WHO SAYS WE CAN’T DEPORT 11 MILLION PEOPLE?

How many times have we heard the statement “We can’t deport 11 million people,” my question is why not? There is no one saying that deporting 11 million illegal aliens has a time limit. If it takes one year or five, what does it matter, if we start now in five years they will be gone.

Enough is enough; the more that amnesty is given, the more they will come, if we don’t stop it now in five years they will be saying, “We can’t deport 18 million people.” The flood gates are open on our southern border and people are sneaking in from all over the planet, if you think that Muslim Terrorists have not sneaked across, think again.

Lawmakers from Border States, including Cruz and McCain, have said the threat from ISIS requires beefing up border security. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry has said ISIS terrorists may already have crossed into the U.S. Of course the Obama administration refuses to accept the fact that terrorists have crossed the boarder. “We don’t have any credible information, that we are aware of, of known or suspected terrorists coming across the border,” says a senior official in the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence and analysis office.

Just like there are illegal aliens who sneak across the border undetected, you can rest assured that a terrorist or two have done the same thing. This president seems to be determined to attract as many foreign invaders has he can, borders mean nothing to Obama, everyone is welcome, terrorists, murderers, pedophiles, let them all in and give them all green cards.

Meanwhile, illegal aliens have killed, raped, and maimed thousands of Americans, in America. How many times have you heard on the news another illegal alien killed someone while driving drunk, or has shot someone to death after being deported and sneaked back in across the border?

read more:

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/03/who-says-we-cant-depor...

Views: 1038

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree! And all jobs should be available for American citizens and LEGAL immigrants only. No illegals should hold any job in the USA when Americans are out of work. Illegals also should not receive any service or benefit at the expense of tax paying citizens.

How would you go about apprehending, detaining, and deporting 11 million people? How would you make sure that those 11 million are able to restart their economic lives in their native lands? (If they can't, they will just try to get back in!).

We did it back in the 50's.  It was called operation Wetback, we rounded up millions and sent them back.  We surely can do it today.  Anyone who does not speak English is gone.

Does that mean no more McDonald's because half to 2/3 workers can't speak english.

works for me!

Do we ship all the black teens also?Well anyhow go ahead.We cant understand them either.

As Confucius wisely said, Every journey begins with a single step. The first step is to secure the border so the can't easily get back in.The second step is to end sanctuary cities, with a gun at the head of their politicians if need be.  The third step as Jason K points out below is to cut off any benefits they get from being here, The next step is to round up those who are still here, one at a time, then two at a time, etc. So what if it takes a long time. And since they were here illegally in the first place the consequences of being sent back are theirs to bear. Don't try to foist off guilt on we the victims. That is what the left does.

See you guys never watched Ducktails.In the words of Scruge McDuck work smarter not harder.Let them deport themselves,Cut off every medical,dental,cash assistance,food stamps.Housing.We also wont need a wall that would cost millions because they wont come back.And as for the drug smugglers.With the money saved hire more border patrol.And also shift the inside border patrol to their real duties AT the border.Not 80 miles from it.When America no longer gives sweet milk and it becomes sour then why would anyone come here?

When was the last time you didn't go to a store and see the list of translated countries of origins listed for an intepreter?It's sad when We have to hire people to talk to people who chose not to learn English.

Deniseln AZ is right, Ike sent a combat general after the ''wetbacks" he rounded up a  million or so, and those in the shadows so to speak, got so nervous, that records show that aprox. fifty thousand went home on their own. All it takes is the American people to stand up together and tell Washington we won't take this anymore.Believe me it wouldn"t be that hard to find these illigals and send them packing. But first we must secure our Southern border,if we don't it will all be in vein.

HERE HERE!

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service