Thread: Deport Them ALL! Including Anchor Brats!

Originally Posted by NotGoingToTakeItAnymore

Originally Posted by saveamerica

Originally Posted by NotGoingToTakeItAnymore

Listen...here's one Democrat who's about sick of hearing/seeing Dems slammed time after time in this debate/issue/problem. I'M a Democrat and I'm as against this invasion of MY country as much as any Republican or Independent! I donate my money and time and I'm as ready to fight for my country as anyone, I assure you!

It would seem to me if Republicans want Democrats on board with this, they would quit trying to slam us in the dirt as tho ONLY demoracts made this mess!

That's a pretty stupid position to take, given the fact that the Repulicans have been in control of this country for most of the time in the last umpteen decades!!

Ok...rant's over...for now.

I agree that both parties are to blame. However, nearly ALL Democrats are for amnesty.

Democrats who voted against cloture recently included the likes of Barbara Boxer who things the bill is too tough! Nancy Pelsoi and Harry Reid have said the same thing!

Thank God conservatives in the U.S. House blocked amnesty last year. I hope and pray conservatives in the senate can do the same this year.

Left to people like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and the overwhelming majority of Democrats, amnesty would be rammed down our throats.

Bush, Specter,the yahoo from Kentucky, and Graham are awful--but at least they are a minority in the GOP.

You are absolutely right. The Democrats are voting against the American people, but that doesn't negate the fact that Jorge, the big ol' Republican let them in ...no, welcomed them with open arms..and borders, for years. And no matter what the Democrat politicians do, the way to get and keep Democrat voters and doers on board is not to slam them every chance one gets. We, the democrat voters, didn't expect this mess any more than Republican voters did, and I am tired of reading about what a bunch of worthless traitors we all are because of what the politicians did. I don't slam every Republican voter because a Republican traitor is in the White House.

Oh good heavens! I am NOT slamming Democrat voters--I am talking about Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, Kennedy, Feinstein and all the rest of the traiterous goons in the House and Senate.

By the way, we had an election in November of last year. That election resulted in the Democrats regaining control of both chambers.

I seriously doubt that anyone who voted Democrat did not expect the party to do exacltly what it is doing on immigration. If fact, the idiot Bush--yes, I said idiot!---openly stated that the victory by Democrats would make it easier to pass amnesty.

My advise: Do not vote for any candidate--Republican or Democrat--who is on the wrong side of this vital issue

Originally Posted by saveamerica

Originally Posted by NotGoingToTakeItAnymore

Originally Posted by saveamerica

Originally Posted by NotGoingToTakeItAnymore

Listen...here's one Democrat who's about sick of hearing/seeing Dems slammed time after time in this debate/issue/problem. I'M a Democrat and I'm as against this invasion of MY country as much as any Republican or Independent! I donate my money and time and I'm as ready to fight for my country as anyone, I assure you!

It would seem to me if Republicans want Democrats on board with this, they would quit trying to slam us in the dirt as tho ONLY demoracts made this mess!

That's a pretty stupid position to take, given the fact that the Repulicans have been in control of this country for most of the time in the last umpteen decades!!

Ok...rant's over...for now.

I agree that both parties are to blame. However, nearly ALL Democrats are for amnesty.

Democrats who voted against cloture recently included the likes of Barbara Boxer who things the bill is too tough! Nancy Pelsoi and Harry Reid have said the same thing!

Thank God conservatives in the U.S. House blocked amnesty last year. I hope and pray conservatives in the senate can do the same this year.

Left to people like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and the overwhelming majority of Democrats, amnesty would be rammed down our throats.

Bush, Specter,the yahoo from Kentucky, and Graham are awful--but at least they are a minority in the GOP.

You are absolutely right. The Democrats are voting against the American people, but that doesn't negate the fact that Jorge, the big ol' Republican let them in ...no, welcomed them with open arms..and borders, for years. And no matter what the Democrat politicians do, the way to get and keep Democrat voters and doers on board is not to slam them every chance one gets. We, the democrat voters, didn't expect this mess any more than Republican voters did, and I am tired of reading about what a bunch of worthless traitors we all are because of what the politicians did. I don't slam every Republican voter because a Republican traitor is in the White House.

Oh good heavens! I am NOT slamming Democrat voters--I am talking about Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, Kennedy, Feinstein and all the rest of the traiterous goons in the House and Senate.

By the way, we had an election in November of last year. That election resulted in the Democrats regaining control of both chambers.

I seriously doubt that anyone who voted Democrat did not expect the party to do exacltly what it is doing on immigration. If fact, the idiot Bush--yes, I said idiot!---openly stated that the victory by Democrats would make it easier to pass amnesty.

My advise: Do not vote for any candidate--Republican or Democrat--who is on the wrong side of this vital issue

You misunderstood my rant. It wasn't directed at you, so don't take it personally. And not that it's anyone's business, but I didn't vote Democrat in '06. And I'm quite aware of the fact that we had an election in November, but thanks.

NotGoingToTakeItAnymore,

given the fact that that 99.9% of political speakers at illegal mexican marches are democrat, why would anyone want to be a card carrying democrat if they care about illegal immigration and Americans' rights??

also, given the fact that the republicans are backed by big business, and are responsible for pulling the third world countries south of our border, right into our backyards AND jorge bushy is the biggest traitor to the american people EVER, why would anyone be a card carrying republican if they care about illegal immigration and Americans' rights?

We slam dems NOW because they ARE responsible for the push for amnesty for 12 - 20 MILLION illegal mexicans and OTM's and will stop at NOTHING to ruin your country for all subsequent generations of Americans.

At the moment, the majority of repubs are the only party FIGHTING against jorge and amnesty.

I hope this explains the dem bashing?

In other words, Pancho, get the hell out and take your moochachoo brats with you!

Well said!!!!!

Originally Posted by Nomoremex

NotGoingToTakeItAnymore,

given the fact that that 99.9% of political speakers at illegal mexican marches are democrat, why would anyone want to be a card carrying democrat if they care about illegal immigration and Americans' rights??

also, given the fact that the republicans are backed by big business, and are responsible for pulling the third world countries south of our border, right into our backyards AND jorge bushy is the biggest traitor to the american people EVER, why would anyone be a card carrying republican if they care about illegal immigration and Americans' rights?

We slam dems NOW because they ARE responsible for the push for amnesty for 12 - 20 MILLION illegal mexicans and OTM's and will stop at NOTHING to ruin your country for all subsequent generations of Americans.

At the moment, the majority of repubs are the only party FIGHTING against jorge and amnesty.

I hope this explains the dem bashing?

Hi Nomoremex,

It does explain it to a point and it's a point I understood a long time ago. I respectully disagree that it's Republicans largely who are fighting this. They may be the majority...but I am not a Republican and I guess no longer a Democrat. I come from a very large family...about 35 in just the immediate family (brothers, sisters, neices, nephews, inlaws and outlaws)...all Democrats..and all against this invasion...so to slam all dems because dems are now voting against the majority is about as senseless as me or any other democrat getting on here and bashing all American citizens who are Republicans because it was the Republicans who left the back door open all these years in the first dang place!

And I, speaking as one ex-democrat, still feel like slapping us in the face for electing a bunch of idiots is as bad as us slamming republicans for the things their politicians "overlooked" when it started! Wasn't it a republican in power when the 1986 Shamnesty was passed? I was only trying to say that insulting us is not the way to keep us fighting on your supposed side anymore than slamming LEGAL American Hispanics who are fighting it. I'm no more responsible for the morons in ofice, since I didn't vote for the majority of them, than LEGAL Immigrants are responsible for the ones crawling our borders illegally now.

For me, this is a Patriotic American fight...not a Dem/Repub fight. Unless we all band together, we don't stand as good a chance of winning this fight.

Apparently, "Family" is trumped by dinero when deciding whether or not to jump a fence to pursue the mother lode, AKA free public services, in America!

Yea, and they would have us believe that family values don't stop at the Rio Grande.

NotGoingtoTakeit, my father was a staunch Democrat, but a highly conservative man, and one who was 100% against illegal immigration. Had he been with us today, and well, he would have been in here fighting along side me. His generation was the old-school Democrats, the ones who fought for the American people and unionizing (when unions were good and for the people!). They also were a more reasonable group.

The difference today is that most Democratic politicians lean towards the full on liberal side and also seem to work against what is wanted by Americans. Maybe their platform has not changed, but...they have (in my own opinion).

Ever since Ronald Regan left the Democrats, this party has been trying to establish just what it is they stand for. It would seem they have abandoned the old platform of supporting the working class and their unions because what they support today is non-productive to the old ideas. In fact, I don't really think they know what they stand for, except an 'anything goes' attitude. I used to be democrat, belonging to the Carpenter's Union, but after what I have been seeing the last bunch of years, they no longer have my support.

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Apparently, "Family" is trumped by dinero when deciding whether or not to jump a fence to pursue the mother lode, AKA free public services, in America!

Yea, and they would have us believe that family values don't stop at the Rio Grande.



[quote:3czago88]NotGoingtoTakeit, my father was a staunch Democrat, but a highly conservative man, and one who was 100% against illegal immigration. Had he been with us today, and well, he would have been in here fighting along side me. His generation was the old-school Democrats, the ones who fought for the American people and unionizing (when unions were good and for the people!). They also were a more reasonable group.

The difference today is that most Democratic politicians lean towards the full on liberal side and also seem to work against what is wanted by Americans. Maybe their platform has not changed, but...they have (in my own opinion).

Ever since Ronald Regan left the Democrats, this party has been trying to establish just what it is they stand for. It would seem they have abandoned the old platform of supporting the working class and their unions because what they support today is non-productive to the old ideas. In fact, I don't really think they know what they stand for, except an 'anything goes' attitude. I used to be democrat, belonging to the Carpenter's Union, but after what I have been seeing the last bunch of years, they no longer have my support.[/quote:3czago88]

When I was in college a few years back, I was researching the Freedom of Information Act and ran across an interesting article that said that Ron Regan, when he was an actor during the McCarthy era, he was turning in all his "friends"..actors, writers, directors...whose lives and careers were completely ruined because he said they were Communists...and next thing you know, he's president. (Most of those folks accused and trashed, so I seem to remember, were later proven innocent. Unfortunately, it was too late for most of them.) hmmm...politics and politicians.

How to send illegals back home

Posted: June 6, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Earl Clampett
Mr. Bush and his supporters in the current immigration debate are saying it is impossible to deport 12 million illegal aliens in this country. We simply cannot.
Really?
If the supporters of this latest amnesty bill will look to the not-too-distant past, they would observe that our country as recently as 53 years ago under President Dwight D. Eisenhower successfully deported or forced into voluntary repatriation an estimated 1.2 million aliens within a single year period of time using only about 750 border agents. I won't say the name of the operation because it is not politically correct. Many go apoplectic when they hear the name of the operation, so let's call it by another name. Since I'm of Irish descent, let's call it hypothetically "Operation Leprechaun" so I won't be labeled as bigoted. That is not its real name, but it will do for now so I can have a chance to explain why it worked in the past and can certainly work in the present.

All we have to do is continue to apply pressure to our government to enforce the 1986 immigration laws on the books currently.
1. All we have to do is build the original border fence that was passed into law (without funding) last year.
All we have to do is enforce the employer sanctions that were part of the 1986 law that were rarely, if ever, applied.
All we have to do is to support our Border Patrol instead of criminally prosecuting border officers based on political pressure from Mexico.
All we have to do is to start interior enforcement. When word gets out we are serious about enforcing the 1986 law, many, many will understand the seriousness of repetitive law breaking and will depart on their own just like they did in 1954. All we have to do is to communicate very loudly and clearly and often that we are not interested in becoming the North American counterpart of the European Union and that we have done quite nicely, thank you, being a sovereign nation.
This immigration bill has caused a revival of our citizens to finally awaken from their slumber of watching "American Idol." Politicians who dismiss these revived patriots as "bigots" and "nativists" need to be told by means of e-mail and telephone calls that unemployment is a very near reality for them.
All we have to do is to rally in the streets of "elite-land" Washington and remind our out-of-touch representatives just who is serving whom. All we have to do is to be even-handed about who is required to leave and go to the back of the legal immigration line. (As you said, Mr. Bush, "We are a nation of laws"… or were you only kidding?) All colors, races and creeds (yes, including white Irish Leprechauns) would be subject to the same scrutiny.
You see, Mr. and Mrs. Globalist and New World Order politicians, we who love our country as originally designed do not care what color or ethnicity illegal aliens happen to be. To remain a sovereign country you need to actually enforce your borders and immigration laws across the board. Then we could allow in legal immigrants of all races who have played by the rules.
You see it's not about race, you spinners of the truth; it's about legal immigrant status. Or do you have something else planned for the ignorant masses? Perhaps a new national entity like the North American Union that this amnesty bill would help bring about?
All we have to do to control immigration is to get serious about the fact that we have the capability to begin to deport (the legal consequence of breaking and entering our country) the 632,000 who have "absconded" by having snubbed their noses at court orders to appear in immigration proceedings. All we have to do is deport those who have overstayed their student or tourist visas. All we have to do is to deport anyone illegally here who has committed an additional state or local crime.
Then the outpouring of voluntary repatriation will begin in earnest, just like it happened in 1954. Those who violated our laws got the idea that we were serious about immigration law enforcement, and they began to leave in droves. After 80,000 were deported, the Border Patrol estimated another 500,000 to 700,000 left on their own. All of this occurred with in the first year.

If we won't enforce the 1986 immigration laws, why would we possibly think President Bush would finally get serious about border enforcement in this bill?

Perhaps we will finally get serious about deportations after the next series of domestic attacks occur, this time with dirty radiation bombs and suitcase nukes that will take out millions of our citizens. Al-Qaida has a fatwa that promises to take out 10 million of us to even up the score. They are serious and they are already here.
They came in through the open back door.
Which is it? We cannot or we will not?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=56028



1. The Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924 both eliminated the statute of limitation on deportation and created separate grounds for deportation (p. 60). Significantly, the Immigration Service was now authorized to deport at any time any person who entered without a valid visa or without valid inspection (p. 60). The 1924 Act also established, for the first time, a land border patrol. In addition, unauthorized entry became a criminal, as well as a deportable, offense (p. 60). Thus, the new numerical restrictions on legal immigration required a concomitant enforcement apparatus, which led to new surveillance and new ways of thinking about immigration and unlawful entry. This enforcement apparatus coincided with the creation of the illegal alien; they were mutually produced.

In 1949 the Border Patrol seized nearly 280,000 illegal immigrants. By 1953, the numbers had grown to more than 865,000, and the U.S. government felt pressured to do something about the onslaught of immigration. What resulted was Operation Wetback, devised in 1954 under the supervision of new commissioner of the Immigration and Nationalization Service, Gen. Joseph Swing.

Swing oversaw the Border patrol, and organized state and local officials along with the police. The object of his intense border enforcement were "illegal aliens," but common practice of Operation Wetback focused on Mexicans in general. The police swarmed through Mexican American barrios throughout the southeastern states. Some Mexicans, fearful of the potential violence of this militarization, fled back south across the border. In 1954, the agents discovered over 1 million illegal immigrants.
In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens. The agents used a wide brush in their criteria for interrogating potential aliens. They adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking&quo t; citizens on the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned.