Skip to content

Black Sites, Gitmo for Immigrants? Is the Tea Party Next?

The winner of the Democrat primary in New York for a Congressional seat, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has claimed that the immigrant detention centers at the border that ICE is operating are “black sites.” As in, “CIA black sites” such as the ones overseas that CIA operate to torture terrorism suspects.

I agree with Ocasio-Cortez, at least in part, given the secret nature of the detention centers. The ICE gulag enforcers are turning away Congresspeople and won’t let them in those places. So, what the hell are they hiding? If what these ICE goons are doing is “legitimate,” then they have nothing to hide, right? What are they doing, getting the CIA there and interrogating (and torturing) the teenage immigrants in a fishing expedition to find out who might be an “MS-13 gang-banger”? If so, they’re looking for a needle in a haystack.

This whole thing is just sick. This central-planning socialist policy of immigration fascism is thoroughly immoral. But the talk radio ditto-heads love it. They are not really “conservatives,” quite frankly. Just statists, nationalists, collectivists, and without actual moral scruples.

Journalist and professor Karen Greenberg discusses the Gitmo logic (or illogic) of the anti-immigration, anti-foreigner Trump gestapo. And here is an article on the Daily Beast on the totalitarian nature of putting innocent, peaceful detained immigrants in U.S. military bases. (And the Tea Party Patriots out there, do you think you’ll be safe under a Hillary or Chuck Schumer administration? Good luck.)

But Trump reflects the resurgence in nationalism of the day, the anti-freedom, anti-individualism, anti-free trade philosophy of dumb clucks. And pushing this Washington central planning on steroids. Dumb Donald.

And it’s unconstitutional, as well as immoral.

According to the Mises Institute,

Judge Andrew Napolitano argues that it seldom if ever does. In an article from 2015, Napolitano, who can scarcely be classified as anti-libertarian or be accused of ignorance of the Constitution, makes a simple but powerful distinction about the limits of federal power: “the Constitution itself—from which all federal powers derive—does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization.” Constitutional arguments for specific powers over immigration tend to focus on the Migration or Importation Clause. However, Ilya Somin further clarifies that this Clause originally referred to the slave trade, not to voluntary immigration, and is therefore a dead end.

And, as “Independence” Day approaches, and in celebration of the Declaration of Independence, Jacob Hornberger asks whether immigrants have the right to pursue happiness.

Do the talk radio ditto-heads believe in the idea of unalienable rights? Do all human beings have such rights inherently, or just “Americans” or those who have “citizenship”? Obviously, if citizenship is required to have unalienable rights, then they aren’t “unalienable,” are they? But I’m sure that Rush Limbaugh et al. can demagogue their way to convince their many sheeple listeners that only American citizens have the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Published inUncategorized