To whom are you replying? Please use the quote reply. It makes it easy to follow the thread and leaves the guess work out. Many thanks.

A gentleman/woman. Very nice, thank you.

Excellent post! As usual, you are spot on. Thank you.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Actually, I too am offended by their reference to you a "hoe". Perhaps others that are thinking in common usage should google and see if they too would not be offended. Or just go to: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=H-O-E

I delayed my response to you because I wanted to respond on a higher level than my immediate reaction to your comments. It is with that in mind that I wish to respond to your points as they appear in your response:
Your maintain: “The Obama Administration has strengthened the border with material, personnel, and logistics and deported more i******s than Clinton or Bush. Unlike his predecessors, the Justice Dept. under Obama has cracked down on businesses that hire i******s. A good number of Hispanics feel betrayed by Obama and assuming they will all happily v**e for him is jumping to a conclusion. (Of course, the GOP hasn't exactly endeared Hispanics, but that's a different topic.)” It is true that more border agents were hired under Obama. However, credit for initiating the hiring predates the current administration. Perhaps you should look at both Presidents Clinton and Bush, pay particular attention to details in the past budgets. Initial funding was proposed and passed during the Clinton administration and more funds were added during the Bush terms. Remember that Obama did not have a budget for almost 3 years of his first term, we operated under continuing resolutions. Wherein you are proud of the “new” provisions to crack down on companies that hire i******s, it is worthwhile to not that doing an audit is not as heavy handed as removing i******s, and is not a real deterrent for business not to hire under the table. The crackdown is a requirement to fill out a form. A real measure would be akin to Joe Arpaio’s Posse of Arizona. They actively go to business and ask the workers for proof of citizenship. This is what American needs to secure the boarders; active and concerned professionals that go into the field and round up i******s. I really do not care that the i******s are not in favor of either Obama or his opposition. They are not citizens, and therefore their opinion or v**e should not count.
Your next point; “Despite the exaggerated and embelished stories that are repeated as fact, the bulk of i******s that come from south of the border are Mexican in a desperate situation. And they do have a measure of my sympathy. Were I in their place, I'd try to get to the US anyway I could. Telling them to get in line and wait their turn to immigrate is telling them they are unlikely to get in.”
If you were an illegal, I would still hold the same opinion. That being your actions make you a criminal.
It would seem that you do not live near the border between the US and Mexico. Assuming this as true, allow me to provide you with some information: The media no longer reports on the violence along the Mexican border. “Violence along the southern border has gotten so out of control that both Mexican and American journalists have stopped reporting it out of fear that drug cartels will retaliate against them and their families.” http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/03/mexican-u-s-media-too-scared-to-cover-border-crime/
“While the Obama administration insists the Mexican border is secure, a sophisticated airborne radar system created to track Islamic terrorists shows that less than half of the migrants and smugglers crossing into the United States get caught.
This alarming security gap obviously means that the southern border is far from secure, but rather porous and incredibly vulnerable. It also leaves Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, with egg on her face. After all, the former Arizona governor has repeatedly toured the southern border region guaranteeing that it is “as secure as it has ever been.”
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/04/military-radar-shows-mexican-border-is-not-secure/
Among the crimes reported include murder, manslaughter, assault with deadly weapons, robbery with use of deadly force, rape, home invasions….. http://www.fairus.org/issue/examples-of-serious-crimes-of-illegal-aliens This link list by date and name of only a few cases.
Understanding that the i******s have issues, they are indeed their issues with their homelands. Instead of a mass invasion of the US, they could better their situations by taking control of their own country. If you look at Mexico, it has many advantages over the USA. For example, they have richer lands to grow crops, their growing season is longer, and they have oil deposits, minerals, as well as exportable products. It has all the potential of becoming much more than a country existing under control of drug cartels, socialist government, and military police. Running from your problems, and in their case running from their government, is not a solution but a coward’s way out.
Another of your points: “As the corporate and government corruption in Mexico gets worse, as the drug cartels dictate rule of law by gun barrel and murder, I expect the border unrest to get worse. More and more, those people trying to get into the US are increasingly not looking for a job, for them it is literally a matter of life and death.” Perhaps you have a point, but consider this if our government become more corrupt than it is now, will anyone be better off? With the decline in American wealth, I suspect that those who are “escaping” their current homeland will diminish. What would they gain leaving a socialistic society to just enter into another socialist society with redistribution of wealth in the US?
One more thing that I feel compelled to introduce. You claim that more have been deported under Obama than under preceding presidents. Where are the numbers? According to law enforcement, there is no way to calculate how many enter. We can only count those that are caught. Many of these who are caught are repeaters. So, if the same individual is deported 30 times that will greatly affect the statistics. Under previous presidents, a person deported more than once was still counted as only one deportation. Under the current administration, who know how they generate their figures. The government refuses to provide their system of accountability.

Wherein you did not address your comment to my friend, he echoes my opinions of not only the course we are presently on, but those of Obama. I am respectful of your opinions and encourage you to keep posting. However, regardless of how vigorously you defend the status quo it is not a future that I personally want for my grandchildren.

Being unsure of your point, I am sure you are highlighting the "promote the general welfare" portion. When one speaks of the general welfare it is not the complete welfare that is referenced. The general welfare means good fortune, health, happiness, and prosperity of every citizen. The government, according to the Constitution, is expected to do things that will benefit everyone. It may not, however, help person or group of persons at the expense of all the rest of the people. Many government workers are employed to promote the general welfare. They work to prevent floods, forest fires, spread of disease, and accidents; they help to conserve our soil, forests, wildlife, minerals, and national parks, and they give help to farmers, merchants, and people in industry. Please note, the preamble of the Constitution is applicable to CITIZENS.

Wherein the term citizen has matured over time, it is important to understand how they were defined by our founding fathers. Also noteworthy, there are amendments to the Constitution that at a later date modified and included people (and g****rs) that were not recognized when the constitution was written. I suggest that you see the following court cases for more information: A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the Union, is a citizen of that state. 6 Pet. 761 Paine, 594;1 Brock. 391; 1 Paige, 183 Metc. & Perk. Dig. h.t.; vide 3 Story's Const. Sec. 1687 Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.; 2 Kent, Com. 258; 4 Johns. Ch. R. 430; Vatt. B. 1, c. Id, Sec. 212; Poth. Des Personnes, tit. 2, s. 1. Vide Body Politic; Inhabitant. Indeed, the founding fathers defined a citizen as: " CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to v**e for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children.
2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Art. 4, s. 2.
3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331."

When presenting an argument that modern America somehow has an obligation to i*****l a***ns or their decedents may be better handled through current laws, court cases, and accepted modern day philosophies. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence does not entirely support your position that all people have certain entitlements. It is important for you to understand that the 13th Amendment was not part of the original document, but an afterthought adopted in 1875.

References:
http://www.quia.com/files/quia/users/mrperdew/preamble1.htm

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/citizen

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html

My father's family did not arrive on the Mayflower. They came a few short years latter and settled in Virginia. They were not wealthy people, but humble people that came into this country as the law provided. They worked hard and established for themselves and provided for successive generations.

I am educated, as a child I was taught by my parents and as I matured went to public school. As I progressed through the process I planned along with my parents which University or College I would attend. None of those had the initials of KKK, but they were nevertheless accredited establishments. I do hold several degrees and thank you for recognizing those accomplishments.

I worked hard to make my parents proud, and having made them proud, I do hold a certain amount of satisfaction. I believe that most children want the approval of their parents, represent their family in a favorable light, and bring favorable credit to parents who work hard to ensure their child(ern) grow to the greatest of their potential.

Of note, being "smart" is not the same as having book knowledge. I have several acquaintances that did not graduate high school, but they are smart people. They learn from others, they read and research, and they know when to keep their mouths closed if they are out of their depths. As a child I was taught that it is best to keep one's mouth closed and be thought of as a fool, than to open it and dispel any doubt.

My daily interactions are one-on-one and on rare occasions disagreements do occur, and in the rare case where emotions run high no one in the group resort to crass remarks. It is kept on an intellectual level. Many of those discussions are of current events, proposed actions, and general nonsensical chatter. Therefore, I would say that my communication sk**ls are at least on par with yours. I rarely try to "sell" my point of view and when I find myself in such a position, I research the course of actions. I am not sure what you are trying to say with " your message ism/t as good as you think it is." I value your opinion. Because your comments are somewhat cryptic and I am failing to understand your point, would you elaborate to eliminate possible misunderstandings?

Because you appear to have not read either document, I have attached them so you can take your time and read them again. Once you do, perhaps you can come back and discuss your thoughts from a better educated point of view.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

I am not quite sure how to take your comment.

Sorry, duplicate entry.

What would be best?? I suggest that each major city have a march. If a few thousand or more show up with appropriate signs in each major city in the USA, then logistics would be easier to manage. Let us think about an email that could be sent to all our friends, something generic. A time and date for the "show of force" a POC at each one, someone to contact the local news (tv and radio) perhaps a few speakers. This could work. Of course someone would need to coordinate permits, contact the local fire department and police for support and ensure that the Left does not get violent....many things to consider.

I have grave concerns over this kind of activity. First, with the amnesty thing. Did you know that none of these people have to go through a background check? Background checks were suspended during Obama's first term. So, all of these people are "assumed" to be from Latin America. Sorry, but do they not have airports where other people who are more hostile, if that is possible, can fly into and then join up with hoards of "poor Latino's only wanting to join their families or have a better way of life." It begs the question, are any of these people who are breaking the law in illegal crossing, just citizens of nations south of our boarder? The next issue. If these people are wanting to join family, why not do it legally? There are ways to get permits and enter the US without overrunning our boarder patrols. Next, if these people are so poor, why do the appear so healthy? None of them looked like they have missed a meal in say a half hour. One exception, the rather robust woman on crutches could possibly need medical attention, but the rest have seemingly good arms, they can climb fences and through rocks, and they have good legs, most were charging the guards.

Pack all of them up, send them all back to where they came from at the expense of their government. Give them information on how to apply for green cards and admission the right way. Arm our boarder patrols, most of these people were aggressive, they have no fear. Most are cowards, that is why they travel in packs. So, show of force, and not necessarily firing on the crowd, will deter most of them.

I have nothing against immigration, but it must be done within the laws. We do not owe these people anything, so set down the laws. If their governments do not want to foot the bill for returning these people, simple take it out of the money we give to the Latinos in the form of aid.

I am sorry I did not see your post earlier. As always, you are spot on. How do we get started? I have written letters, but having worked in the government for a number of years, I can recognize a "canned" reply, and that is all I am getting. So, I am with you. Peaceful but firm! Because, I believe as you, if the masses become less than peaceful, then Marshall Law will be Obama's option. And then it will be all down hill. An excuse to sidestep all of our rights. Great post!


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: