As we’re nowhere close to having an accurate estimate on how many illegal aliens have invaded the United States simply because they wanted to come here, there’s no telling what the scope of the problem will be after the next Republican assumes the White House. Obviously, there’s only one to date who’s made a concerted and effective effort to address the scourge, let’s dump this on Donald Trump.

The left said then and is saying it now: “We just can’t round them all up….”

Says who?

Maybe, we should give it a shot.

After all, despite the altruistic (and phony) overtures liberal make regarding illegals, like “sanctuary cities” and states, their true colors are often shown for all the world to see when the uninvited show up on their doorsteps. (see Martha’s Vineyard, New York City, Chicago, etc.)

No one specifically voted to allow our border to be opened to the world. No legislation was sincerely offered or passed by the Congress and/or Senate. It was a unilateral executive order Joe Biden signed two weeks into his presidency at the behest of activists and probably the First Lady in charge (you know, “happy wife…”). For the most part, Americans didn’t want more illegal aliens then and sure a hell don’t want them here now, but a Democrat has created another problem a Republican has to clean up.

For starters, the 14th Amendment needs to be repealed because we definitely don’t need millions of new anchor babies. Democrats accused Republicans of fear-mongering and pushing misinformation regarding the “Great Replacement Theory” where “imported” illegals would be eventually made citizens where they would be expected to vote Democrat and permanently change the electorate, thus country. Well, like most so-called conspiracy theories, this one is turning out to be true.

The 14th Amendment was initially introduced and passed by Republicans to redress slavery and make the offspring of slaves citizens to make it easier for them to assimilate into American society. Those offspring have been dead and gone for decade and the United States is one of the few (if not only) countries where a child of foreign nationals is granted citizenship in the country where he or she was born. The “anchor baby” magnet has long needed to be taken off the table. No time like the present.

And as far as “rounding them all up” because of the sheer numbers we’re now talking about, it’s not like illegal aliens will be hard to find. As of this writing, illegals are sleeping in the streets of many major metropolitan cities. The suburbs will be next. The pushback in urban communities is picking up. The latest crop of illegal aliens are not hard to find at all.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 makes in a civil violation to enter the country illegally, so the convenient use of “refugee” status should be suspended until this invasion is stopped and reversed. ICE and the Border Patrol should be empowered to immediately deport any illegal caught and given recent experience, the faux outrage and calls for compassion will be minimal.

The media will take any opportunity to call the appropriate removals inhumane. Screw them. None of them will sponsor an illegal of unvetted origin, so their bombast will also be easy to ignore.

But the United States is truly at a turning point. The Republican Party should be put on notice.

Biden opened the border to assure future elections will be more decisive for the Democrat Party. How better to achieve this than create millions of new loyal Democrats who will obliterate any possibility of a close election. The only thing Republicans need do is remove as many millions of the uninvited as possible.

Just round them up.

How hard is that?

Some are already waiting at the airport.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— United States Constitution, Amendment I

The “right of the people peaceably to assemble” is obviously interpreted today as the right to protest, but when that phrase is also referred-to in conjunction with the “right of association”, all fingers appear to point back to the 1st Amendment.

“It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech…. Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.” It would appear from the Court’s opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment.
— Find Law, Right of Association

So, it’s kind of settled that Americans have the right to be around people we like for a myriad of reasons, but nowhere in the straightforward language of the 1st Amendment does it say anything about protections from being around people we don’t. We’re subject to being around people we don’t like every time we leave the house. Granted, we can obtain restraining orders to keep people who’ve committed legally-proven degrees of unlawful activities against another person, but after that we kinda’ have to suck it up and have people around us we may not have chosen to be with.

While it’s easy to steer clear of people we may not want to associate with in public places, there are also places where a certain amount of tolerance is required. In a movie theater, a bar, a sporting event, the workplace, and Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner….

 
When it comes to the workplace, as long as people act in a professional manner and the tasks are completed to the satisfaction of the employer, all should be all well and good.

However, anyone who’s worked in Hollywood, Washington D.C., Silicon Valley, New York City, almost every education establishment, or anywhere liberals collect in large enclaves, there’s an unwritten rule that’s not so unwritten anymore: if you’re not a Democrat, you had best keep your ideology secret, or else. That “or else” can range from public harassment to termination, despite your not doing anything fireable.

Vince Vaughn faces liberal outrage after he was seen with Trump during national championship game

In some cases, that conservative and/or Republican can’t have anything that verifies his or her preference, even if not verbally stated. Social media posts can do-in a prospective Republican employee from gaining employment.

If you were to replace the words “Republican” or “conservative” in the paragraph above with “liberal”, “progressive”, “Democrat”, “black”, “woman”, “gay”, “handicapped”, “Muslim” etc., you’d be talking about serious social media backlash and the very real prospect of prosecution for civil rights violations.

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status and national origin.
— Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division

But for some reason, liberal Democrats feel empowered to discriminate against anyone they discover is a Republican, are free to verbally harass and even do anything and everything to get that Republican terminated. If they have any say in the hiring process, they have no problem not even considering a qualified conservative just because of who they support and vote for.

I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.
— Barack Obama, Elko, Nevada, 9/18/08

There are serious monetary ramifications for workplace discrimination. Aside from the tense atmosphere, blacklists are created and enforced with impunity. That can result in the obvious negative financial issues for someone who was one day gainfully employed and a valued employee to someone who now can’t find a similar job in their immediate industry despite experience and professionalism. Those ramifications include possible loss of car, home, marriage, and more; losses not considered when gleefully ridding the workplace of someone that doesn’t think the way tolerant liberals demand.

And let’s not forget the opposite when it comes to political discrimination: political nepotism and official favors for the obviously unqualified but well connected.

In many parts of the world, the children of powerful political figures go into business and profit handsomely, not necessarily because they are good at it, but because people want to curry favor with their influential parents. This is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. But for relatives of some prominent political families, we may already be talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
— Peter Schweizer

Political discrimination is NOT considered a civil rights violation because mostly liberal Democrats do it. It should be considered a criminal act way beyond protected political speech, especially when it’s used as a club far removed from the ballot box. The harm caused is more than hurt feelings but real world damage that can last days, weeks, even years while any recovery can be relatively disproportionate.

As it’s something he’s obviously experienced, hopefully this is something President Trump can address down the road.

UPDATE

If you think the environment in the federal workplace is bad enough, here’s something to contemplate should Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election….

Let’s break it down, just based on the very United States Constitution our politicians swore to uphold when they assumed their various offices.

The 1st Amendment is violated in that the entire process can start from a badly worded opinion on a social media post taken out of context or an argument with a family member that disagrees with your political views which can then escalate to legal actions based on speech.

Given current events and the tendencies of some to weaponize law enforcement purely for partisan yucks, it’s more than easy for anyone to sic the police on you, setting in motion a series of events that can get ugly and quick. It doesn’t even have to be some anonymous pro-Democrat family member or punk that can get you in trouble.

You take your kid in to the pediatrician and the pediatrician says, “Oh, there’s a history of mental illness in your family, and guns in your house! Hang on a minute while I call the authorities.” They call authorities, they come over, the red flag law’s in place, guess what? In this case, take your gun because you have a mentally ill child in your house. This is what they’re gonna do. Do not doubt me. This is the objective of red flag laws.
— Rush Limbaugh, 8/6/19

The possible scenarios are abundant and are only limited by the imagination and/or ill will of the provocateur.

The 2nd Amendment is violated by confiscating lawfully owned guns from law abiding citizens without due process.

Think about it: you have your rightfully purchased and registered firearm taken from you even if you didn’t do anything wrong.

Democrat dream scenario, we know….

“Red flag laws” now being proposed to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable persons will actually legitimize and institutionalize “swatting.” Such laws will enable anyone, anywhere, essentially to call down a police raid on another person, no matter how spurious the “evidence” of mental instability, for the purpose of seizing the “unstable” person’s firearms.
— American Thinker, 8/9/19

Lest you require a refresher, “swatting” is a so-called prank.

Swatting is an internet prank/crime where someone finds your address either through your IP or because your name and location is known. Then they call 911 anonymously and report a fake emergency. Example, someone can call and say that someone at that address is being held at a gun point or someone is going to commit suicide and a SWAT team would be dispatched to the address.

It’s becoming a trend, it is only a matter of time before somebody gets killed.
— Urban Dictionary

Very few have died as a result of being swatted, that is until the political mechanism got involved. Funny how that happens… again.

Doubts about the legality and Constitutionality of this should also be a no-brainer.

The 4th Amendment is violated through unlawful search and seizure, not only of the respondents home, but also of any place the government thinks the respondent may store firearms including the homes of neighbors and family members, violating their rights as well, all off of one court order.

It doesn’t take a consumer of lawyer or cop television shows to know that a warrant from a judge (or “probable cause”) is required to have any law enforcement official search your home or property. Depending on the state in which red or blue state you live, this could be quite problematic.

Red-flag laws typically allow petitions to a judge to temporarily remove a gun from someone believed to be dangerous. A temporary confiscation order is usually followed by a hearing at which the judge weighs barring the person from having a gun for a longer period.

In Florida, Rhode Island and Vermont, only law enforcement officials can petition for gun-removal orders, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Roughly a dozen states have adopted laws that empower household members to seek the petitions, while a few states also allow mental-health workers to do so.
— Washington Post, 8/8/19

Your right to self defense could be in the hands of a pissed off family member or hypersensitive social worker. Great….

An activist judge (not too fond of our 2nd Amendment) may be all too ready to take someone’s word, your door can be bashed in at any time of day or night and your home searched just because a person said something about you that raised (pardon the pun) a red flag and a judge gleefully bought it.

The 5th Amendment is violated in that the respondent is being deprived of liberty and property without due process of law.

You can be detained, arrested and jailed without any initial charges being filed against you. You could be accused of being unreasonable or potentially crazy.

Federal law has long prohibited the mentally ill from owning firearms. But that restriction does not come into play unless a person had been committed to a psychiatric facility, or a judge has ruled that the person is mentally ill. The state red flag laws have a lower threshold, generally requiring only that a judge find that a person presents a significant threat to himself or others.
— New York Times, 8/8/19

Have you noticed government only tends to make things easier when it comes to their ability to take action against citizens?

In this case, all based on the word of someone whose information may not have been verified for accuracy or under oath. This could all be set in motion via a rumor that’s acted upon from a judge on down to your local police.

The 6th Amendment is violated in that the respondent is not afforded the right to face their accuser or the right to due process before a warrant is issued and executed.

Depending on where you live, whomever ratted you out may have the benefit of having their identity protected while your world is turned upside down. Kinda’ sounds like a college campus tribunal.

The petitioner’s residential address, residential telephone number and workplace name, address and telephone number, contained within the records of the court related to a petition shall be confidential and withheld from public inspection, except by order of the court; provided, however, that the petitioner’s residential address and workplace address shall appear on the court order and shall be accessible to the respondent and the respondent’s attorney unless the petitioner specifically requests, and the court orders, that this information be withheld from the order. Such confidential portions of the court records shall not be deemed to be public records under the provisions of clause twenty-sixth of section 7 of chapter 4.
— Massachusetts, Chapter 123 of the Acts of 2018

Seriously, how fair is that? Then again, when it comes to politicians who’re under that “Do something!” pressure, fair is an acceptable casualty.

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 is violated through denying citizens liberty and or property without due process of law and denying equal protection of the law.

After your home is raided and property seized, you may be hauled into a jail cell and the next morning you find yourself in front of a judge.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you free of charge.
— Legal Dictionary

But guess what: when it comes to an accusation based on a Red Flag complaint, you have no right to legal representation if you can’t afford it. Say goodbye to Miranda rights, it turns out, you never had.

It would allow law enforcement to take away your guns and force you to attend a court hearing where you must prove you’re not dangerous to get them back. If you want legal counsel to help you defend yourself in this guilty-until-proven-innocent proceeding you’ll have to pay for it yourself. If you can afford it.

This would be a civil proceeding. Public defenders only work criminal cases.
— Minot Daily Press, 2/5/19

Ya gotta love loopholes that will be exploited by elites who are either connected or have money. Everyone else is screwed.

So, unless you’ve binge-watched every episode of Perry Mason, you’ll be representing yourself unless you can personally afford a lawyer and as we all know, they ain’t cheap, the pro bono ones can be problematic and not readily available on short notice.

Like most gun confiscation legislation, the main targets are those who have yet to break the law. Those who break the law, especially aided by firearms, are not mentioned in this current national discussion.

One would think those on the Republican side of the aisle; those who claim (especially during campaign season) to support and defend our 2nd Amendment, would have every reason to oppose Red Flag laws for the very easy enumerated reasons stated above.

If they DO support Red Flag laws, they should be reminded of their Constitutional oaths while we look for an alternative candidate who’ll take that oath a little more seriously.

h/t For more on Red Flag Laws, visit Patriots vs. Tyrants

Univision anchor Jorge Ramos argued that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower frequency than U.S. citizens, and the vast majority of illegal immigrants in America are just people trying to create better lives for themselves and their families.
— Fox Insider, 2/13/17

Aside from the sheer fallacy of that statement, try robbing a bank and once caught, argue that you were only trying to make a better life for your family and see how far that gets you.

Lawbreakers and their pundit advocates are in our face telling how much we need them and their employers are insisting their hiring of illegals makes our lives that much better.

Instead of the bleeding hearts who live in states with a lesser infestation, talk to residents of affected border states on how illegal aliens have affected their lives. It’s seldom a culturally-enriching experience.

There are many laws regulating the entry into the United States, who is financially responsible for anyone sponsored, the antiquated 14th Amendment which was ratified in 1868 as a redress to slavery making the offspring of slaves automatic American citizens and now being abused creating “anchor babies”, and the untold number of under-educated illegals who are allowed to remain here and commit crimes because politicians shirk their Constitutional duty to protect the American people.

Let’s not forget what kind of “immigrants” we’d like to enter our nation and what’s expected of THEM, coming from a respected Democrat….

Despite the popular talking points, no one from another country has a right to enter the United States just because where they’re coming from sucks. We are under no obligation to admit people just because certain special interest groups want them here. We are under no obligation to embrace their cultures because it’s racist to expect them to embrace ours and it should be a crime that the American people are forced to pick up the tab for those who believe it was their right to violate our border and commit additional crimes so they can stay and “work” here.

For those who believe a #DayWithoutImmigrants is something we should support, why not make it a week or a month?

We can survive without those closed businesses and now that we’ll know who they are, we can avoid them and frequent businesses that observe the rule of law.

Thanks for the heads up!