Thread: Dennis Hastert A+ On Immigration - Make Him President Now!!

It doesn't matter what Congress does.

Immigration enforcement is handled SOLELY by the President of the United States.

Congress appropriated funding in late 2004 adding 10,000 additional border patrol agents....the Wackident has only hired 260.

See the problem?

Under our Separation of Powers, it doesn't matter what Congress says, what they do, what legislation they pass....IF the President chooses to ignore the laws and is allowed to remain in office.

GREYERHAT

From what little I know, the judges shouldn't have taken cases concerning certain "rights" that were brought to them by attornies representing Illegal aliens. That this was fundamentally unconstitutional.

Constitutional rights pertaining to American citizens were twisted to include human rights issues.

It's appearing that they've been taking some very strange cases that shouldn't have gotten past the court house doors.

Another example would be giving the "right" to obtain and American driver's license by an Illegal. That isn't a right but a privilege, yet it has now become a "right."

I understand what you're saying...I'm thinking...

I like that idea about taking the immigration hearings away from the courts. Why should there be a hearing anyway? No papers....out you go. Period.

What you are saying is that the president is the only one who can enforce the borders.

That may seem like its true, but what about the governors.

The Governors could simply start building the wall, and if a state government was willing to do this, it would provoke a constitutional crisis, but it might get the border issue even more attention, and that state would have to be prepared for a very serious fight ...in order to do this.

So it seems that both the President AND the Governors have jurisdiction as a States Rights issue, so the jurisdiction would seem to actually be concurrent, where both the state and the federal government have the right to act.

The constitutions says that the rights not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government are reserved

To the STATES and to the People

-

Actually, the borders are FEDERAL land and the governors would have no jurisdiction over them.

Sidebar - How to restrict the courts

I like that idea about taking the immigration hearings away from the courts. Why should there be a hearing anyway? No papers....out you go. Period.

Courts could be denied the ability to rule on any Illegal that has come into this nation by crossing the border.

They would simply deny any NON-Citizen the right to have any statutory standing concerning any issue that applies to Immigration or Deportation.

And there are dozens of ways to restrict them.

The courts could be forbidden to rule on

Children of Illegals in Public Schools

Illegals having the right to Hospital care

Illegals having the right to obtain social security payments

etc.


If the Illegals could know that they would have no redress to the courts, their ability to have any leverage would disapear...overnight.

-

Actually, the borders are FEDERAL land and the governors would have no jurisdiction over them.

Come on, we can be more creative than that.

I know of Landowners in Texas who have the right to build the wall on THEIR property.

The government can only legally move in the direction of the powers that it has been given. It cannot go beyond the scope of the law.

The challenge on most of these levels does not seem to be

1. finding the arguments that are effective or

2. finding the laws that are on our side

Both of those things exist.

The real challenge is finding the many people needed to argue these cases in court, and then also to change either the scope of what Judges can rule on, or who sits on those benches.

So it seems to come down to a "people" issue...much more than a statutory issue...

-

Some landowners are allowing the walls to be built.

The PROBLEM lies with the large ranches that need the rio grande for their cattle and they're fighting against any wall.

Creativity has nothing to do with it. Private property rights do.

Do you really believe that this government will not fight to keep the states from using Federal Land? In this issue? By the time that would get settled we'd have another 50 million sneaking in.

As far as thinking in legal terms........How about we find a way to sue the government, either or local/state/federal for using tax dollars to support these people. Sue for their refusal to uphold the rule of law?

Do you really believe that this government will not fight to keep the states from using Federal Land? In this issue? By the time that would get settled we'd have another 50 million sneaking in.

As far as thinking in legal terms........How about we find a way to sue the government, either or local/state/federal for using tax dollars to support these people. Sue for their refusal to uphold the rule of law?

Well on the first point,(even though I did use the illustration of the local landowner), what I was suggesting was rather than simply depending on the local landowner, that it is a much easier fight for everyone, if we can get a state government to take up that fight. They have the lawyers, and the budget to handle that kind of fight

But I agree that the solution is likely to be in the courts, and that the solution in the courts is far more likely to involve an INJUNCTION, something preventing the government from doing or implementing something UNTIL the case has been fully heard and adjuticated, if only because that is usually the fastest way to stop some government action or innaction from taking place.

But the challenge with most young movements (and the Anti Immigration movement is still very young, organizationally)- is that most of the people are willing to settle for one or two lawsuits and then WAIT AND SEE how they go...before they initiate others.

What we really need is around 300 lawyers to file lawsuits in the various states, on a coordinated level and who have other lawyers who can help them, and to keep filing them on every level.

First against the federal government for something,

then against the jugdge for violating their oath of office,

then against a state agency for failing to take appropriate remedial action to protect the people, etc etc.

so that every step the opposition makes is met by about 10 lawsuits on our side.

ANd that would swing the balance of the judiciary and the law potentially on our side.

GH