Thread: Who Voted to Bring 33 Million Immigrants North?

by Rich Tucker
29 May 2015

Americans pride ourselves on being people who have a government. But these days, it more often seems as if we’ve got a government that has people.

And that government is even selecting who its people will be, having–within a generation–essentially imported a state’s worth of new people through immigration.

Since 1970, the number of “Hispanics of Mexican origin” in the U.S. has jumped from fewer than 1 million to more than 33 million. If all these Mexicans were a state, it would be the second largest in population in the country, trailing only California.

Did you vote to approve that immigration policy? Did anyone? In fact, the federal government allowed it to happen without any voter input. That’s by design.

In recent years, Congress has attempted to draft legislation to deal with illegal immigration. And while the controversial “Gang of Eight” bill passed the Senate in 2013, it died in the House after one of its authors withdrew his support. Immigration is a difficult topic, one that will require difficult discussions.

Instead, the Obama White House would prefer to short-circuit the political discussions.

“America cannot wait forever for them to act. That’s why today I am beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress,” President Obama warned last summer. After the November elections, he acted to grant amnesty to millions of illegals.

In February, a federal judge put a hold on that policy while he determined its legality. The administration admits it went right on ahead, issuing 2,000 more waivers. Now, an appeals court has upheld the stay. But the White House says it will press ahead.

“[T]he administration’s enforcement priorities, including our focus on deporting felons and not families, and many other executive actions on immigration continue to move forward,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters this week. “It would be a shame if an issue so critical like this became mired in a political dispute.”

But Schultz has it exactly backward. If our representative system of government means anything, it should mean that the people have a say in the big issues facing our country.

It’s precisely because the issue is so important that it deserves to be a subject of political disputes. It’s through the political process–in the presidential and congressional elections of 2016–that voters can finally have a say in the nation’s immigration policy. We’ve already waited far too long.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...igrants-north/

Rich Tucker, shall we review a bit of history. The people were ignored now for 14 election cycles, or the people have not given the politicians a message about immigration and aliens for 14 election cycles. You say the voters can have a say in 2016, that is seriously doubtful, I see no evidence that will happen. Show me some factual evidence.

I want to be very clear, I do not advocate violence, but patriots need to ask them selves:What do we do when elections fail to make a change? Conservatives are inherently cowards. They always want to take the nice peaceful, “responsible”(and cowardly way to affect change).

If our Founding Fathers were alive today, after the failure of peaceful elections to make a change, they would be marching on Washington D.C. with guns and give the government an ultimatum to either yield to their demands or have a full violent rebellion.

Again I am not advocating violence; I am asking patriots to ask themselves what do we do when we win elections and nothing changes? What are we willing to do to confront the enemy who controls our government?

Originally Posted by csarbww

I want to be very clear, I do not advocate violence, but patriots need to ask them selves:What do we do when elections fail to make a change? Conservatives are inherently cowards. They always want to take the nice peaceful, “responsible”(and cowardly way to affect change).

If our Founding Fathers were alive today, after the failure of peaceful elections to make a change, they would be marching on Washington D.C. with guns and give the government an ultimatum to either yield to their demands or have a full violent rebellion.

Again I am not advocating violence; I am asking patriots to ask themselves what do we do when we win elections and nothing changes? What are we willing to do to confront the enemy who controls our government?

I believe the enemy works in and is part of our government. We need a President who will fire them. We need a President who supports the FairTax so that when we're not happy, we cut back spending, which cuts back government revenue until they change whatever is bothering US. We need a President who has common sense, intelligence and an unwavering loyalty to the American People. If we can't find one like this by 2016, then we're in very very very big trouble.

Presidents cannot fire Congresses. Congresses can fire Presidents, but don't. Congress has not functioned from an interest in advancing American citizens since the last deportation ordered by Ike. We need a peaceful delegation made of approximately 50 citizens from each of 50 states to call upon Congress. While that delegation is occupying the present powers, an armed delegation of 1,000,000 Americans needs to be gathering at the Washington monument. No suggestion of war or violence should be voiced. Show of strength is the goal. When/if Congress resists the 2500 common sense delegation, part the drapes to expose the 1,000,000 back-up delegates. Purpose is to only emphasize the show of strength.

That is the last chance to win on an either/or option. That opportunity needs to be exercised prior to or during primary season, 2016. That 2016 election, pphhht, another hopeful exercise in futility. No reasonable candidate yet in that race. Conservatives, as made clear by Rush Limbaugh on Thursday, when he said legal and illegal immigration is hurting America, are always a decade or two behind what is reality. There is nothing to gain in the election, without a very powerful demonstration that we ARE at wits end prior to the General election.

Here is another option for you with me, show me where elections have made a positive measurable difference on this issue in the last 10 elections.

My practice of patience has taught me this, and no one can back me down. I am sickened by the deaths and rapes, etc. that our government as elected has wrought upon other Americans caused by open borders! Apparently many Americans condone that as demonstrated by elections that elect the same parties that brought us to sacrificing sovereignty. Grrr.

It has been a very long twenty-five years! My patience has been exhausted and the years very disappointing in America!

Originally Posted by Jean

Schultz has it exactly backward. If our representative system of government means anything, it should mean that the people have a say in the big issues facing our country.

It’s precisely because the issue is so important that it deserves to be a subject of political disputes. It’s through the political process–in the presidential and congressional elections of 2016–that voters can finally have a say in the nation’s immigration policy. We’ve already waited far too long.

There is almost no media coverage about illegals that's done from an American point of view.

In July of 2014, The Christian Science Monitor reported that the first lady of Guatamala, Rosa Leal de Perez, said that there was no upsurge of violence in Central America. The mainstream media should have leaped on this. 'Bama & Co. were lying. The actual media response: stonewall it.

Now 'Bama & Co. are going fly these kids in, so that they won't have to put up with dangerous travel conditions.

And thru all of this there has not been one word from any 'Bamacrat or any member of the Repub leadership about the situation of our own foster children. These kids have higher-than-normal rates of dropping out, and being incarcerated. But 'Bama wants to lock up the votes of Undocumented Democrats, and the Repub leadership wants to give their big money donors the additional surplus labor that will keep the donors' profits up and wages down.
************************************************** *
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade