Arizona Illegal-Immigrant Law

[DixieDestroyer]

FBD, Calderon is a complete shill for the Globalist Elite (as was Fox). Most all the so-called world leaders are puppets for the PTB (Bilderberg Group, CFR, TLC, CoR, etc.).

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

does anyone still think the Republicans want illegal immigration to stop? if so, here's a "conservative" Texas judge chipping in on the debate.


according to this "conservative," rounding up illegals and sending them back is not an option.

<H2>Harris County Judge Ed Emmett Testifies Before RPT Platform Committee on Immigration</H2>
<DIV =node>
<DIV =>

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett appeared before the Republican Party of Texas Platform Committee for a second time to testify in favor of responsible immigration reform ahead of the Texas Republican Convention.


Judge Emmett says that immigration reform is not only crucial for the well ordered functioning of society, but for the Republican Party as well. The Judge believes that the loss of Hispanic votes will hurt the Republican Party in elections to come.


This is Emmett's second appearance before the platform committee. on Tuesday Emmett testified in front of the 6 member immigration sub-committee speaking in favor of immigration reform. Yesterday Emmett addressed the entire 31 member committee. Texas GOP Vote was granted an exclusive interview with Judge Emmett immediately after his testimony to hear his comments on his testimony.

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjmDkIfwiL0[/tube]
<DIV =>
<DIV =>he's really looking out for us White folks, huh?

 

[Europe]

Here is a way to stop illegal immigration.

stop illegal immigration

A Fix To The Illegal Aliens Problem In A RebelliousVanilla Style
Posted by: rebelliousvanilla on: May 20, 2010

In: Politics Comment!
Rate This


I was admiring this whole debacle related to the Arizona law and besides the fun facts that Hispanics living in America act like Mexicans and not Americans related to the enforcement of the laws of their country, I don't see why they'd have citizenship to begin with, there was only one concern that was legitimate, which is the loss of privacy of individual Americans who did nothing wrong considering that probable cause can mean anything. The other concern people raise is the one of profiling, but I hardly see anything evil in it. It's just trend analysis. Pointless to go after seventy years old white women since they're not the border jumpers. So, considering that the federal government acts like a foreign agent in the United States and is unwilling to enforce the laws that does the only real needs of having a govenrment, which are the defense of its citizens and protecting its sovereignty(yes, immigration is about sovereignty due to immigrants being able to vote and exercise political power over Americans), a state could do this to protect itself:

Make employing illegal aliens a felony with a ten years maximum punishment and a three years minimum one.
Fine the companies that employ them the annual medium wage for the United States for each employed illegal alien. In the case in which a private person employs them, they would be fined $20,000 for each of the employees that don't have residency or citizenship.
Give 10-50% of the money raised from fines to the person reporting the employer of illegals so that illegal aliens and competitors or neighbours will have an incentive to report.
Remove the license of hospitals to operate in the case in which they treat illegal aliens without reporting them. After being reported, they will be deported. This includes emergency rooms, the illegals getting deported after getting better.
Ban illegal aliens from any type of aid at the state and local level. Sadly, it would be impossible to ban them from federal aid, but you can direct the state money away from the businesses that use federal money on illegal aliens.
Increase police funding at the state level and deploy policemen near the border, where people will be asked for their papers. I doubt that cities exist in the immediate vicinity of the border, so a few miles zone could be made where everybody would be asked for their papers.
So here you have it. No need to make a huge, wasteful campaign with the taxpayers money. Make the illegals and businesses that use them report each other, in order to deport them and make the state a worse immigration target.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

it begins ... Obama gives a major swath of Arizona back to Mexico.

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qv_zjGTs9E[/tube]

 

[celticdb15]

It looks the Mexicans are finding a ready ally in Native Americans..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3538344

 

[DixieDestroyer]

"Shillary ClinTAX"...Globalist puppet and traitor to the Republic...


Hillary Clinton: U.S. Will Sue Over Arizona Immigration Law

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the federal government will sue Arizona, challenging the state's tough new immigration law, which gives police power to stop and question anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.

Clinton told an Ecuadorean television station earlier this month that the Justice Department, at President Obama's direction, "will be bringing a lawsuit." But she did not say on what grounds the U.S. would do so, and the Justice Department declined to confirm that such a case was going forward. But on Friday, a senior Obama administration official told CBS News a federal challenge to the law would be filed when the Justice Department finishes building a case.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Clinton's remarks came as no surprise and another government source told the Washington Post "there is no reason to think" that her statement is incorrect. The Obama administration has indicated for weeks that a lawsuit is likely and the president himself has been highly critical of the law, which caused a storm of protest from immigrants-rights groups and various threats to boycott the state of Arizona. The American public, however, is divided on the law. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found 48 percent wanted a similar statute in their state, while 35 percent opposed such action.

A video of Clinton's June 8 interview was distributed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been calling for a federal lawsuit, the Post said. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said she was "stunned and angered" to hear of Clinton's remarks, CNN reported. If the federal government intends to sue, Brewer said, "the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/18/hillary-clinton-u-s-will-sue-over-arizona-immigration-law/

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Arizona Mildman]

I don't understand the people who live in another state and think they can judge how Arizonans act about our own border security. Hillary Clinton won't understand until they are destroying her neighborhood what we have to deal with here. First, the law is no different from Federal Law, if the feds would enforce it. The only thing it does is give Arizonans the legal right to enforce it themselves. And how would Mexicans treat us? Most people don't know how they treat Americans down there. They don't love us, they hate us. They only want our money in Mexico, although you will never see one of them paying taxes. Try to drive beyond a border town in Mexico and see what happens.<div>Their laws about immigration are this:</div><div><div>Mexico has stricter immigration laws than the United States of America.</div><div>Here is a summary of two excellent 2006 research papers exposing how Mexico discriminates illegal and legal immigrants.</div><div></div><div>UNDER MEXICO'S IMMIGRATION LAW (GENERAL LAW ON POPULATION): [1][3]</div><div>Mexico's Immigration Law</div><div>(General Law on Population)</div><div>1999</div><div>"¢ Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:</div><div>- Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)</div><div>- Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)</div><div>- Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)- The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)</div><div>
</div><div>"¢</div><div><div>Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:</div><div>- Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)</div><div>- A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)</div><div>- A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).</div></div><div>"¢ Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:</div><div>- Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)</div><div>- Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)</div><div>
</div><div>"¢ Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:</div><div>- Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)</div><div>- Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)</div><div>- Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico â€" such as working with out a permit â€" can also be imprisoned.</div><div>
</div><div>"¢ Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,</div><div>- "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)</div><div>- Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)</div><div>- Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)</div><div>
</div><div>"¢ Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:</div><div>- A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)</div><div>- Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)</div><div></div><div></div><div>UNDER MEXICO'S CONSTITUTION :[2][4]</div><div></div><div></div><div>Mexico's Constitution</div><div>(English translation)</div><div>-</div><div>
</div><div>"¢ The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country's political life.</div><div>Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country." Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."Â</div><div>
</div><div>"¢ The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners.</div><div>If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast.</div><div>
</div><div>Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country."Â (Emphasis added)</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>"¢ The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector.</font></div><div>
</font></div><div>"Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."Â (Article 32)</font></div><div>
</div><div>"¢ The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.</div><div>Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:</div><div>
</div><div>"In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."Â</div><div>
</div><div>"¢ An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.</div><div>
</div><div>"¢ Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).</div><div>
</div><div>"¢ The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82), thus giving secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.</div><div>
</div><div>"¢ The Mexican constitution singles out "undesirable aliens." Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."Â</div><div>
</div><div>"¢ The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen's arrests.</div><div>Article 16 states, "in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.</div><div>
</div><div>"¢ The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.</div><div>According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."Â</div><div>
</div><div>SOURCES</div><div>1. ^ Mexico's General Law on Population (Ley General de Poblacion) accessed in 2006. Website: Mexican Congress</div><div>2. ^ Mexico's Constitution accessed in 2008. [English translation]</div><div>Website: Mexico's Chamber of Deputies (lower house of Congress) under Leyes Federales y Estatales</div><div>(Federal and State Laws).</div><div>3. ^ J. Michael Waller, Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home</div><div>4. ^ J. Michael Waller, Mexico's Glass House: How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens 5. â€" Mexico's Law of General Population [current version]</div><div>6. â€" Mexico's Constitution of 1917 (Published) [current version]</div></div>

 

[icsept]

"¢ The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82), thus giving secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.

I wish we had that law.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

a couple of important videos on the subject:

Obama's Department of Labor Secretary (is it a surprise she's not White?): You have the right to be paid fairly whether you're documented or not.

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3owMAs2t2Fo[/tube]
*******************************************************

Senator Kyl: Obama said he won't secure the border because it would stop his plans for comprehensive immigration reform.

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmrigSgIzkg[/tube]

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

anyone want some "un-biased" "reporting?" if so, this isn't it, as it is an article by the AP.

Illegal Immigrants Flee Arizona and New Immigration Law

Tuesday, June 22, 2010
<A id=ctl00_Area_lnkByline></A>By Amanda Lee Myers, Associated Press

Phoenix (AP) - "Cuanto?" asks a young man pointing to four bottles of car polish at a recent garage sale in an east Phoenix neighborhood.

The question, Spanish for "How much?" sends Minerva Ruiz and Claudia Suriano scrambling and calling out to their friend, Silvia Arias, who's selling the polish. "Silvia!"

Arias is out of earshot, so Suriano improvises.

"Cinco dolares," she says. "Five dollars." And another sale is made.

As the women await their next customer in the rising heat of an Arizona morning, they talk quietly about food and clothes, about their children and husbands. They are best friends, all mothers who are viewed as pillars of parental support at the neighborhood elementary school.

All three are illegal immigrants from Mexico.

They're holding the garage sale to raise money to leave Arizona, along with many others, and to escape the state's tough new law that cracks down on people just like them.

The law's stated intention is unambiguous: It seeks to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona and to discourage them from coming here.

There is no official data tracking how many are leaving because of the new law. "It's something that's really tough to get a handle on numerically," said Bill Schooling, Arizona's state demographer. "It's not just the immigration bill. It's also employer sanctions and the economy. How do you separate out the motivating factors?"

But anecdotal evidence provided by schools and businesses in heavily Hispanic neighborhoods and by healthcare clinics suggest that sizable numbers are departing. Ignacio Rodriguez, associate director for the Phoenix Roman Catholic diocese's Office of Hispanic Ministries, said churches in the area are also seeing families leave.

Priests are "seeing some people approach them and ask for a blessing because they're leaving the state to go back to their country of origin or another state," he said. "Unless they approach and ask for a sending-off blessing, we wouldn't have any idea they're leaving or why."

Ruiz and Suriano and their families plan to move this month. Arias and her family are considering leaving, but are waiting to see if the law will go into effect as scheduled July 29, and, if so, how it will be enforced.

The law requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets.

Ruiz, Suriano and Arias are representative of many families facing what they consider a cruel dilemma. To leave, they must pull their children from school, uproot their lives and look for new jobs and homes elsewhere. But to stay is to be under the scrutiny of the nation's most stringent immigration laws and the potentially greater threat of being caught, arrested and deported. They also perceive a growing hostility toward Hispanics, in general.

On the quarter-mile stretch of Phoenix's Belleview Street where both Ruiz and Suriano live, more than half the apartments and single-family homes have "for rent" signs out front.

Alan Langston, president of the Arizona Rental Property Owners &amp; Landlords Association, said his group doesn't track vacancy rates but that his members believe they will be affected by people leaving because of the new law.

The friends say most of the vacancy signs went up after the new law was signed in late April.

"Everyone's afraid," Arias says.

The three friends are key members of a parents' support group at their children's school down the street, said Rosemarie Garcia, parent liaison for the Balsz Elementary School District.

"They are the paper and glue and the scissors of the whole thing," Garcia said. "I can run to them for anything."

With two of the women leaving and the other thinking about it, Garcia is concerned about the school's future.

"It'll be like a desert here," she said. "It's a gap we'll have all over the neighborhood, the community, our school."

Ruiz, Suriano and Arias met three years ago at cafecitos, or coffee talks, held at the school. Now their families hold barbecues together and their children have sleepovers.

Arias, 49, and her day laborer husband paid a coyote to come to Arizona 15 years ago from Tepic, Nayarit on Mexico's central-western coast. Their children, ages 9, 11 and 13, are U.S. citizens.

"I don't want to leave but we don't know what's going to happen," she says.

Ruiz, 38, and her husband, who builds furniture, came to the U.S. from Los Mochis in the northwestern Mexican state of Sinaloa about six years ago on tourist visas, which expired long ago. Two of their kids, ages 9 and 13, are here illegally, while their 1-year-old was born here. The family is moving to Clovis, N.M., where they have family. "It's calmer there," Ruiz says.

Suriano, 28, and her husband crossed the desert six years ago with their then-toddler. The boy is now 9, and the couple has a 4-year-old who was born here. They're moving to Albuquerque, where they don't know anyone but already have lined up an apartment and a carpentry job for him.

"I don't want to go," Suriano says, wiping away tears. "We're leaving everything behind. But I'm scared the police will catch me and send me back to Mexico."

Some people in the neighborhood are not sympathetic.

"Bye-bye, see you later," says 28-year-old Sarah Williams, who lives two blocks south of Ruiz and Suriano with her 5- and 7-year-old children and her aunt. "They're taking opportunities from Americans and legal citizens."

However, Williams, says she doesn't support Arizona's new law because she believes it will lead to racial profiling.

The law still faces several pending legal challenges. The U.S. Justice Department also is reviewing the statute for possible civil rights violations, with an eye toward a possible court challenge.

The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, and so it's the state's duty to step up. They deplore the social costs and violence they say are associated with illegal immigration.

The law's critics say it will lead to racial profiling and discrimination against Hispanics, and damage ties between police and minority communities.

As the debate plays out, dozens of healthcare clinics in central and southern Arizona say many of their Hispanic clients aren't showing up for scheduled appointments. They say they're either afraid to leave the house or they're moving away, said Tara McCollum Plese, a spokeswoman for the Arizona Association of Community Health Centers, which oversees 132 facilities.

"Some are actually calling the clinics and asking if it's safe to come, if they need papers," since the new law passed, she said.

Sick people avoiding treatment can become a public health problem, she said. "We're actually worried about communicable diseases."

If enough people stop going to the clinics, she said, some services could be cut, and some clinics, especially in rural areas, could be forced to close.

Schools may face laying off teachers and cutting programs because of fewer students, educators say.

Parents pulled 39 children out of Balsz Elementary, which has a 75 percent Hispanic student body, since April 23, the day the law was signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer. In the small, five-school district, parents have pulled out 111 children, said district Superintendent Jeffrey Smith, who cites the new law as the leading factor.

Smith said each student represents roughly $5,000 in annual funding to the district, so a drop of 111 students would represent roughly a $555,000 funding cut.

Many schools across Arizona have seen a steady decline in Hispanic students in recent years, although some district superintendents say the current drop is more dramatic. Schools attribute the declining numbers to the recession and to the state's employer-sanctions law, which passed in 2007 and carries license suspensions and revocations for those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Area businesses also say they're seeing the effects of people leaving the state.

Steve Salvato, manager at the family-owned World Class Car Wash, just around the corner from Belleview Street, said business is down 30 percent. Salvato said the car wash relies mostly on Hispanic customers and points to the new law for the recent decline in business.

"A lot of people have just packed up and moved," he said, adding that a strip mall across the street used to be bustling on weekends. "Now it's like a ghost town."

A nearby Food City grocery store reports a 20 percent to 30 percent drop in business.

Back at the garage sale, the three friends have a row of tables strewn with Barbie dolls, bicycle helmets, old movies and a Jane Fonda workout video. A laundry basket is overflowing with children's toys, and a shopping cart is filled with clothes.

They are selling off pieces of their lives.

Their easy banter, mostly in Spanish, quickly turns to tears when they're asked about their impending separation. Ruiz and Suriano have pleaded with Arias to follow them to New Mexico.

"They're my companions," Suriano says of the other two women. "We do everything hand-in-hand."

yep, if all the illegals move away, the USA is doooooooomed!

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

sorry for the double post, but i thought this necessary to share. especially for you self-styled moderates out there.

John McCain claims he "never supported amnesty." wow. what a liar.

Fox News reporter Jennifer Steinhauser recently spent a few days following Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) around Arizona, on his re-election campaign. Not surprisingly, the topic which voters continue to hound the Senator on is that of illegal immigration.

During a town hall meeting at a North Scottsdale library, a man named Richard Martin railed against McCain, saying: "We all know what happened after 9/11. Why didn't you close this border down? Where were you, Senator?"Â￾

Steinhauser reports that over the three days she spent with the McCain campaign, the most commonly asked question was why he supported amnesty for illegal aliens.

McCain's answer"¦"I never supported amnesty."Â￾

WHAT?

As one of the keynote speakers at the 2004 conference, he told the zealous crowd: "It is in our national interest to bring the 8 to 12 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and allow them an opportunity to become citizens of this great nation."

Of course, McCain has not only supported amnesty, he wrote the Amnesty bill!

The 2007 McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty bill would have merely required illegal aliens to pay a $5,000 fee in order to stay here and gain legal residency. The fact is that McCain places the same value on American citizenship, at roughly the same cost as a 2003 Volkswagen.

Under McCain's bill, even members of Mexican drug gangs would have received amnesty by simply signing a statement in which they renounced their gang affiliation, the so-called 'background checks' that illegal aliens would have received were only of the 24-hour variety, which reveal very little (if anything), and they would have then been given a six-month worker card. Even violent members of MS-13 would be given legal status based on nothing but their promise to become upstanding citizens.

In 2008, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain told the crowd at annual National La Raza Conference: "I don't want to fail again to achieve comprehensive immigration reform."Â￾

Of course, "comprehensive immigration reform"Â￾ is nothing more than code for amnesty for illegal aliens.

After the massive illegal alien protests in 2006, in which millions of law-breakers demanded their ‘rights' and trampled upon American flags, McCain made the following statement: "If such demonstrations continue, I think we will have a bill for the President to sign soon. The more debate, the more demonstrations, the more likely we will prevail."Â￾

John McCain has spent the last quarter-century in Washington D.C., and for many of those years, he has spent his time working on behalf of illegal aliens and the unscrupulous companies which hire them. He has also sat by and watched as thousands of Americans were murdered, raped, and robbed by those same illegal aliens.

It is only since J.D. Hayworth began gaining ground in his primary challenge to McCain, that the Senator started taking a supposed tough stance on border security.

Until he loses the Arizona Republican primary on August 24, McCain will continue to pretend that he is a tough conservative. However, as much as he would like to, he cannot hide from his own record on illegal immigration.

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN3ab-dY2E0&amp;feature=related[/tube]

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCmwzlklEYE[/tube]

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-nVJGsTdKU[/tube]

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrMGWebOu6A[/tube]

 

[Bart]

They can always be trusted to work against us - ALWAYS!!

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/06/24/2739753/adl-joins-arizona-lawsuit

ADL joins Arizona lawsuit
June 24, 2010

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Anti-Defamation League joined a lawsuit to overturn Arizona's restrictive immigration law.

The federal lawsuit, initiated by Friendly House, a Phoenix social services organization, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups, seeks to overturn a law passed earlier this year that grants police wide latitude to stop individuals and check their immigration status.

"Rather than making Arizona more secure, we believe this law will have the opposite effect," Miriam Weisman, ADL Arizona's regional chair, and Bill Straus, ADL Arizona's regional director, said in a statement Tuesday. "Fear of heightened law enforcement scrutiny about immigration status will deter victims and witnesses from coming forward and cooperating with the police, making it significantly more difficult for police to do their jobs."

 

[jaxvid]

sorry for the double post, but i thought this necessary to share. especially for you self-styled moderates out there.

<div> </div>
<div>John McCain claims he "never supported amnesty."  wow. what a liar.

Ha! McCain's funny, he's the perfect politician for a collapsing empire, he's a phoney war hero, a phoney conservative, and yet he's the standard bearer for the "conservative" Republican Party. He's such a bold face liar that it's actually impressive.

McCain understands that his supporters are stupid and shallow. They just want him to say whatever they want to hear at that time. It doesn't matter what he does as long as they remain comfortable. If they are comfortable they will relect him no matter what he does or says, if they aren't -- they won't. It's as simple as that.

 

[Europe]

"Arias, 49, and her day laborer husband paid a coyote to come to Arizona 15 years ago from Tepic, Nayarit on Mexico's central-western coast. Their children, ages 9, 11 and 13, are U.S. citizens."

Why are these kids citizens? We really must have at least 40 million illegals, if you count their kids as illegal. How many Mexicans actually came here legally, not that I want them here legally either.

 

[FootballDad]

sorry for the double post, but i thought this necessary to share. especially for you self-styled moderates out there.

John McCain claims he "never supported amnesty." wow. what a liar.

Ha! McCain's funny, he's the perfect politician for a collapsing empire, he's a phoney war hero, a phoney conservative, and yet he's the standard bearer for the "conservative" Republican Party. He's such a bold face liar that it's actually impressive.

McCain understands that his supporters are stupid and shallow. They just want him to say whatever they want to hear at that time. It doesn't matter what he does as long as they remain comfortable. If they are comfortable they will relect him no matter what he does or says, if they aren't -- they won't. It's as simple as that.

And of course we can thank McCain for our current POTUS, since McCain was the worst possible opposition party candidate. I held my nose when I placed my vote for this scumbag, although he would only have been marginally better than Obumma, and would have delayed the rise of the current constitutional grassroots movement. Note how McAmnesty aims both barrels at a true conservative candidate, while he never raised a finger to criticize his presidential election opponent, who is "historical".

 

[JReb1]

I HATED having to vote for McCain but I liked Palin and I figured Florida would be really close again and I didn't want to chance Obama winning by a vote or 2 here since we're such a swing state...

 

[DixieDestroyer]

JReb1, I too was duped into the "lesser of 2 evils" trap years ago. However, I now vote solely on my principles, & cannot/will not cast a vote for a Globalist shill (like "Juan McAmnesty"). I voted for Dr.Paul in the GOP primary, and for Dr.Chuck Baldwin (CP) in the general election. If a Constitutionally adherent candidate cannot be found on the ballot (or written in), I won't vote (for a puppet of the PTB).



Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Highlander]

Why are these kids citizens? We really must have at least 40 million illegals, if you count their kids as illegal. How many Mexicans actually came here legally, not that I want them here legally either.

I remember ten years ago the media saying there were 12-20 million immigrants in this country illegally. I hear the same figures by them today. Are they trying to tell us that no additional illegal immigrants have entered this country in a decade?

I agree with you that the figure is more likely 30-40 million. Almost every single corner and crevice of this country is now burdened with them. The small town of Fremont, NE (25,000), which is about 30 miles northwest of Omaha, NE, just voted for a measure this past Monday to crack down on illegal immigrants there. Of course, the ACLU "warned" them not to do that or risk a lawsuit by them. The "A" in "ACLU" stands for "American" and it's about time they stood for Americans.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

HL, birthright citizenship should have been eliminated decades ago & thus taken away the "anchor/jackpot" baby loophole for these invaders.

Ariz. gov: Most illegal immigrants smuggling drugs

Jun 26, 1:16 AM (ET)

By PAUL DAVENPORT

Google sponsored links
Drug Dependence Quiz - Identify substance abuse problems Confidential, free online survey
TurnToHelp.com

Social Security Windfall - Learn How To Grab an Extra $9,600 or More Before the Money Runs Out
www.MoneyAndMarkets.com


PHOENIX (AP) - Gov. Jan Brewer said Friday that most illegal immigrants entering Arizona are being used to transport drugs across the border, an assertion that critics slammed as exaggerated and racist.

Brewer said the motivation of "a lot" of the illegal immigrants is to enter the United States to look for work, but that drug rings press them into duty as drug "mules."

"I believe today, under the circumstances that we're facing, that the majority of the illegal trespassers that are coming into the state of Arizona are under the direction and control of organized drug cartels and they are bringing drugs in," Brewer said.

"There's strong information to us that they come as illegal people wanting to come to work. Then they are accosted and they become subjects of the drug cartel," she said.

Brewer's office later issued a statement in response to media reports of her comments. It said most human smuggling into Arizona is under the direction of drug cartels, which "are by definition smuggling drugs."

"Unless Gov. Brewer can provide hard data to substantiate her claim that most undocumented people crossing into Arizona are 'drug mules,' she must retract such an outrageous statement," said Oscar Martinez, a University of Arizona history professor whose teaching and research focuses on border issues. "If she has no data and is just mouthing off for political reasons, as I believe she is doing, then she must apologize to the people of Arizona for lying to them so blatantly."

Sen. Jesus Ramon Valdes, a member of the Mexican Senate's northern border affairs commission, called Brewer's comments racist and irresponsible.

"Traditionally, migrants have always been needy, humble people who in good faith go looking for a way to better the lives of their families," Ramon Valdes said.

A Border Patrol spokesman said illegal immigrants do sometimes carry drugs across the border, but he said he couldn't provide numbers because smugglers are turned over to prosecutors.

"I wouldn't say that every person that is apprehended is being used as a mule," spokesman Mario Escalante said from Tucson. "The smuggling organizations, in their attempts to be lucrative and to make more money, they'll try pretty much whatever they need."

T.J. Bonner, president of the union that represents border agents, said some illegal border-crossers carry drugs but most don't. People with drugs face much stiffer penalties for entering the U.S. illegally, and very few immigrants looking for work want to risk the consequences, Bonner said.

"The majority of people continue to come across in search of work, not to smuggle drugs," he said. "Most of the drug smuggling is done by people who intend to do that. That's their livelihood."

A spokesman for a human rights group said Brewer's comments were "an oversimplification of reality."

"We have some stories of people being forced to carry drugs," said Jaime Farrant, policy director for Tucson-based Border Action Network. "We disagree with the assessment that people are crossing (to carry drugs). We have no evidence that's the truth. We think most people come in search of jobs or to reunite with their families."

Brewer spoke Friday when asked about comments she made in a recent election debate among Republican candidates for governor.

She said during the June 15 debate that she believed most illegal immigrants were not entering the United States for work. She then associated illegal immigrants with drug smuggling, drop houses, extortion and other criminal activity.

Brewer on April 23 signed a controversial new state immigration enforcement law that is scheduled toe effect July 29, although five legal challenges already are pending in federal court, and the U.S. Justice Department may file its own challenge.

The Arizona law requires police officers enforcing another law to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

Francisco Loureiro, who has run a migrant shelter for more than 20 years in Nogales, Sonora, across the border from the Arizona town of the same name, said Brewer's comments are aimed at turning the people of Arizona against migrants and strengthen support for the state's new law.

"That governor is racist and she has to look for a way to harm the image of migrants before American society and mainly before the people of Arizona," Loureiro said.

Roberto Suro, a University of Southern California journalism professor who founded a research center on Hispanics, said he was skeptical of Brewer's assertion, partly because federal authorities would be trumpeting many more drug seizures than they do. "The Border Patrol is not secretive about saying when they apprehend 10 people and found knapsacks (containing drugs) nearby," he said.

Attorney General Terry Goddard, the presumptive Democratic nominee for governor, said Brewer "does not understand the difference between illegal immigration and the organized criminals who are members of the violent drug cartels who pose a very a real danger."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100626/D9GIOH0O0.html

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

a couple of videos to summarize this situation ...

first, mockery of how ridiculous it is that "our" government doesn't enforce the nation's borders.

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4-8kXx2pSg[/tube]

and second, the utter contempt with which "our" elected leaders have toward the U.S. citizen. in this video, Congressman Pete Stark brazenly mocks his constituents at a town hall meeting.

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVpMwqv7QM[/tube]

for a more comprehensive take on Stark's actions, visit this article at InfoWars. here's an excerpt:

Looking like a burnt-out teacher with three years leftto retirement presiding over an after school detention session, Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA)took great pleasurerecently in alienating his constituents at a town hall meeting by marginalizing the Mexican border issue and issuing sarcastic, belittling answers to reasonable questions that were asked of him.

When a Minutemanâ€" part of a group that voluntarily patrols the Mexican border and reports crossings by illegal immigrantsâ€"stood toask a question, Stark first asked him, "Who are you going to kill today?"Â￾

 

[Europe]

a couple of videos to summarize this situation ...
<div> </div>
<div>first, mockery of how ridiculous it is that "our" government doesn't enforce the nation's borders.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4-8kXx2pSg[/tube]</div>
<div> </div>
<div>and second, the utter contempt with which "our" elected leaders have toward the U.S. citizen. in this video, Congressman Pete Stark brazenly mocks his constituents at a town hall meeting.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVpMwqv7QM[/tube]</div>
<div> </div>
<div>for a more comprehensive take on Stark's actions, visit this article at InfoWars. here's an excerpt:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>

Looking like a burnt-out teacher with three years left to retirement presiding over an after school detention session, Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) took great pleasure recently in alienating his constituents at a town hall meeting by marginalizing the Mexican border issue and issuing sarcastic, belittling answers to reasonable questions that were asked of him.
<div> </div>
<div>When a Minutemanâ€" part of a group that voluntarily patrols the Mexican border and reports crossings by illegal immigrantsâ€"stood to ask a question, Stark first asked him, "Who are you going to kill today?" 

</div></div>

Stark is an idiot. This guy is the reason this country is ruined for good.I am sure there will be amnesty at some point.There are a ton of illegals from all over the world and coupled with all the chain immigration from the legal immigrants makes the invasion complete.

Why can't we get a constitutional amendment to stop birthright citizenship? This should be easy to do.

Edited by: Europe

 

[DixieDestroyer]

More treasonous destruction of our once sovereign Republic!

Obama pushes immigration reform, seeks broad support

Thu Jul 1, 2010 5:28pm EDT

By Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama renewed his push for U.S. immigration reform on Thursday, reaching out to Hispanic voters despite minimal chances that Congress will pass such legislation this year.

In a broad speech that did not break new policy ground, Obama, a Democrat, called for Republican support to pass a law that addresses the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country without disrupting the economy or violating American values.

Obama has been under pressure to keep his promise from the 2008 presidential campaign to overhaul U.S. immigration rules. A tough new law in Arizona has brought the issue to the forefront of public debate, galvanizing Hispanics, who are an important constituency for November's congressional elections.

The president, speaking at American University, criticized the Arizona law but made no mention of a potential lawsuit by his administration to block it before it goes into affect on July 29. The U.S. Justice Department is expected to file a lawsuit challenging the law shortly. [ID:nN29176898]

Obama did not lay out a timetable for passing national reform but said he was ready to pursue the issue if Democrats and Republicans could work together.

"I'm ready to move forward, the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward," he said.

"Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality."

Both Democrats and Republicans are aware of that political reality, and some in the opposition party accused the president of pandering to his voter base.

Obama's speech on immigration came a day after he ripped Republicans for opposing financial reform and siding with big oil companies, new signs of a White House gearing up for tough elections in the fall. Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, are widely expected to lose seats.

But with energy legislation, financial reform and the economy topping his agenda, Obama is unlikely to make immigration a centerpiece of his campaign to help Democrats hold on to power.

"In an environment where the Democrats feel vulnerable and where the economy is so bad, trying to say we need to give eventual citizenship to illegal immigrants is a very tough sell politically, and for the public," said Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies.

"IT WON'T WORK"

In a gesture to the opposition party, Obama had rare words of praise for his predecessor, George W. Bush, calling him courageous for working toward immigration reform while he was in office. That attempt proved unsuccessful.

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch characterized Obama's speech as "little more than cynical political pandering to his left wing political base and is more about giving backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants than real reform."

In May, Obama said he wanted to begin work on immigration reform this year. He supports a system that holds undocumented immigrants "accountable" by having them pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English and become citizens.

"No matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable," Obama said.

He also backs tightening border security and clamping down on employers that hire undocumented workers. He highlighted those points on Thursday, while saying the slow system of processing legal immigrants must be fixed, too.

The president also argued against relying on closed borders alone to fix the problem.

"There are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders," he said. "Our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won't work."

Republicans have honed in on the border issue, which is a top priority for voters in border states such as Arizona.

"If he would take amnesty off the table and make a real commitment to border and interior security, he will find strong bipartisan support," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

"But attacks on states filling the breach created by the failure of the federal government won't secure the border, grow jobs or create solutions for what we all agree is a broken immigration system," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0116542720100701

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Tom Iron]

Does anyone have an idea as to how long this case will take?

Tom Iron...

 

[white is right]

It looks the Mexicans are finding a ready ally in Native Americans..
<div> </div>
<div>http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3538344</div>

Don't be fooled by this innocent picture of the welfare recipient who is desperate to eat does the smuggling. Intially they might have been. Now these gangs are actually more powerful than the tribal police forces and out gun them. Picture a Barney Fife type George Lopez look a like firing at gang members with fully automatic weapons that will shoot to kill. Two levels of Canadian governments have wanted to fight these gangs for years but because of politics about native sovereignty they have allowed these gangs to terrorize these reserves.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I don't usually delve into this section b/c I'm more of a mixed political bag of populism and libertarianism than more traditional libertarianism and/or conservative constitutionalism like most of you fellows and I don't want to (what's the expression) rub posters the wrong way.

I am here simply to get more info as a Canadian by asking you guys if you could live with a proposal like I have created from minimal research. I saw Governor Christie was on the Hannity show when I was watching Fox News up here. I used to live in Jersey and think Governor Christie is a decent man who isn't swayed easily by public opinion. Overall, I'm surprised that NUTS and sleezy NJ elected him. He was explaining his opinion on illegal immigration and it got me thinking.

I believe a country without borders ceases to be a country and it's decline will soon be impending. However my question to you folks is:

"If it takes too many resources, manpower, money, time etc. to deport over 10 million illegals could you fellow posters live with this following 5 step effort/ compromise?"

1. The U.S will do everything in it's power to secure the border. National Guard will be sent there and maybe more stretches of wall built.

2. All illegals who have been found to have committed prior felonies will be hunted down and deported or if unsafe be sent to prison/back to prison until it is found what to do with them.

3. All "non criminal illegals" (kind of an oxymoron here) will get a period (how long I don't know) to come forward and report their presence here is illegal. Then they will have to pay a fine (how much I don't know) and get to the back of the line for a path to citizenship.

4. There will be a crack down on jobs where people are getting paid off the books, but the effort will solely focus on illegals getting paid off the books...employers who break the law will be met with more serious legal/financial consequences. This will help the dollar from crashing more and fight back against further national debt from illegals getting representation (healthcare, education etc.) without taxation.

5. Finally after the U.S has gone through a period of trying to moderately deal with this situation, the U.S will step forth with a strong surveillance and policing effort to deport those here who have not come out of the shadows. How long the U.S can afford to push on with this sweep to weed out the illegals will be left up to the lawmakers and how many police/national guard will be used in this effort will as well. However, all that is known is many will be caught and deported, although of course some will be destined to evade capture.

I'd like to know what you guys think of this proposal. It seems pretty good to me.

Edited to add: I shouldn't have said too much time to deport 10 million illegals, simply that it would require too much manpower, money and a very intense rushed response could cause serious problems panic and a lack of safety. I think my proposal (although others have proposed similar) would be a more thoughtful and safe way of dealing with the situation.
Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins