Guard Our Borders!

More on my previous post about the 14th Amendment from the Guard Our Borders blogburst:

Right now, if an illegal immigrant makes it across the border in time to have a baby, that child is automatically a U.S. citizen according to current law. Never mind that it's completely against the point of the original Constitutional amendment. We're dealing with "living documents" and all that, right moonbats? Freedom Folks explains.

This language was added to the constitution after the Civil War to provide protection against blacks being denied their rights as newly recognized citizens. The widespread abuse of this misinterpretation is a crime we have allowed to go on for far too long. It should never have been interpreted as an invitation to sneak into the country to give birth as a way of circumventing the process of legally attaining citizenship.

Apparently someone in Congress finally woke up and smelled the day laborers. Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) is sponsoring a bill that would deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. Well, God bless that man. May his tribes increase (especially if they end up being productive members of society).

Of course, something as 'radical' as limiting citizenship to actual Americans who have chosen to give their allegiance to the United States of America couldn't go without being panned by the pro-immigrant lobby.

"It would be just wrong for us to deny such a basic right to just this population," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, or CHIRLA.

By "this population", I'm assuming they mean people who get one foot over the border and then plop out a baby, to be raised and supported by the federal and state government at the expense of taxpayers who have this little thing called a job. Sorry, no sympathy here.

"It goes against a tradition of really integrating immigrants into our society in order to unify us as a nation, and what it actually does, it further marginalizes a whole community," Salas said.

Salas is missing the meaning of "integration". Integration is when someone legally enters the U.S., gets a job, learns the language, and calls themselves an American. They believe in patriotism. They understand the price of freedom, and that freedom is precious to them. To simply offer blanket citizenship, with all its rights and benefits, to people whose only goal in life is to be supported by Joe Taxpayer is asinine.

According to FOX, an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants are here. That's a lot of non-integration.

In related news, Bush is visiting Arizona and Texas today to talk about border security. I was pleasantly surprised--until I saw the focus of his visit.

White House aides say the president will make remarks pledging additional resources and the use of technology to secure the border. One concept he'll discuss is "interior repatriation," a term that means returning illegal immigrants from Mexico to the interior of their country, rather than returning them just over the other side of the border.

In other words, spend more money taking them back.

Let's pretend you own a ranch. You have a critter problem. Animals of all different species are coming on to your land. Once they get across your fences, they steal your food, make a mess of everything, tear up the landscape, frighten your family, and in some cases even hurt or kill your livestock. You put out some live traps, releasing the animals back into the wild to run free in their own environment. But you're seeing the same animals back on your property almost immediately. What do you do? Let them run rampant on your property, taking your resources and giving nothing in return? Your ranch would go under. And why should you support them, anyway?

Now, before you start getting all moonbatty on me and accuse me of calling illegal immigrants animals, rest assured that I'm not. However, the principle is the same. They don't belong here, in most cases they don't contribute anything to society, and they do nothing but take from the legitimate citizens of this country. This idea of "interior repatriation" is nothing more than a catch and release program. There is no real deterrent to illegal immigration. People are simply put back across the border to do it all over again.

Bush will also make another pitch for his temporary worker program, which has never really caught on in Congress.

Riiight. Temporary worker program? You mean "Legally Sponging Welfare in the U.S." program. Personally, I'd like to see that fence erected along the U.S.-Mexico border. Put one agent every mile in a guard tower with a pair of binoculars and a sniper rifle, with strict instructions to shoot on sight.

Many grandparents came over from Europe, worked hard, and chased the American dream with a shovel and a lunchbox, not two outstretched hands. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right. It should not be handed to you simply in recognition of your border-jumping-while-pregnant skills.
--------
This has been an installment of the Guard the Borders Blogburst, which seeks to promote awareness about the illegal immigration problem in the U.S. The blogburst appears each week at Euphoric Reality. if you would like to be a part of Guard the Borders, please send your blog name and URL to Kit.jarrell@gmail.com.

For the list of Blogs Already On Board, see Euphoric Reality (Blogrolling was really slowing down page loads today, so I removed the direct list from here).

Posted by: Ogre at 12:02 PM

Comments

1 Good post.
I just have to wonder if any response or comment on this subject from Bush was triggered by his current job approval rating.

Posted by: Tomslick at November 28, 2005 01:56 PM (xNjHI)

2 Thanks. If a presidential candidate for 2008 actually takes a firm stand on immigration, I bet they win -- no matter their party. I mean a real stand, promising a fence, deportations, and punishments for criminals. That's a winning issue and NO ONE will touch it.

Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 02:41 PM (/k+l4)

3 "If a presidential candidate for 2008 actually takes a firm stand on immigration, I bet they win"

I think you are right. And not only me.

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the "liberal" label and appeal to traditionally Republican states."

Bush is long overdue to take a stand on this. He can't continue to "give the farm away" and still call himself a conservative. The whispers are out there though. It seems some immigration policy changes are coming our way soon. And the sooner the better.

Posted by: Tomslick at November 28, 2005 03:20 PM (xNjHI)

4 Wow. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I would actually vote for Clinton if she honestly declared that she would start mass deportations and would build a fence. Of course, I'd have to believe her, which is nigh impossible...

Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 12:12 PM (/k+l4)

5 GASP - Don't ever say that. I almost fell out of my chair.
The Clintons are as shrewd as they come. They will say absolutely anything to get elected. Not that they are any different than the vast majority of politicians.

It just seems to me that even if HC would seal the borders, the forced march towards socialism would far outweigh any successes with the border policy.

Then again, our choices really suck. It is like voting for death by burning or drowning.

Posted by: Tomslick at November 29, 2005 01:22 PM (xNjHI)

6 Now that's a good one to remember at election time! Select one:

Death by burning (R)
Death by drowning (D)

Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 01:59 PM (/k+l4)






Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0088 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0067 seconds, 14 records returned.
Page size 11 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.