The real issue is about federal supremacy, and whether or not the federal government should be able to force their will upon people, businesses, cities and States.
I almost titled this post "Death by Bureaucracy." The TownHall Meeting in Murrieta, California over the immigration issue last Wednesday Night at Murrieta Mesa High School was meant to be a good thing, but most of it was lip service, and half-truths. We are being told that the bureaucrats, Homeland Security, and the Border Patrol have no choice but to receive, process, and send illegal aliens on their way to whatever their destination is. To deport them all the way back to their non-Mexico places of origin is illegal, I have been told. Besides, helping them find wherever it was they were going is the humanitarian thing to do, we are told, because these people are refugees coming from places more dangerous than the United States, and it is our obligation to take them in, rather than deport them back to their deaths.
To refuse the illegal immigrants to infect Murrieta is to be non-compassionate. To refuse them to be dumped on the streets of our city is to be racist. To refuse them to spread their diseases throughout our population is to be heartless. Or at least that is what we are being told. The City Manager of Murrieta even went so far as to call the protests, and the rejection of the buses and turning them around to leave Murrieta, a "black eye" for our little town.
The City Manager, Mr. Dudly, and I had a two hour conversation way back in 2010 when he tried to convince me that he's a Jeffersonian. Through that interview, through the election I participated in that year where current Mayor Alan Long defeated me, and through bits and pieces ever since, I have learned that the Murrieta City Manager is all about politics, and he could care less about the truth, or what is really best for Murrieta. In short, his "black eye" comment was idiotic, shortsighted, and proof that Dudley is carrying the torch for the politicians that have refused to secure the border, and are destroying the sovereignty of the United States of America.
Murrieta is not a town embarrassing itself, but one that is standing up for itself, refusing to be destroyed by an unwanted incursion that overburdens the city with homeless people, and contagious disease.
The calls of racism, and the focus on the people crossing the border themselves, is a distraction. The protesters are being told they are causing a public relations nightmare. "You have to learn to say the right thing. You have to be more compassionate."
I get it. We are in a war of information, and perception. Don't hand the opposition rope they can use to hang you with. It makes sense. . . as long as promoting an appropriate perception does not mean compromising what I believe.
The issue has nothing to do with immigration. It has nothing to do with the humanitarian angle being used. It has nothing to do with racism.
As with every issue, the emotional cries of the liberal left is a distraction from what is really going on. In the end, it is all about government powers, and the federal government doing what it can to destroy any opposition to their leftist policies, and literally forcing its will upon any city, any State, and any person it decides to. To stand against the federal government is to be the enemy, and such opposition is met with cries of racism and ridicule.
At the showdown in Murrieta, the citizens are being labeled as white, uncaring, cruel, hateful racists. That is how the left works. They play on emotions in order to distract everyone from the real issue at hand.
The reason for us having an immigration policy, or at least one of the reasons, is for health screening. Ellis Island was created specifically in order to screen out unhealthy immigrants so as to protect the American population from outside disease.
Article I, Section 9 authorizes the United States Congress, after 1808, to pass legislation prohibiting certain persons from being able to immigrate into the United States, but the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to force the States to accept certain peoples, whether they are legally attempting to enter the country, or not. Article 4, Section 4 tasks the federal government with protecting the States from invasion, which is an unwanted incursion, and one of the necessary and proper actions required to fulfill that constitutionally authorized power is to secure the border. Article II, Section 3 demands that the executive branch "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
In an attempt to accomplish an ultimate agenda of control over people, cities, and States, the federal government has decided to take a lawless path.
By allowing persons to enter the country without going through the legal process in place as per our immigration laws that already exist on the books, we are placing our population at risk, and we are placing the people who have journeyed to come to this country at risk.
In Murrieta, where the immigration showdown has been all over the news of late, reports of tuberculosis, scabies, hand and foot disease, and other sicknesses are emerging. The legal process of immigration is in place to protect the populace from injecting sickness into our population.
The ultimate issue, however, isn't even about health. All of these things we have been talking about are symptoms and consequences of the real agenda. In reality, the immigration issue is concerning the same thing the gay marriage issue, abortion issue, Hobby Lobby case, and Arizona immigration law case, was all about. In the end these issues are not about the issue on the surface that the progressive left democrats use to throw in our faces, but a much deeper issue that stems from our history going back further than the forging of this nation.
Federal Supremacy. The ultimate issue is about federal supremacy versus State sovereignty. Can the federal government force the States through federal court case after federal court case to abandon legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman? Can the federal government force States to allow abortion in their State regardless of laws the legislatures try to put on the books, and regardless of the vote of the local populace? Can the federal government force a business to bake a cake for a gay couple even though it offends their religious principles to do so? Can the federal government force a hobby store to pay for abortion in a bottle (morning after pill) even though it goes against their religious beliefs? Can the federal government force a State to not enforce immigration law, and sue them over it, because to do so would be contrary to the federal government's refusal to enforce the law? Can the federal government force the City of Murrieta to accept illegal immigrants, tired, sick and homeless? Can the federal government use riot police to force the City of Murrieta to accept these immigrants against their will, as has been revealed regarding Monday's rally and newest shipment? Can the federal government ship these people in, whether the city population likes it or not, because of an influx of illegal immigration that has resulted from the federal government refusing to follow the Constitution in securing the border, prohibiting certain people from immigrating into the United States, and faithfully executing the immigration laws on the books?
The issue is not about the touchy emotional angle of the issues as we are told. It is all about whether or not the federal government can act legally as a tyranny, and force their will upon people, cities, States, and when it comes to immigration, on the City of Murrieta.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Murrieta News Statement by City Manager - Murrieta.org
Feds to bring in Riot Squad Against Illegal Immigration Protesters - Breitbart
Washington's PR Nightmare Continues in Murrieta as Residents Turn Back the DHS Buses Again - Canada Free Press
No comments:
Post a Comment