Republicans are furious that President Barack Obama has decided to grant what they consider unconditional amnesty to millions of illegal aliens living within the United States.
But they don’t agree about what to offer as a counter-proposal.
Here is one suggestion.
If Americans decide they truly want to control access to their own borders, there is a realistic way to accomplish this.
“Undocumented immigrant”–illegal alien–entering the United States
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities who have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former District Attorney Kamala Harris–now California’s Attorney General–created a secret program called Back on Track. Its purpose: To provide training for jobs that illegal aliens cannot legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony.
(3) Indicting such officials would be comparable to the way President Andrew Jackson dealt with the threat South Carolinians once made to “nullify” any Federal laws they didn’t like.
Jackson quashed that threat by making one of his own: To lead an army into that State and purge all who dared defy the laws of the Federal Government.
(4) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(5) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least twenty years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.
(6) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(7) The United States Government–from the President on down–should scrap its apologetic tone on the right to control its national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should we.
(8) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language: English.
In Mexico, voting materials are published in one language–Spanish.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish.
(9) Those who are not legal citizens of the United States should not be allowed to vote in its elections.
In Mexico, those who are not Mexican citizens are not allowed to participate in the country’s elections.
The Mexican Government doesn’t consider itself racist for strictly enforcing its immigration laws.
The United States Government should not consider itself racist for insisting on the right to do the same.
(10) The United States should impose economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, ATTACK ON RABBIS IN JERUSALEM SYNAGOGUE, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CIVIL WAR, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HUFFINGTON POST, ISRAEL, JERUSALEM, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TERRORISM, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE PRINCE, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, WILLIAM TECUMSEH SHERMAN
BE FEARED, NOT DESPISED
In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 26, 2014 at 12:02 amScreaming “Allah akbar!”–the Islamic battlecry, “God is Great!”–two Palestinians wielding meat cleavers and a gun slaughtered five worshippers in a Jerusalem synagogue.
Three of the dead were Americans holding Israeli citizenship. Four of them were rabbis.
Eight people were injured—and one later died—before the attackers were killed in a shootout with police.
Aftermath of the attack on unarmed rabbis in a Jerusalem synagogue
The attack—launched on November 18—was the deadliest in Israel’s capital since 2008, when a Palestinian gunman shot eight people in a religious seminary school.
And how did Palestinians react to the grisly murders of five unarmed worshippers?
They celebrated:
Palestinians celebrating the attack
And how have Israelis responded to this latest atrocity?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the demolitions of the homes of the attackers.
The blunt truth is that Palestinians have no interest in preventing such attacks on Israeli citizens—because Israel hasn’t given them any.
Blowing up houses only takes out anger on lifeless buildings. Those who lived there are still alive—and able to seek revenge in the future.
As Niccolo Machiavelli once warned: But above all [a ruler] must abstain from taking the property of others, for men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their inheritance.
But there is an alternative which Israelis must almost certainly be considering at this time.
Its purpose: To instill a sense of civic responsibility—however begrudgingly—in their Islamic citizens.
Every time such an atrocity occurs, Israel could deport at least 10,000 Arabs from its territory.
Suddenly, Arabs living in Israel would have real incentive for preventing such attacks against Israelis. Or at least for reporting to police the intentions of those they knew were planning such attacks.
“Hey,” they would think, “if Abdul blows up that police station like he said he wants to, I could get sent to a refugee camp.”
The odds are there would be s sudden influx of Arab informants to Israeli police stations.
Machiavelli, the 15th century Florentine statesmen, carefully studied both war and politics. In his most famous—or infamous—work, The Prince, he advises:
Niccolo Machiavelli
From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved than feared, or feared more than loved. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved.
For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger and covetous of gain; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours: they offer you their blood, their goods, their life and their children, when the necessity is remote, but when it approaches, they revolt.
And the prince who has relied solely on their words, without making other preparations, is ruined; for the friendship which is gained by purchase and not through grandeur and nobility of spirit is bought but not secured, and at a pinch is not to be expended in your service.
And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligations which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Machiavelli knew–and warned–that while it was useful to avoid hatred, it was fatal to be despised. And he also warned that humility toward insolent enemies only encourages their hatred.
Accompanying this is the advice of perhaps the greatest general of the American Civil War: William Tecumseh Sherman.
Sherman, whose army cut a swath of destruction through the South in 1864, said it best. Speaking of the Southern Confederacy, he advised: “They cannot be made to love us, but they may be made to fear us.”
Israelis will never be able to make its sworn Islamic enemies love them. But they can instill such a healthy fear in most of them that such atrocities as the recent synagogue butchery will become a rarity.
Share this: