Recognizing American disdain for words like "communism" and "socialism," politicos adopted new names under which to market the exact same concepts, like "progressive" and "democracy."
You simply can't get Americans to openly accept communism or socialism, Marxism or Maoist philosophies. But many Americans will buy into the same concepts and policies under much more American sounding titles. The same is true of amnesty for illegal aliens.
Americans revolted against amnesty for illegals a couple years ago and many incumbent politicians are in political danger this year due to their past support of amnesty, such as John McCain.
"A pathway to citizenship" and "comprehensive immigration reform."
So, they have adopted a new marketing name for amnesty -- "a pathway to citizenship" and "comprehensive immigration reform." Illegal aliens don't like the existing legal pathway to citizenship, so they are demanding a new pathway to citizenship, via comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. It's much more progressive terminology, but it is amnesty just the same.
Amnesty is to forgive one of their crimes, free from prosecution or punishment. It's most commonly used in cases where numerous people commit the same crimes, and it becomes expedient to forgive them of those crimes due to the costs associated with prosecuting and punishing those crimes.
The United States has had a "pathway to citizenship" in place for more than 200 years. Millions of legal American immigrants have used that pathway, called immigration and naturalization. Any non-citizen from a foreign land can apply for legal entry into the U.S. -- by way of a Green Card, or temporary Work Visa or Student Visa. They can apply for and receive full U.S. citizenship, and the process is so simple that fourteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were actually in the U.S. legally.
Yet an estimated twenty million illegal migrants have chosen to ignore that legal pathway to citizenship and opt for what we used to call "squatter's rights."
Squatter's Rights "are a laymen's term for something called adverse possession in the legal world - And, indeed, one can lose their property through adverse possession, though it is an ancient law and not something that occurs often in today's world."
"The doctrine of adverse possession is one that discouraged disuse of property, thus, if property was abandoned, and someone else "squatted" on it for a number of years, the squatter could gain control over the land.- Under the law of adverse possession, however, it's not as easy as just pitching a tent on a piece of land and after a certain period of time has passed claiming that it is yours. Through adverse possession, someone must be on the land for a period of five to fifteen years, depending on the state. During that time, the person must hold the property hostile to the owner's rights - in other words, the person couldn't be there under the permission of the owner. The possession must also be open and notorious, i.e. the possessor is saying to the world, "This land is mine!" The possessor must also be holding the land exclusively for him or her self, and not for someone else."
In the case of illegal migrants, Mexicans largely coming across the southern border simply assert that their mere presence (squatting) on U.S. soil makes them a U.S. citizen, not under U.S. laws, but on demand, by way of adverse possession. "We're here, so you must give us legal status..."
However, we are not only a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws and our laws state that to be here legally, you must arrive here with our consent, by way of our laws, our immigration and naturalization process, our legal pathway to citizenship.
Our nation has the same right to control our borders as each citizen has to control the front door, the safety, security and sovereignty of their family home. To enter without the people's consent is against the law and is referred to as "breaking and entering." It is a crime.
Without secure borders, there can be no sovereign nation. Without the legal right to defend one's own property, there is no personal security or sovereignty, even within your own home.
People entering the U.S. illegally are no more "undocumented immigrants" than your run of the mill burglar is an "undocumented homeowner." In both cases, they are common criminals...
Yes, we understand that many from other parts of the world want to be American citizens and we understand why. If they are willing to enter America by way of American rules, and assimilate into the American culture, we have no real objection.
But when they enter illegally and attempt to change American culture by force, they are no more welcome here than a burglar is welcome in our home, nor should they be. If you think American immigration laws are unfair, I suggest you take a few moments to study
Mexican immigration laws and penalties for non-compliance.
This new "pathway to citizenship" being proposed by both Democrats and Republicans is just another form of "amnesty" for an estimated twenty-million illegal invaders allowed to enter the U.S. and demand rights as squatters.
The list of politicians pandering for the "Hispanic vote" via illegal migration and "a pathway to citizenship" is almost endless. At present, most Hispanics here illegally can't vote at all - And that's what drives the political desire for "amnesty" in one form or another.
- John McCain -- Arizona Senator (on record)
- Sarah Palin -- Tea Party Princess (on record)
- Dick Armey -- Head of Freedom Works (on record)
- Carly Fiorina -- California GOP candidate for US Senate (supports, but refuses to go on-record)
- Barack Obama -- Democrat President (on record)
- Nancy Pelosi -- Democrat House Speaker (on record)
We know why Democrats want amnesty for illegals and U.S. citizenship for Puerto Rico. Both groups represent potential labor union employees and/or future federal dependents, which means, future Democrat voters by the millions.
But why do so many Republicans also support amnesty for twenty-million illegal aliens, including some of the top national leaders within the so-called "conservative movement" currently winning primary elections across the country. - What does it mean to replace a pro-amnesty Democrat with a pro-amnesty Republican in the November general elections?
And why don't conservative voters realize that "a pathway to citizenship" is the same thing as "amnesty for illegals" by a different name?
Carly Fiorina has been repeatedly asked about her official stance on amnesty or a pathway to citizenship and has repeatedly refused to answer the question, stating -
"I don't think voters are going to tolerate a discussion of what we're going to do next until we do what actually has to be done, period," she said.
"So I'm not prepared to even discuss what we do next." --
In an interview with American Spectator
Fiorina, Armey, McCain and Palin seem to have found a tight-rope to walk between amnesty and deportation
Fiorina, Armey, McCain and Palin seem to have found a tight-rope to walk between amnesty and deportation. All state opposition to outright "amnesty" - but all also appear to support some new "pathway to citizenship" or "comprehensive immigration reform" which would allow illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. They also oppose any effort to arrest and deport illegal aliens, or in any way hold illegal migrants accountable to the rule of law.
In fact, despite how long Carly Fiorina has been a mover and shaker within the Republican Party power structure, she has masterfully managed to remain
off the record on pretty much every issue facing our nation today. It's hard for anyone to take issue with her issue positions when she has refused to state any issue positions...
That was Obama's 2008 campaign strategy and refusing to define "change" worked very well for Obama, until after the election.
Maybe both political parties think that millions of new taxpayers from Mexico and Puerto Rico will bailout the insane federal spending spree? Or maybe both parties now subscribe to the global government view wherein we have no national borders, national currency or national sovereignty?
These questions deserve answers. But one thing is true -- amnesty, a new pathway to citizenship and comprehensive immigration reform are all one in the same, and these things seem to be universally supported by both Democrat and Republican politicians, even though most American citizens including LEGAL immigrants - stand firmly opposed to all of it.
Arizona voters have forced state government to take enforcement of federal border security into their own hands, in the absence of any federal enforcement. States all across the nation will have to follow suit and take local responsibility for local and state immigration enforcement, as it is very clear that neither Democrats nor Republicans in Washington DC intend to enforce standing immigration and naturalization laws.
The people are on their own here, and state legislators must address the issue at the state level before illegal immigration leaves every state in financial chaos and an increasing cesspool of criminal activities.
With both Democrats and Republicans supporting some form of amnesty, the November election cycle is not likely to change anything regarding our current pathway to self destruction. Until our borders are secure, nothing in this nation is secure...
