- This topic has 21 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 4 days ago by .
-
Posts
-
The phrase “undocumented immigrants” is a deceptive euphemism
that was invented by the anti-Jewish Marxists and Socialists,
who always attack Israel, and always help Israel’s genocidal terrorist enemies.This deceptive euphemism was popularized with lots of help from:
President Barack Hussein Obama, the Marxist/Socialist news media,
Marxist/Socialist college professors, Marxist/Socialist Hollywood celebrities,
and the Marxist/Socialist branch of the Democratic Party (“The Squad”).The correct phrase is “ILLEGAL ALIENS”, because
the correct phrase always was “ILLEGAL ALIENS”,
before the Marxists and Socialists changed the English language,
as part of an effort to promote their evil destructive goals.“Migrant Crisis” is another deceptive euphemism that is often used
by the anti-Jewish Marxists and Socialists, who always attack Israel,
and always help Israel’s genocidal terrorist enemies.The word “migrants” correctly refers to people who enter the USA
temporarily or seasonally, usually to work at low-level jobs
like harvesting crops, then they go back to where they came from.The USA does not have a “Migrant Crisis”;
the USA has an ILLEGAL ALIEN crisis.Please use correct vocabulary; do not give a verbal victory
to the anti-Jewish Marxists and Socialists, who always attack Israel,
and always help Israel’s genocidal terrorist enemies.The anti-Jewish Marxists and Socialists also hate American Jews.
If they were able to, Marxists and Socialists would order the police
to not protect Jews and to not arrest people who attack Jews.If they were able to, Marxists and Socialists would confiscate
ALL possessions of ALL American Jews, including: real estate,
bank accounts, cars, stocks, bonds, and EVERYTHING.If they were able to, Marxists and Socialists (including Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez and her allies) would create an America where Jews
OWN NOTHING, and Islam is the only religion tolerated by the government.“Undocumented” is just a polite way of saying “illegal aliens”. No human, these days, is ever undocumented. Even if you wash up on the shore naked, the cops who pick you up will give you a document. “Undocumented” means improperly documented.
“Illegal” is problematic since that is something determined by a court. Am American court may rule that the “undocumented” person may in fact stay (e.g if the person turns out to be a citizen or a refugee). Calling an improperly documented person “illegal” is similar to calling a person accused of (and perhaps falsely accused) a crime, a “criminal”.
“Immigrants” or even a “wannabee immigrant” reflects that most of the “illegals” (“undocumented”) wish to stay and become Americans. While the situation is different in other countries, those who are “illegal” tourists or “illegal” temporary workers are not perceived of as a problem. In fact many “illegals” in the United States are really “tourists” (who overstay their visa, and get employed without proper authorization) or persons who plan to work in America and then return home (remember America has a labor shortage, and pays relatively high wages).
The word “alien” is also a problem since over the last 50 years it has acquired the meaning of “person from another planet” so calling someone an “alien” implies they are not really human. Note that most other languages have no word for “alien” other than the word for “stranger” or “foreigner”, e.g. זר in Hebrew, or étranger in French.
What does this have to do with socialism or Marxism? Marxism focuses on class struggle. A Marxist looking at the issue would say that the American proletariat opposed immigration because it reduces wages, whereas business owners and employers favor immigration since it increases the pool of workers resulting in lower wages, and often higher productivity. Socialist countries rarely have a problem with undocumented immigration since very few people want to live in socialist countries, and most of those attempting to move to the United States are in fact fleeing socialist countries and desire to exploit capitalism to get rich without government interference (something the Democrats seem to ignore).
We could have used “undocumented immigrant” to refer to the initially legal immigrants who overstay their visas in contrast to the ones who entered illegally from the onset. However, nobody makes such a distinction, so I agree with just sticking to illegal aliens.
“The USA does not have a “Migrant Crisis”;”
Debatable. It’s hard to judge the relative appropriateness of how many people they let in legally since it’s mixed with so many illegals right now. We might also be overdoing legal immigration. The people who live in cities in Minnesota taken over by legal, Muslim immigrants would probably say we DO have a migrant crisis.
@Squareroot
No, you do NOT remember correctly.
Article 2 of the US Constitution lays out the powers of the President and nowhere does it state one word about the president being required to secure the borders of the USA.
The word border does not appear at all.
The President’s power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors with the advice and consent of the Senate it what give the President control over foreign policy (why the State Department is part of the Executive Branch).I’ve taught Constitutional Law for decades and been a lawyer for half a century. Your level of understanding of Presidential powers would fail 11th grade US History in any mediocre public high school
@Ex-CTLawyer- if I’m not mistaken the power of the president via executive actions seems to grow by president.
I’m sure this is not what the founding fathers had in mind, but it is what it is.I don’t think you can argue that policies of Biden resulted in the migrant crisis due to him stopping Remain in Mexico.
Just look at the difference in the number of illegal immigrants during his term and Trumps.Never mind my previous post.
I just reread Square Roots comment and I see I missed the part where he wrote that it’s in the constitution that the President is responsible to secure the border.@amom
In carpentry they teach to measure twice and cut once (avoids mistakes and waste). You read a post quickly and incorrectly and attacked me wrongly.
Square Root will not own up and admit the Constitution does not order the President to secure the borders as he posted. That is a falsehood.My post is not for or against any individual who occupies the Presidency, it is about honesty and accurately stating what is in the Constitution. I put my bona fides out there and Square Root cannot refute the truth.
@SquareRoot
And what dithers crimes have to do with your false claim that the Constitution requires the President to secure the borders???????Sidestepping the issue, time to be humble and admit you posted something that is false.
I am not defending any person or party but don’t tolerate false claims about what words are inthe US Constitution
amom > power of the president via executive actions seems to grow by president.
right. A big part of it is that FEDERAL powers are growing covering things that used to belong to states. With so much on their plate, congress is not capable of dealing with all issues. Congress is supposed to be creating general laws for the country by coming to a country-wide consensus, not regulations for any minor issue. No surprise, they are failing at this job. Then, naturally, the President gets a chance to do executive orders.
Thus, getting things back to states is the way to deal with Presidential overreach. It is not only makes thing “local”, it also creates competition between states, giving people choices under which laws they want to live.@AAQ
Foreign relations has always been the Roman of the Executive Branch of the Federal W as specified in the Constitution, never the States
The Constitution states that all powers not specifically assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the states (States Rights), but the Feds use thing such as carrot and stick to get control: want Highway funds we can set speed limits, etc.
Private college takes federal dollars for research, scholarship, hello requirements for Title 9 compliance, same for day schools taking Federal money for school lunch programsForeign relations – of course, but colleges and day schools is red herring: they depend on federal money because Feds took our money and now give it to colleges and schools. States should be able to provide scholarship for poor students, both schools and colleges. I am not against federal funds for research, primarily because I am nogea b’davar 🙂
@AAQ
Although this is off topic to my reply to Square Root’s false claim about a President being constitutionally required to protect the borders; your comment about states being able to provide scholarships requires a reply.States can and do provide scholarships.
For example, CT made two years of community college free to every US citizen graduate of high schools in the state. They did this by requiring students to file the federal Fafsa (student aid application) and accept all applicable grants, no loans and then the state grants scholarship for the rest of the tuition and fees costs and book allowance. There is no room and board for commuter schools. By requiring the use of Fafsa which is only open to US citizens no state scholarship money is granted to Illegal Aliens.
This Liberal has no problem using that term.There are other state scholarships granted in the State university system, but not for a full ride
ExCTL, currently majority of financial aid comes from federal source. It is great that CT uses FAFSA here. There are other state that explicitly provide student aid for illegals. I have no problem with that, it is up to the voters of the state. A side of effect of central powers given to Feds is also that state powers became weaker and there is less competition, leading to most seats being non-competitive. Bring more power back to states, and the passions invested in electing a president will convert into local elections.
Btw, current presidency advertised their upgrades to FAFSA (and then failed to make the site work). There was one change that affected Jews among others – “family index” changed to “student index”, that is they are not taking into account other children in the family being in college at the same time. This was _not_ heavily advertised. We just bunched up 3 college students at the same time and felt good that we can finally fill out FAFSA but then saw what it does… I wish we had a first amendment that would let newspapers tell us what the government is doing to us…
@SquareRoot
Grasping for draws. Admit you are wrong.
Article 4 of the Constitution is not about the powers anc obligation of the President/Executive Branch.Ex-CTLawyer: Given that the Constitution does NOT give the President the ability to set policy on immigration, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts around DACA. This was implemented via Executive Order by Obama, and it directly contradicts current US law. Do you think it’s unconstitutional?
Presidential authority to limit immigration seems to come from Section 1182 that was first authorized for WW1, then extended to national emergencies
from congressional research service, Feb 2024:
current version of Section 1182(f) authorizing the President to suspend the entry of aliens or classes of aliens if such entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States derives from the initial passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in 1952.e Supreme Court has understood Section 1182(f) to convey broad authority to the President to limit the entry of aliens into the United States. In the 1993 decision Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., the Court upheld the validity of an interdiction program established by President George H. W. Bush through Executive Order No. 12,807, which was based on the authority under Section 1182(f). According to the Sale Court, “[i]t is perfectly clear that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) grants the President ample power to establish a naval blockade that would simply deny illegal Haitian migrants the ability to disembark on our shores.” In the 2018 decision Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 1182(f) as granting broad presidential authority to suspend the entry of aliens
@DaMoshe
DACA, not a fan and did not support President Obama’s decision.
At the time I did not feel it would be ruled unconstitutional.
With the current makeup of the Supreme Court it could be ruled such.With the current court all progressive programs might be ruled unconstitutional I believe the current court is composed of judicial lightweights who are pledged to party and appointing power, not the Constitution
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.