Thread: Are the illegal immigrant marches a form of terrorism ?

Millions of illegals continue nationwide marches, angrily demanding "their rights" and indimidating our own elected politicians who are supposed to represent the rights of legal Americans. Could these marches be looked at as a form of domestic "terrorism" ?

I agree that there is no blatant violence per se but this still fits the various definitions for "terrorism" posted online in dictionaries and other sources.

Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,”

"terrorist • a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

"Interestingly, the American definition of terrorism is a reversal of the word's original meaning, given in the Oxford English Dictionary as "government by intimidation". Today it usually refers to intimidation of governments."

"The United States defines "international terrorism" as activities that:
1. involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
2. appear to be intended:
a. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
b. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
c. to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and
3. occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. (50 U.S.C. § 1801(c))"

"Separatism : During much of the 20th century, the term terrorism was primarily applied to nationalist movements of various types. Most of them were separatist movements, seeking to create a new independent nation-state on the territory of a larger, existing state."

And lastly the word "treason"
"1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
Article III, Section 3, of the federal Constitution sets forth the definition of treason in the United States. Any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given." (No, we cannot call Mexico our "enemy", but the invasion of its illegal immigrants has had the tendency to weaken and divide our country).

"The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution." (How fortunate for the politicians who espouse amnesty).

JustSayNo:

"The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution." (How fortunate for the politicians who espouse amnesty).

Well, actually I think we are in a war...actually two of them....so the Treason Clause does apply to our current times of war period, doesn't it?

Yes, I truly believe that these marches are a form of terrorism because the message is, "We are marching now, but if we don't get our way you can't be sure of what we will do". They are meant to intimidate.

And...Preisident Bush is intimidated.

Bush is easily intimidated. He talks tough, but when it comes to the walk part, he always wants someone else to do that part.

He has been the biggest disappointment.

We could have gotten so much good stuff accomplished with my party in the White House and in control of both houses.

We could have done sooooo much to solve poverty, clean up our environment, rebuild our industrial base with new exciting products that make us more efficient and healthy, improve life in the United States.

But, no...none of that, just illegals, illegals, illegals.

But, no...none of that, just free trade, industry out, free trade, industry out, free trade, industry out.

But, no....none of that, just more people, less industry, more debt, less money; war and foreigners.

Why?

Intimidation if nothing else. I feel threatened. My way of life, my country as I know it, my future...

"The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution." (How fortunate for the politicians who espouse amnesty).

I believe this falls under the clear and present danger clause is iam not mistaken. It is used during a declaraton of War in order to enforce.

T[/quote]

"The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution." (How fortunate for the politicians who espouse amnesty).

I don't read the treason clause that way at all, where did you find that? To 'war' against the states to me is to do anything against them. The federal courts overturning Proposition 187, the Alabama Amendment for English as the primary language and the attempts by the state of Texas to deny free education to illegals, IMO are ALL acts of war against the states that prohibited their Constitutional right to a republican form of government.

Of course these marches are terrorism. How else would they be defined??

MJ

Originally Posted by Judy

JustSayNo:

"The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution." (How fortunate for the politicians who espouse amnesty).

Well, actually I think we are in a war...actually two of them....so the Treason Clause does apply to our current times of war period, doesn't it?

People immigrating from Mexico are not involved with our current war. Since Congress has not declared war on Mexico, I see no need to apply the term "treason" in a technical sense. However, I would be quick to use the term "traitor" in refernce to people who assist in the process of illegal immigration in any way.

I would not hesitate at all to call this terroism as a matter of fact that was the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw these people demanding things of our government. threatnening our way of life and down right disrespecting averything American. I feel they have even made a mockery of our flag.