If it’s illegal to profit from unlawful acts, how does ‘amnesty’ negate that concept?

Sorry Liberals, the concept of not being able to profit from an illegal act is centuries old. Entering (or overstaying in) the United States illegally qualifies, by definition.

Imagine your mom burglarized the White House, stealing valuable artifacts.

Months later, you learn of the crime when she gifts you with one of the stolen items. You had no idea of her original intent or act, but now, knowingly, received stolen goods.

That knowledge makes you an Accessory to the theft (and guilty of other crimes).

By conferring ‘executive amnesty’ to relatives of those whose ‘citizenship’ was at first stolen, Barack Obama intends to reward the original lawbreakers and their Accessories.

The more logical, moral, and lawful approach is to deport.

Why no one questions legitimacy of a citizenship earned by unlawful act is a mystery.

For those who protest ‘but the newborn was innocent’, we say…SO WHAT?

If your (White House burglar) mom was pregnant when she stole the items of value, claiming her subsequent newborn had ‘birthright’ to them would be laughed out of court.

American citizenship is a thing of value. How our elected lawmakers can allow such a valuable item to be stolen, then legitimized, is a festering sore in the immigration law.

The GOP-led Congress should make one of its first priorities an amendment to the law, stating American citizenship will not be awarded to newborns of illegal aliens.

Call it the ‘American Citizenship Asset Forfeiture Act.’

Asset Forfeiture’s a very useful FBI tool, according to that organization’s website.

We’re sure AG Eric Holder’s Dept. of Justice will be more than eager to enforce it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *