American Citizen or "Nativist?"

Last night on Glenn Beck's show I was astounded to hear that the pro-amnesty, pro-open borders crowd has pinned a new label on the opposition, those of us post 9/11 who are calling for much needed border security and fencing, and enforcement through attrition of our immigration laws as both Constitutional duties of our federal government, and national security issues. After all, "common defense" purposes were the actual reason that the federal government was created, and the states "united" to begin with. Having lived and experienced the negative consequences of the last amnesty passed by the Reagan administration, with the costs in both lives and property the border states residents have experienced since then, which is now spreading throughout the nation, this new turn of events speaks volumes on the true Americans vs. globalists who have infiltrated all levels of our government, and the mentality and mindset of those supporting no holds barred immigration and border hopping at will. This term was used during the evaluation of Senator John McCain speech yesterday to LaRaza ("the Race") again paying lip service to border security and enforcement, but seeking apparently this liberal and left wing activists groups support and trust. Arizona's borders still remain open seven years post 9/11, while Senator McCain supports securing Iraq and Israel's borders and was a sponsor for the McCain/Kennedy amnesty two years ago, so it would appear LaRaza has nothing to fear from either candidate that Arizona, New Mexico, California and Texas soon will revert essentially back to the Mexican terroritory it once was. Guess the bureaucracy after the Mexican American war was not much different in their failure to fence and secure those borders back then.

Below is a quote from our Constitution, at Article I, Section 9:

Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congressprior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

It seems to me in a quick analysis, our framers and founding fathers were also nativists. The Constitution was ratified in 1790, and this provision would mean that those founders "posterity" born after it's ratification would then be natural born U.S. citizens and 18 years old, old enough to begin setting up their own households and businesses. It is clear that the founders never intended to tax the wages of natural born or naturalized citizens, but did intend to discourage hiring foreign workers instead and tax THEIR labors (although I'm sure by leaving the door open in Congress being then allowed to prohibit such importations after 1808 or set higher costs or restrictions, knew that there at times would be a need for "seasonal" workers).

Does appear that our two presumptive candidates could make a home run in taking on this issue, in this uncertain economy where Americans are truly hurting due to both the out-sourcing and in-sourcing of the large corporate global concerns doing business in this country. Maybe since both are pro-amnesty backers, they would be open then to repealing the 16th Amendment on the American people, and instead tax those foreign workers as the founders intended.

The way it is now, amnesty or no, with the privileges and immunities they now have over and above even first, second or third generation Americans (no income taxes, ACLU and taxpayer paid defense costs, rights in many states to even initiate and bring civil actions in U.S. courts, U.S. taxpayer paid medical and health care benefits), why would any of these "guest workers" or illegals actually want to become Americans. There is really no incentive for them, especially in the sanctuary cities and states who are globally controlled. Nor is it advantageous to the corporations in this country also, since they are by and large day labors and contract labor and as salaried or hourly workers and U.S. citizens, would then be subject to paying at the least their share of the health benefits in the form of at least Workmen's Comp insurance,their share of social security withholding, etc.). It appears it is the government itself behind the amnesty hiding behind the public position that it is the "wish" of the corporations and militant illegal immigrant groups - whose main interests are not the amnesty at all, but in making sure those borders remain unsecured so they continue to have a pool of workers at minimal cost, and as LaRaza, increase and promote their Mexico/U.S. global and racial agenda.

Interesting in how even being proud to be an American, and believer in our intended form of government, can turn into a "spin" in now being labeled as "nativists."

If Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were nativists, guess that's good enough for me.