David Horowitz: Democrats are the party of hate

A guy who commits a burglary every day or two has the unenviable fate of living in fear that his crime(s) will be detected and punished.

An alien who entered this country illegally can, and should, have the same type of concerns.

I can't comprehend the hand-wringing argument often made by cheese-eating progressives that "no one should have to live in fear of being deported."

Why not?

I mean, like, ****, why should I have to worry that the police may come in and arrest me for breaking and entering, trespass, or whatever, just because I'm hanging out in some guy's crib that I just busted into? I mean, like, even if I haven't stolen anything yet, ya know?

It just aint no damn fair, I tellya!

I agree that there has to be a process, but there has to be a better way than the current one. A person or family should be able to go online or a local consulate and start the process, a statement of intent if you will, and the next stop should be a boarder where they are issued temporary IDs, put into the system, and given further instructions with a fixed timeline of when things will occur. It shouldn't take lawyers, thousands​ of dollars, and YEARS to work through the process.

Exactly. We need a much better (easier) process for legal entry into the country, whether for work visas or any other reason. When the legal system is many times more difficult than illegal entry, I'm pretty sure what's going to happen.

Well, Rog, ya know, stealing that high-end BMW I got my sights on would be a lot easier than earning the money to pay for it, so.....

I guess that's why modern cars have so many anti-theft devices built into them. Kinda like a big-ass wall, ya know?

Humph! I'm dreading the thought of buying a new car. I want to use a KEY to open the door, and I darn sure don't want a little knurled knob to shift gears.

Let's face it--it's probably just not humanly possible to deport every illegal alien currently in this country.

And, even if it were, so what? Deporting someone is kinda like telling a bank robber that if he robs 10 banks, and then gets caught, he'll have to give the money back that he stole from the one where he got caught.. Not much an incentive to refrain from robbing banks, eh?

How many times have we read stories about alien child-rapists, murderers, drunk drivers, etc. who have already been previously deported 8, 10, 16, or 20 times? Deported? No biggie, I'll be back next week.

Until we can control our borders, deportation is pretty meaningless.

In that regard, I don't think a wall will do that much good. We need to line the Rio Grande with layer after laying of mines, beginning at the centerline. We need drones flying over the border area 24/7 that will bomb the **** out of any illegals spotted within 50 miles of the border. We need to blow any unauthorized plane flying over the border out of the sky.

We won't "deport" you if we catch you here illegally, we'll just snuff your sorry ass on the spot.

A few months of that, giving time for the word to get around, and I think the number of aliens illegally entering this country will decrease drastically, know what I'm sayin?

In fairness, we should give the illegal aliens already here sufficient advance notice of the drastic consequences they are facing. Give them 6 months to liquidate any real estate holdings they may own and otherwise wrap up their U.S. affairs then haul ass back to the country they came from.

After that, all assets they own will be confiscated and their sorry carcasses will be buried in mass graves. Their choice, ya know?

Hell, while we are at it let's bomb the prisons too. We can put hanging posts back up outside the courthouses to deal with those found guilty...maybe Class C Felony and above? We can also use drones to patrol neighborhoods. See a break-in...BAM....dealt with, speeder...BAM, fight...BAM.

Sooner or later we'll have a Utopia of only good citizens, right?

Well, Tibbs, if you're against the death penalty, you could opt for life imprisonment, I guess. Point is that there must be some penalty for violating our laws, and not just a free plane ride home so that you can visit your relatives there, then head straight back to the USA.

As a matter of international law, illegally entering the airspace of a foreign power is deemed to be a violation of sovereignty and subjects the offender to the legitimate risk of being shot down.

Likewise, people crossing your border and invading your country in droves numbering in the millions can be viewed as an "act of war," and meeting them with machine gun fire would be warranted.

But, as one pundit noted, we don't call it an act of war anymore. We just call it a Democratic voter registration drive.

It's not clear here if you're talking about new immigrants, those already illegally here, or both.

But, either way, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that, by merely applying, an applicant should immediately and automatically be given a "temporary ID."

There are probably many millions of impoverished Mexicans (to name just one country) who would like to re-locate to the U.S. and be given tons of free ****.

For the radical La Raza types, it's not a matter of "relocation" at all, though, so that makes it even more inviting. In their view, the Southwest U.S. is NOT the USA. It is Mexico, and Mexicans have every right to cross the (illegitimate) borders at will. There are merely moving around in their own country when they head into Arizona, California, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, etc.

It is not only inviting, it almost a patriot duty for Mexicans to re-populate their own country and kill all the hated Gringos who have illegally taken up residence there.

Even the stupid-ass Gringos know their presence is illegitimate. That's why they will, among other things, use taxpayer money to pay the legal fees incurred by illegal aliens who want to insist on their right to remain in their own country.

At least in my home state African Americans top the list in welfare and poverty, so........

Furthermore, folks that are not here legally are pretty much unable to obtain social benefits like welfare, food assistance, etc. MOST that are here illegally got into the country legally they just didn't leave. I'm not saying that it isn't wrong, I just think there is a better way to deal with them than punting them back across the boarder or blowing them up with drones.

Somebody that came into the US legally, stayed longer than they should, started a family, worked, bought a home, sent their kids to college...these are the folks we need here bolstering our economy and helping pay for the folks on welfare (I refer back to my first sentence).

We, as a country, have plenty of home grown people soaking up welfare. The number of illegal immigrants pales in comparison and is a tiny fraction of the problem.

I'm not responsible for layman's posts and as I've already explained, I'm not going to start policing conservative content in this forum.

I don't know what "supporting" layman means.

I don't agree with everything he writes but as far this topic goes I largely do. That's immaterial though. Ignore him or don't; that's up to you.

Kinda strange that Max announces his eagerness to "discuss the issues," but refuses to answer a simple question concerning them, eh?

I've seen this from him many, many times before, unfortunately.

Nice try, cheese-eater. The 10th amendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution," are reserved to the states (or to the people). These are the so-called, "State's rights."

If there is any area of law which/where the constitution clearly delegates the exclusive power to regulate and legislate to the the feds, then immigration law is surely one of them.

What is either ill-informed, hypocritical, or both, is your implicit claim that the constitution even arguably gives the states the right to regulate immigration.

Just curious: Are you "slinging mud" when you falsely and inappropriately call conservatives "hypocritical?"

I accept that Finn.

What do you think of Layman's comparison of "illegal immigration" with bank robbery and with invasion? Neither of these arguments make very much sense to me.

The big difference between illegal immigration and bank robbery is that banks don't derive any benefit from being robbed. There are no bank employees or bank customers who want bank robbery to happen, and no one not involved in the robbery who benefits. This is quite a bit different from illegal immigration; farmers and tourism businesses desperately need the labor, churches want to protect family members, and parishioners and family members and the American citizens in many communities are rising up to protect these "illegal" immigrants politically, financially and legally.

Of course the differences between an invasion and immigration are even greater. We invaded Iraq with cruise missiles, tank shells, and M1s. The image of our Marines going into Iraq to do landscaping, cook and take care of their children is ridiculous.

This is worth quoting again.

As usual you miss the entire point, eh, Max? You want to quibble over details, while ignoring the point.