Quote from: quiller on March 31, 2015, 06:35:48 AM
If we cannot rely on voters to term-limit our elected criminals, there's always this thought, from the Rev. G. K. Chesterton....

That's the best and quickest fix yet!   I was just too chicken to post it.   

Quote from: quiller on March 31, 2015, 06:35:48 AM
If we cannot rely on voters to term-limit our elected criminals, there's always this thought, from the Rev. G. K. Chesterton....

Works for me.

Quote from: zewazir on March 31, 2015, 02:21:14 AM
Which is basically the point I am making. In fact I made the point about feds not being able to do anything about state laws twice. And got called a koolaid drinker for it.

We can enforce federal laws (assuming we can elect a large enough congressional majority of true conservatives), and we should. But doing so will be shoveling back the tide with a teaspoon as long as states like commiefornia continue with their laws that literally bribe people to risk their lives to come here and F up our economy.

IF we want to be able to address the problem of illegal immigration WITHOUT a continual heavy economic drain, we need to get rid of all laws which bribe people to come in, and strengthen laws which encourage them to use the legal route to U.S. residency and/or citizenship. But that can not happen only at the federal level.

Meanwhile, anything even remotely resembling anything that distantly approaches amnesty will simply increase the problem by a couple orders of magnitude.

Frankly, I haven't a foggy clue what to do about anchor babies, since the Constitution itself defines them as citizens.  Do we take them away from their parents and send the parents packing? That's a hell of a harsh solution.

"Frankly, I haven't a foggy clue what to do about anchor babies, since the Constitution itself defines them as citizens.  Do we take them away from their parents and send the parents packing? That's a hell of a harsh solution."

I will just comment on this portion of your argument. Anchor babies and their parents are a challenge. Yes, it would be harsh to send the parents back and the "hand wringers" would play the victim card. Here is my suggestion. The parents can stay, but would not be eligible for citizenship unless they follow existing immigration procedures. Secondly, these people would not be eligible for any government assistance. Then, if they want to stay - fine. However, don't commit a felony or the ass is back to their originating country.

Quote from: keyboarder on March 31, 2015, 06:48:06 AM
That's the best and quickest fix yet!   I was just too chicken to post it.   

And who, madam, shall we hang first? Dare I suggest the first two hundred we catch? ANY two hundred?

Quote from: Solar on March 31, 2015, 02:09:01 AM
Z, I know what you're saying, even agree. But passing new laws, because the old ones are being ignored or intentionally broken, is not gong to solve anything.

I say roll back 70 years for reasons of simplicity, because along the way, the laws have been relaxed or totally changed governing Fed assistance to states with an illegal problem, encouraging bad behavior, all thanks to the GOP assisting the Dims.
The so called two party system created this problem, and expecting them to fix it is an attempt at insanity.

We must purge the perpetrators in the party, as we are currently doing. Once that happens, you'll start to see some sanity return to govt.
As it stands, Boner and the Con are not doing the job they were elected to do, in fact, quite the opposite, when at every turn, fight the people over the border issue.

Does that sound like a govt that wants to fix our illegal immigration issue?

What you call "rolling back" I call change. Matter of semantics, except I believe we need even more strict penalties for violating immigration laws than existed 70 years ago - especially against employers who employ illegals to cut labor costs.

Of course, this is all an exercise in rhetoric, since we need a majority, maybe even a super majority of honest conservative politicians in both houses of congress, as well as majorities in several state legislatures before anything will change for the better. That will take time, and in the mean time we will continue to see the current batch of tyrant wannabes using their various "protected classes" like the tools they allow themselves to be in order to propagate their agenda against the Republic.

TEA is making a difference, and I am proud to be an active part of it. But, I'll admit, sometimes I wonder if we can do enough, soon enough.

Quote from: zewazir on March 31, 2015, 12:02:26 PM
What you call "rolling back" I call change. Matter of semantics, except I believe we need even more strict penalties for violating immigration laws than existed 70 years ago - especially against employers who employ illegals to cut labor costs.

Of course, this is all an exercise in rhetoric, since we need a majority, maybe even a super majority of honest conservative politicians in both houses of congress, as well as majorities in several state legislatures before anything will change for the better. That will take time, and in the mean time we will continue to see the current batch of tyrant wannabes using their various "protected classes" like the tools they allow themselves to be in order to propagate their agenda against the Republic.

TEA is making a difference, and I am proud to be an active part of it. But, I'll admit, sometimes I wonder if we can do enough, soon enough.

The laws are there but what do you do when you have a president and an AG that refuses to follow them? Why not make the AG office an elected position as it is in most states? Holder could never have stood for reelection on his record! 

Quote from: redbeard on March 31, 2015, 01:48:11 PM
The laws are there but what do you do when you have a president and an AG that refuses to follow them? Why not make the AG office an elected position as it is in most states? Holder could never have stood for reelection on his record! 

Hah! Based on his record, Obama should never have been elected, either, let alone reelected. Yet here we are....

And, yes, SOME laws are there. But not only are they ignored by those whose oath is to uphold them, they are, IMO, also not harsh enough. Especially those portions that describe the penalties for infraction. For instance, I would peg the fine for hiring illegals at $10,000 per worker, per day. That would make eve the larger employers think twice about risking their business if they get caught. The current penalties can't even be described as a slap on the wrist. (IF, of course, they are enforced at all...)

Quote from: quiller on March 31, 2015, 11:16:38 AM
And who, madam, shall we hang first? Dare I suggest the first two hundred we catch? ANY two hundred?

LOL, just stand at the door of any local Walmart and pick them off. 

Quote from: keyboarder on April 01, 2015, 06:11:56 AM
LOL, just stand at the door of any local Walmart and pick them off.

Let's focus on the elected criminals first. But anyone wanting to shoot the coyotes who guide wetbacks to us, it's got to be a blessing.

Quote from: zewazir on March 28, 2015, 09:29:18 AM
OTOH, maybe We, the People need to offer a definition of what is wrong with the immigration system that results in ten times as many choosing to bypass it as actually go through the system. And in doing so, maybe we can also define the proper solution set.

Why do the People sit around waiting for the PTBs to define our problems, thereby limiting possible solutions to what the PTBs want?

Because with the exception of most here, most Americans look to their elected leadership to "fix" these "problems".

And that's the huge problem right there. The people sit by and wait for these politicians to fix the issue, all the while their representatives to the Congress do any old thing they want.

Take Pelosi for example. How on Gods earth does a woman who tells the American people, we have to pass a bill into law in secret, before the people can know what's in it?

There was a time when that would have ended her career politically.

But nope instead, she's re-elected....

What immigration laws?  Instead of them crossing the border illegally, we are now going to go pick them up.

State Department To Fly Central American Children Into US

QuoteThe State Department and Department of Homeland Security will administer the program, which is a response to the flood of Central American children making dangerous journeys to illegally cross the U.S. southern border.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/01/state-department-to-fly-central-american-children-into-us/