Should we send this to the White House?
Should we send this to the White House?
Mods, feel free to remove if neccesary......
I am not trying to stir up any fires under anyone's belly, just something I saw and thought was interesting.....
I am not trying to stir up any fires under anyone's belly, just something I saw and thought was interesting.....
Last edited by dirtyd88; Oct 14, 2009 at 08:39 PM.
I've heard & read that Mexico's southern border is hard as hell to break through. I personally think we should set up land mines, and scan the ground for tunnels. Once a tunnel is discovered, insert a tiny nuke (that way there is residual radiation) & blow it sky high.
1) no argument here.
2) no problems here, either.
3) Is this really a problem?
4) Already a law
5) Federal: Already a law. State and local: Violates 10th amendment of constitution.
6) No problem. My guess is that this is already in place, but illegals are using falsified documents to get services. This won't help that.
7) If foreigners want to give me money, it should be my choice whether to accept or not. Keep the government out off my business.
8) Ditto. I'll sell my property to whoever I please.
9) Violates the first amendment. Civil rights apply to both citizens and non-citizens in the USA.
10) OK, but aren't there better uses of our law enforcement? My taxes are high enought without funding a bunch of illegal alien "seek and deport" squads.
2) no problems here, either.
3) Is this really a problem?
4) Already a law
5) Federal: Already a law. State and local: Violates 10th amendment of constitution.
6) No problem. My guess is that this is already in place, but illegals are using falsified documents to get services. This won't help that.
7) If foreigners want to give me money, it should be my choice whether to accept or not. Keep the government out off my business.
8) Ditto. I'll sell my property to whoever I please.
9) Violates the first amendment. Civil rights apply to both citizens and non-citizens in the USA.
10) OK, but aren't there better uses of our law enforcement? My taxes are high enought without funding a bunch of illegal alien "seek and deport" squads.
Trending Topics
I'm generally in agreement with most of it, but item #6 cannot be implemented as things stand right now.
President Ronald Reagan signed into law the right for ANYONE to receive emergency health care, regardless of income or immigrant status. That law, passed in 1986, is still on the books. It will have to be repealed.
Gosh - maybe we'll have to admit that President Ronald Reagan wasn't so "perfect" after all. And yes, we'll have to concede that President Obama WAS lying - possibly to protect the good name of President Reagan? After all, it WAS a Republican president who got is into this mess of providing health care to ANYONE.
So, let's just acknowledge that President Reagan screwed up, repeal the law, and move on.
If the laws are good enough for Mexico, they're good enough for me!
- Jack
President Ronald Reagan signed into law the right for ANYONE to receive emergency health care, regardless of income or immigrant status. That law, passed in 1986, is still on the books. It will have to be repealed.
Gosh - maybe we'll have to admit that President Ronald Reagan wasn't so "perfect" after all. And yes, we'll have to concede that President Obama WAS lying - possibly to protect the good name of President Reagan? After all, it WAS a Republican president who got is into this mess of providing health care to ANYONE.

So, let's just acknowledge that President Reagan screwed up, repeal the law, and move on.
If the laws are good enough for Mexico, they're good enough for me!
- Jack
I'm generally in agreement with most of it, but item #6 cannot be implemented as things stand right now.
President Ronald Reagan signed into law the right for ANYONE to receive emergency health care, regardless of income or immigrant status. That law, passed in 1986, is still on the books. It will have to be repealed.
Gosh - maybe we'll have to admit that President Ronald Reagan wasn't so "perfect" after all. And yes, we'll have to concede that President Obama WAS lying - possibly to protect the good name of President Reagan? After all, it WAS a Republican president who got is into this mess of providing health care to ANYONE.
So, let's just acknowledge that President Reagan screwed up, repeal the law, and move on.
If the laws are good enough for Mexico, they're good enough for me!
- Jack
President Ronald Reagan signed into law the right for ANYONE to receive emergency health care, regardless of income or immigrant status. That law, passed in 1986, is still on the books. It will have to be repealed.
Gosh - maybe we'll have to admit that President Ronald Reagan wasn't so "perfect" after all. And yes, we'll have to concede that President Obama WAS lying - possibly to protect the good name of President Reagan? After all, it WAS a Republican president who got is into this mess of providing health care to ANYONE.

So, let's just acknowledge that President Reagan screwed up, repeal the law, and move on.
If the laws are good enough for Mexico, they're good enough for me!
- Jack
10) OK, but aren't there better uses of our law enforcement? My taxes are high enought without funding a bunch of illegal alien "seek and deport" squads.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Since the amendment mentions "people", rather than "citizens", it applies to all within our borders. Those rights that are specific to citizens (such as serving in Congress or as the president (natural-born only)), are explilticly stated in the constitution. For free speech, it is very plainly written that there can be no laws whatsoever that prevent free speech ("shall make no law"), with a few limited exceptions, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.I'm not saying that illegals shouldn't be deported; after all, they are here illegally, and the law is the law. I do have a problem with the "actively hunted" part of the statement. It makes me think of goon squads going to every brown-skinned person on the street demanding to look at their papers. I don't have a problem with law enforcement checking for citizenship or immigration status during traffic enforcement (as one example), as that's part of enforcing the laws of this country. Also, I think that employers should be held more accountable for only hiring people who are authorized to work in this country.
It's because the first amendment doesn't give the right to free speech, it prevents congress from limiting speech:
I'm not saying that illegals shouldn't be deported; after all, they are here illegally, and the law is the law. I do have a problem with the "actively hunted" part of the statement. It makes me think of goon squads going to every brown-skinned person on the street demanding to look at their papers. I don't have a problem with law enforcement checking for citizenship or immigration status during traffic enforcement (as one example), as that's part of enforcing the laws of this country. Also, I think that employers should be held more accountable for only hiring people who are authorized to work in this country.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Since the amendment mentions "people", rather than "citizens", it applies to all within our borders. Those rights that are specific to citizens (such as serving in Congress or as the president (natural-born only)), are explilticly stated in the constitution. For free speech, it is very plainly written that there can be no laws whatsoever that prevent free speech ("shall make no law"), with a few limited exceptions, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.I'm not saying that illegals shouldn't be deported; after all, they are here illegally, and the law is the law. I do have a problem with the "actively hunted" part of the statement. It makes me think of goon squads going to every brown-skinned person on the street demanding to look at their papers. I don't have a problem with law enforcement checking for citizenship or immigration status during traffic enforcement (as one example), as that's part of enforcing the laws of this country. Also, I think that employers should be held more accountable for only hiring people who are authorized to work in this country.





