match your definition of securing the border. They could put the military down there and many of you will still complain the border isn't secure.

That border has never been secure in US history and never will be. If anything, this is the most security that border has ever had. Add to that that you have all kind of law enforcement in on the game and you just can't say they aren't trying to secure the border.

Today, there are 22,800 U.S. Border Patrol agents, five times the number in 1993. About 17,000 agents work along the Southwest corridor, double the number from seven years ago. They are supported by National Guard troops, local police and thousands of port officers using everything from drug-sniffing dogs to gamma-ray machines.

• In Arizona, the primary smuggling corridor on the U.S.-Mexico line, there are now more than 3,600 Border Patrol agents, about 10 for every mile of boundary with Mexico.

• The budget this fiscal year for Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency charged with guarding U.S. borders, is about $17 billion, double what was spent in 2003.

• The number of illegal immigrants arrested by Border Patrol has plummeted by almost two-thirds in just five years, a combined result, authorities say, of fewer people trying to cross because of the economy and increased security.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in April, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the Southwest border is "as secure now as it has ever been." Challenging the sincerity of lawmakers who demand security, she asked, "Will it ever be reached as far as Congress is concerned, or will that goal post continue to be moved?

www.azcentral.com...

reply to post by PayMeh

They flat out claim they will not enforce border security until amnesty is granted for those already here.

It's flat out extortion.

Extortion if you buy the hype and base on the words your using I can tell you believe in the talking points.

Use your head and you will see that there is more security today than there has ever been.

If there is a contract, where is the consideration?

Also, a breach only occurs if the person making the oath fails to defend the United States from foreign or domestic enemies?

Is failing to prevent every single person who tries to cross our 1000+ mile border a "failure to defend?" If a soldier on the field of battle does not kill every single enemy fighter did he commit a "failure to defend?"

Next, are illegal aliens "enemies?" Is it possible that illegal aliens actually have a net positive effect on the US economy? Can we call people that work their butts off to clean our toilets and pick our fruit "enemies?"

reply to post by jam321


Okay, so lets assume there is efficient border security.

What we are faced with here is an act of aggression by a para military group (drug cartel - if you believe thats the power behind) operating within the US borders. This, by definition, is terrorism - a term we've thrown around to run special ops in 75 sovereign countries and wage war in two other countries.

The federal government has claimed it their patriotic duty to fight these threats. Is it not treasonous and hypocritical to not face this threat with the same standards?

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
If there is a contract, where is the consideration?

Also, a breach only occurs if the person making the oath fails to defend the United States from foreign or domestic enemies?

Is failing to prevent every single person who tries to cross our 1000+ mile border a "failure to defend?" If a soldier on the field of battle does not kill every single enemy fighter did he commit a "failure to defend?"

Next, are illegal aliens "enemies?" Is it possible that illegal aliens actually have a net positive effect on the US economy? Can we call people that work their butts off to clean our toilets and pick our fruit "enemies?"

Lets call them what they are.....

Invaders.

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

Pay attention to #2. Thats precisely what illegal aliens are.

reply to post by jam321


Jam, with all due respect, "securing the border" means EXACTLY what it means - SECURING the border! When something is secure it is not open or available for trespass. The border, obviously, is far from secure and the federal government is loath to secure it. Pretending otherwise is purely disingenuous.

This is not my definition - this is the UNIVERSAL definition of secure. Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as varying degrees of "Secure". Something is either secure or it is not. Or border is not now, nor has it ever been secure. This is a colossal failure on the part of the federal government, especially as it has become more obvious the importance of having a secured border. Would you not agree?

[edit on 21-6-2010 by kozmo]

reply to post by PayMeh

What we are faced with here is an act of aggression by a para military group (drug cartel - if you believe thats the power behind) operating within the US borders.

Guess the US got you covered on this one also. Maybe not to your liking but they got it covered.

Merida Initiative. The US is the one going after the Cartels with the assistance of Mexico. As a matter of fact, the US has had many cartels extradited to the US for trial. So yes, the US is aware of the cartels and are doing something about it.

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.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Then put in a motion to repeal the laws making undocumented immigration illegal. Until then, it is their duty to enforce laws to the best of their ability. Failure to enforce one law invalidates any other laws that are on the books.

Incompetence is no excuse.

The idea that illegals are beneficial to this country is asinine at best. They pay no taxes, many times send their pay back to Mexico furthering inflation, and allow employers to circumvent minimum wage laws. Add that to the strain they put on the social programs and you'll understand why our states are going broke.

It's not that Americans are not willing to do these jobs. I've worked tobacco fields along side of illegals at one point in my life. It's the fact that these people drive wages down. Unless I'm willing to work off the books for 3-4 dollars an hour, then employers will hire illegals in my stead.

reply to post by brainwrek


Okay, so Illegal aliens are "invaders" or "violators" and are thus "enemies." At what point has the government failed to defend you from these enemies. We must keep in mind that there will always be "invaders," "violators," murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, child molesters, etc.

If a couple people get pick pocketed this weekend, did the local police fail to protect these people from domestic enemies of the constitution? What if a terrorist is able to sneak across the Canadian border and set off a bomb in Chicago or New York?

reply to post by jam321


With all due respect to you, my friend, if the federal government really wanted to handle the drug cartels they would repeal all legislation that criminalizes the sale of illicit drugs, ensuring that the supply of this obvious demand be placed in the free and open market. This would effectively castrate the cartels, while at the same time stop imprisoning this countries own citizens simply for supplying a demand, or worse simply for wanting to do the drugs.

I realize this thread is about securing our borders, but I tend to agree with Jam that such as task is far easier said than done, and repealing legislation that in reality creates criminals without a victim, and only creates victims by its very legislation is just as easily done as said. Unless, of course, one wants to place a priority on government greed.

We read the news about how the Government is going after drug cartels.

By Paul L. Williams, Ph.D

July 7 2009

Hey, guys, don’t pick the poppies.

That’s the order from the Obama Administration to the 4,000 Marines presently engaged in Operation Khanjar or “Strike of the Sword,” an invasion of the Taliban infested Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan.


rainbowwarrior2005.wordpress.com...

reply to post by PayMeh


Many illegal aliens work under the table and pay no taxes, but many illegal aliens do pay taxes. I have personally prepared tax returns for illegal aliens. Many have withholding taken from their paychecks.

There are some instances where illegal aliens are taking jobs from Americans, but that does not mean that they are all taking jobs from Americans. There is a large demand for cheap janitors and field workers and few Americans who are willing to do those jobs.

We could pay these workers well above minimum wage, let them unionize, give them medical and dental insurance, 401(k)'s, and stock options. However, most of us do not want to spend $10 for a pound of oranges.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


They have failed to secure against an invasion where we have somewhere between 12 and 20 million foreign nationals on our soil without permission to be here.

Regardless of the whining from the typical groups of leftists, the ONLY solution to the problem is mass deportations and militarization of the border. Add in erasing all foreign aid to mexico and we have a good start.

Its basically a human tidal wave coming across the border every year. The future of the nation depends on stopping it.