The ACLU is wonderful, NOT!!

[WhaddaDeal006]

Waiting for the Amazing Race to come on, I'm watching 60 Minutes for the first time in ages...

Civil rights/liberties/etc. are very important, but organizations such (and especially) the ACLU are (for the most part) Anti-USA. They skew their views of the constitution and law and fight for the people on the wrong side of issues. They are now claiming that by (one town specifically) not allowing businesses and landlords to hire/rent to illegal immigrants is not legal. I'm not sure what should be done with immigrant status and how to become legal, etc. But, if they are illegal, they should not be allowed to stay (without following whatever steps, if any, are enacted to allow them to stay) in the city/state/country and especially receive tax payer assisted programs--short of the expense to deport them. And agree with it or not, I thought all of this allowing people into our country without using the proper channels was really frowned upon after 9/11?

It seems that the ACLU almost always goes with the side that is wrong for our country. Perhaps that do some great things (I don't care enough for them to give them that much of my attention), but with their "big profile" cases, they tend to be on the wrong side. Maybe we could pass legislation that bans them from our country as well?


This issue is not about whether the USA's immigration policy is what it should be. Imagine it this way: a poor young mother goes into a store and steals food for herself and baby. Even if you understand why she does it, it still would not be right. On the other hand, another mother under the same circumstances follows the proper channels and applies for WIC/food stamps and is legally provided with the same food the other mother stole. Clearly, this person followed the law and is well within her right and is not breaking the law. There are ways to enter this country legally/properly. Again, I am not an immigrant specialist (again, this issue has nothing to do with immigration policy), so I don't know what they are, but I know everyone must follow these procedures to be welcome and allowed to be in our country.


LOL....and in reference of a previous topic about an ID needed for voting, the ACLU probably would argue that you shouldn't need an ID because it would discriminate against illegal aliens from voting

[mrbowler]

I've never gone thru all the positions the ACLU has on various issues, but from reading various press releases I find that on some issues I support the arguement they present, and on others I think they are full of it. I tend to agree with you on the landlord issue. Looking back on history I believe that the ACLU corrected(was correct) in regards to Chinese Exclusion Act or how about Americans of Japanese Descent that were interned in camps until the end of WWII.

[katlnhats]

Hi,
Though you almost have to bring illegal immigration into this. What's to stop a terrorist from crossing the border, along with a bunch of illegal workers? Not a thing... .

Kat

[Freedom Lover]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

Hi,
Though you almost have to bring illegal immigration into this. What's to stop a terrorist from crossing the border, along with a bunch of illegal workers? Not a thing... .

Kat

If terrorists crossed the border into the US, it is far more likely they would cross the border from Canada, not from Mexico.



[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]


Remember, a staunch critic of the ACLU Rush Limbaugh turned to the ACLU when he had legal/drug issues. The ACLU protects your liberties, and fights to answer the tough questions. Remember the old saying "when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out". The ACLU is there to speak out. Someone has to.

[katlnhats]

Hi,
Canada - true.
Mexico - also true.
Why give terrorists more places to cross over, and add illegal immigrants to that ratio?
ACLU - "American" Civil Libertys Union, not other countrys, and that's what it's become.
I'd love to see it gone, along with the UN, who've both outlived their time, as once they both were relevant to our society, I and this is just my opinion, don't feel that they are as of the here and now.

Kat

[Freedom Lover]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

Hi,
Canada - true.
Mexico - also true.
Why give terrorists more places to cross over, and add illegal immigrants to that ratio?
ACLU - "American" Civil Libertys Union, not other countrys, and that's what it's become.
I'd love to see it gone, along with the UN, who've both outlived their time, as once they both were relevant to our society, I and this is just my opinion, don't feel that they are as of the here and now.

Kat

It does seem that the UN has become recently a forum for people to spew falsehoods in order to justify a pre-emptive war, but that is another matter.

I have not heard of one "Terrorist" attempting to enter through the southwestern deserts. On the other hand, "Terrorists" have been apprehended entering the US through Canada, and through traditional travel methods like airplanes.

I speak from knowledge and official government reprorts. A terrorist is FAAAAAAAAAAR more likely to enter the US via airplane or through Canada. Period. Build the wall to the north, not the south...

For the unenlightened to what I call "the great Canadian Threat", please read the book Cold Terror. A description of this excellant book from Amazon.com:

HOW CANADA NURTURES AND EXPORTS TERRORISM AROUND THE WORLD

This critically acclaimed book exposes how Canada became home to many of the world's deadliest terrorist organizations. Canada's lax laws and lack of vigilance have put its neighbors and the world community at risk. Award-winning journalist Stewart Bell draws on classified intelligence documents, front-line accounts, exclusive interviews with senior counterterrorism officials and the victims of terrorist attacks, and terrorists themselves, to provide incontestable evidence that Canada is an important base activity for terrorist groups.

Acclaim for Cold Terror:

"Canadians will be madder than **** after they read Stewart Bell's shocking account of how the Canadian government has allowed Sikh, Tamil and Islamic terrorists to come into our home and turn it into a safe house for international terror... Stewart Bell's clarion call for action needs to be heeded before the ticking Canadian terrorist time bomb blows up closer to home."
— The Globe and Mail

"Stewart Bell makes clear... that Canada's political leadership has a history of ineptitude, naivete, and outright irresponsibility with regard to international terrorism that stretches back to the 1980's. [He] has done an enormous service."
— Christian Science Monitor

"A devastating indictment of Canada's failure to deal seriously with terrorists on our soil."
— Martin Collacott, Canada's former ambassador to Syria and Lebanon, High Commissioner to Sri Lanka and Counter-Terrorism Coordinator

"Cold Terror will shock the conscience of a nation...This book is not just an exposé it is and urgent call to action."
— David Frum, author of The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush

About the Author
Stewart Bell is senior reporter at the National Post and has been following terrorism for more than 14 years, travelling extensively through the Middle East, Africa, Pakistan, India and Southeast Asia. He is the "go-to expert" for Canadian media on terrorist activities.

My Comment: I searched for a companion book "Warm Terror", but alas, could not dind one.

[katlnhats]

Hi,
Thanks, that book will go on my "to read" list - is there a book called Warm Terror?

Kat

[Freedom Lover]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

Hi,
Thanks, that book will go on my "to read" list - is there a book called Warm Terror?

Kat

To my knowledge, there is not a book called "warm terror" that deals with Mexico and terrorism. The point I am trying to make is that the argument to build a wall to prevent terrorists from coming into the US from Mexico is greatly flawed.
In Herndon, Va where a shelter for day laborers to stand under while waiting for work was a hotly contested election year issue. Person after person stood up at town meetings and called these illegal aliens names like terrorist, child molester, rapists, thieves, etc. They felt comfortable using language like this because if the alien had broken the law by being in this country, then he/she must also be guilty of every other awfull crime... If you give some people a logical reason to be racist they will take it.

If the reason to build the wall is more than 50% to eep out terrorists, than build the wall up north. If it is to keep out aliens then build it down south. But DO NOT USE the terrorist excuse to build the wall at the Mexican Border. It does not hold water.

[katlnhats]

I doubt, seriously, that a wall would work in the first place, no matter where it was built. Perhaps we should just build one around DC? Keep 'em in?

Kat