The solution to the immigration problem is simple, but the leftists have the Republican Party in such a political monkey-style crap throwing contest that the reality of the simplicity of the issue evades them.
The steps are easy:
- Enforce existing immigration laws on the books.
- Secure the border.
- Quit giving illegal aliens free stuff.
The liberal left will start screaming about the children, both coming to America, and the ones brought here outside their own choice. Yeah, yeah. When I broke my wrist, I didn’t ask the doctor to tend to the scrapes on my knuckles, first.
Let’s break down my three steps, using the United States Constitution, for those of you that can’t seem to understand how the solution could be that simple, or that legal.
1. Enforce existing immigration laws on the books.
Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to prohibit certain persons from immigrating (migrating) into the United States. That is the main clause in the Constitution that serves as a basis for our immigration laws (aside from Article I, Section 8 where Congress is given the authority to ensure all naturalization laws are uniform). Notice that it does not say the Congress can force States to take certain people if they are here illegally. Sure, once the person goes through the legal process to be a legal resident, Article IV. kicks in, namely “full faith and credit” and where “citizens” of each State “shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
When Arizona began enforcing immigration law, do you know what happened? Illegals stopped pouring into the State.
2. Secure the border.
Article IV., Section 4 of the United States Constitution tasks the federal government with securing the border by enumerating that the “United States shall. . . protect each of them [States] against Invasion.” The obvious takeaway from that is that it is the federal government’s duty to secure the national border in order to protect the States from invasion. Very straight-forward. Most advanced nations in the world have stricter immigration laws, and border security, than we do. The southern border of Mexico is strictly enforced, strictly patrolled, and the penalty for being caught illegally entering into Mexico using that southern border is quite severe.
We must be reminded, regarding both enforcing immigration laws, and securing the border, in Article II, the President is also tasked with ensuring that “he take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Therefore, refusing to execute the immigration laws that are on the books, as they are written, is an unconstitutional (illegal) action by the President of the United States. In the days of the framers, that kind of maladministration would be an impeachable offense.
3. Quit giving illegal aliens free stuff
Dry up the giveaways, and the drain on the taxpayers, and the flow of illegals, becomes a trickle. Sure, there are better opportunities here in America, and those that wish to pursue those opportunities are welcome to come to the United States to pursue those things. Free stuff is not only not the American Dream, but I must ask, “Where in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to impose its agenda on localities, including with welfare style programs? There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to be giving gifts from the national treasury, especially to non-taxpaying illegal aliens who broke the law to be in this country in the first place. As for those of you who want to use the General Welfare Clause for your argument – wrong answer. That is a misrepresentation of the original intent of that clause. In reality, allowing illegals to come into the United States and disrupt our nation as this issue has is a disruption to the general welfare of the republic, so in truth, illegal immigration violates the General Welfare Clause.
The law-breakers that are crossing the border illegally are attracted to the free stuff. They are not the people that are the best these countries to our south have to offer. The border-jumpers are the failures, the criminals, and the people who can’t make it in society wherever they came from, so they are coming here for the free stuff. In other words, we are pulling in the rejects that have been dragging down other societies, and those countries are glad to off-load them on us.
Remember, also, that the immigration laws in place are there for a reason. They are not there to be cruel, or racist, but to protect the receiving population. All people who support legal immigration and desire the flow of illegals to stop are asking is that these people are screened, and those that are carrying infectious disease, have criminal records, or are linked to gangs or terror groups, be denied entry. That’s all. Folks that stand against amnesty and illegal aliens being given red carpet treatment don’t hate illegals, and we aren’t angry at them. We are angry at the federal government, because by refusing to screen these people by using the immigration processes that already exist on the books, the federal government is placing our children, our communities, and our own health, at risk. The liberal left always scream, “What about the children?” I am simply asking, “What about our children?”
Enterovirus D68 has been ripping through our children’s health in 46 States, emerging after all of these illegal alien kids were welcomed into our country without a screening, no questions asked, and integrated into our school systems. Is not the health of American children a concern?
Legal immigration equals screenings, which equals protecting the receiving population. I think that is not a lot to ask. The solution is simple.
Taken from Canada Free Press.
Wind firm sues to block release of bird-death data
A company that operates at least 13 wind-energy facilities across three states is suing in federal court to block the U.S. government from releasing information to The Associated Press about how many birds are found dead at its facilities.
Pacificorp of Portland, Oregon, is seeking an injunction in U.S. District Court in Utah to prevent the Interior Department from releasing information it considers confidential. The Obama administration has said it planned to turn over the material to The Associated Press, which sought it from the Interior Department in March 2013 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. The government concluded that the industry’s concerns were “insufficiently convincing” to keep the files secret.
The information the AP sought was part of its larger investigation into bird and eagle deaths at wind farms and the administration’s reluctance to prosecute the cases as it advocated the pollution-free energy source. The AP asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for data collected under federal permits given to companies to collect the carcasses of protected bird species, including eagles and migratory birds, found dead at their facilities.
Using documents, emails and interviews with former wildlife officials, the AP in articles published last year documented more than four dozen eagle deaths in Wyoming since 2009, and dozens more in California, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Nevada. Corporate surveys submitted to the federal government and obtained by AP showed at least 20 eagles found dead in recent years on Pacificorp wind farms in Wyoming.
The wind energy industry has said more birds are killed by poisoning and collisions with cars, buildings and electrical wires.
Wind energy companies objected to the AP’s efforts to uncover more information about the numbers of bird deaths. The companies said the information was confidential, submitted voluntarily and should not be revealed under the government’s open records law.
Last month, the government informed Pacificorp and other companies that within days it intended to release some information to the AP. It said the harm the companies cited from the information’s release was “too general” and “insufficiently convincing” to prevent its release.
The lawsuit, filed Oct. 17, said the disclosure will cause “irreparable harm” to Pacificorp, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. In the complaint, the company said withholding the information is in the public’s interest because it will ensure “open communication” between such companies and the government.
A Pacificorp lawyer told the AP the company does not comment about pending litigation.
Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet’s wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.
And guess who owns PacifiCorp? Why, Warren Buffet himself!
Since 2006, PacifiCorp has been a wholly owned subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings, itself an affiliate of Berkshire Hathaway. PacifiCorp is currently headquartered at 825 N.E. Multnomah Street, Portland, Oregon, in the Lloyd District. Pacific Power is also headquartered in the same building. Rocky Mountain Power and PacifiCorp Energy are headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.
The Real Story on China Climate Change Deal: We Make Changes Now, They Wait Until 2030
President Obama has announced what he calls “an historic agreement” in a climate change deal with China. In his commitment to reduce carbon emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels, the president iscommitting Americans to higher energy prices, a weaker economy and a lost competitive advantage.
China’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is akin to a pledge from a broke, addicted gambler to his bookie to pay later. China is telling the United States to make the economic sacrifices and restrict its energy use now, and China will start reducing its emissions beginning in 2030. A few thoughts on why this is a raw deal for both countries:
- China’s gross domestic product per capita has increased from a little more than $300 in 1990 to almost $7,000 today (which still isn’t that much). The use of carbon-emitting conventional fuels has been a staple in such rapidly accelerating growth. Despite the claim that China will peak its carbon dioxide emissions more than a decade and a half from now, there’s no proof China will have a true inclination then to curb economic growth to restrict climate emissions.
- China’s lack of intent to tackle true environmental problems should be a red flag to this commitment. For instance, consider the black carbon soot problem from burning coal that China won’t tackle. If China won’t even continually use scrubbers to handle the soot problem because of the restraints it would impose on industrial productivity, despite the direct adverse health impacts, why should it be trusted to reduce a nontoxic, colorless, odorless gas?
- Where’s India’s seat at the table? By the time China peaks its carbon emissions output, India likely will have overtaken China as the most populous country. Even if climate change were a problem, China’s commitment would still have only a marginal impact on global temperatures.
- China and India have hundreds of millions without access to electricity.The commitment and pressing issue for these developing economies should be to give their people a better standard of living, not reduce carbon emissions.
- Economic growth and affordable, reliable energy are a priority for the people living in China, but action on climate change is simply not. The United Nations’ “My World” survey has more than 5.18 million votes submitted from nearly every country and territory around the world. Individuals are presented with 16 issues and asked to select the six that “are most important for you and your family.” Dead last among the choices was “action taken on climate change.” Action taken on climate change also was least important to individuals in the least developed countries. Much higher (fourth) was reliable energy at home.
- Plenty of valid reasons exist for why action on climate change ranks at the bottom. Climate models used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others predicted accelerated rates of global warming. But the conditions scientists have actually observed don’t match up with those predictions. Even as carbon dioxide emissions around the world have increased, average global temperatureshave plateaued for the past 18 years. The climate is changing, as it always has, but the risks are proving to be exaggerated, the models flawed and the excessive regulations to restrict energy use will come with significant costs and insignificant environmental impact.
As China commits to carbon emission reductions far into the future, the Obama administration is unilaterally imposing regulations that will drive up energy bills for American families and businesses today.
Along with the federal government’s war on coal, Obama is planning to use more executive orders to regulate aspects of the economy and limit individual choice under the pretense of addressing climate change. It’s far past time for our elected officials to stand up and prevent the federal government from implementing these economy-squeezing regulations.
Hillary Clinton porn….