Right as usual Football Dad. Wasn't Hillary Clinton who said once during the Bush years that dissent was the highest form of patriotism in responce to critics of the left who were protesting at the time. I hope that group in Arizona gets even more violent and unruly because I think that would serve the purpose of waking even more Americans up, especially White Americans.
Arizona Illegal-Immigrant Law
- Thread starter j41181
- Start date
Colonel_Reb
Hall of Famer
Great article from Pat Buchanan by way of James Edwards' blog.
As we reported last week, <a href="http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2010/04/20/arizona-is-now-a-nazi-state/" target="_blank">Arizona
is now being called a "Nazi state"Â</a> because they dare to protect
their state sovereignty by attempting to secure the border.
Right on cue, <a href="http://buchanan.org/blog/whose-country-is-this-3955" target="_blank">Pat Buchanan
jumps on the issue</a> with his usual brilliance:
<blockquote>
With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona
has ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove illegal
aliens, half a million of whom now reside there.
Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its
constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to
enforce America's immigration laws.
"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to
act,"Â said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of inaction and misguided
policy have created an unacceptable situation."Â
We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in
Washington.
What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it
that federal laws are faithfully executed?
He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic
lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this
invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he
attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in
law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.
He has denounced Arizona as "misguided."Â He has called on the Justice
Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs and police do not violate
anyone's civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the
people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of
thousands of lawbreakers in their midst.
How's that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?
Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.
</blockquote>
This is, by far, one of the greatest actions a state government has
taken in years! I want to publicly thank the government of Arizona for
being a courageous trailblazer on a vitally important issue. Bravo!
Pat Buchanan has twice appeared as our exclusive guest on The
Political Cesspool Radio Program. <a href="http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/archive.php" target="_blank">To listen to
these interviews,</a> please consult our broadcast archives and select
the programs dated 9.14.06 and 6.29.08.
As we reported last week, <a href="http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2010/04/20/arizona-is-now-a-nazi-state/" target="_blank">Arizona
is now being called a "Nazi state"Â</a> because they dare to protect
their state sovereignty by attempting to secure the border.
Right on cue, <a href="http://buchanan.org/blog/whose-country-is-this-3955" target="_blank">Pat Buchanan
jumps on the issue</a> with his usual brilliance:
<blockquote>
With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona
has ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove illegal
aliens, half a million of whom now reside there.
Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its
constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to
enforce America's immigration laws.
"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to
act,"Â said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of inaction and misguided
policy have created an unacceptable situation."Â
We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in
Washington.
What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it
that federal laws are faithfully executed?
He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic
lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this
invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he
attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in
law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.
He has denounced Arizona as "misguided."Â He has called on the Justice
Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs and police do not violate
anyone's civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the
people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of
thousands of lawbreakers in their midst.
How's that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?
Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.
</blockquote>
This is, by far, one of the greatest actions a state government has
taken in years! I want to publicly thank the government of Arizona for
being a courageous trailblazer on a vitally important issue. Bravo!
Pat Buchanan has twice appeared as our exclusive guest on The
Political Cesspool Radio Program. <a href="http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/archive.php" target="_blank">To listen to
these interviews,</a> please consult our broadcast archives and select
the programs dated 9.14.06 and 6.29.08.
If Arizona sticks to its guns, I'm hoping all these anti-Arizona actions and boycotts by the subversive elements that have taken over U.S. institutions continues and intensifies. Because itmight strengthen independent and secessionist feelings in Arizona and other states that still have strong patriotic elements in their legislatures. Oklahoma, Texas, Montana and possibly a few other states may follow Arizona. There's a story on Drudge today about a Texas lawmaker who wants to pass Arizona's law in his state.
But Arizona has to stand strong against the onslaught. This could turn out to be a very important event in the ongoing grassroots rebellion against Washington and Cultural Marxism.
But Arizona has to stand strong against the onslaught. This could turn out to be a very important event in the ongoing grassroots rebellion against Washington and Cultural Marxism.
Thrashen
Hall of Famer
Yes, for once, something pro-white is occurring. The reprobate politicians in every border state (Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona) should have passed this simple law when the borders were formed"¦and an impenetrable wall (with armed soldiers) should have been constructed decades ago.
We all know the be-all and end-all for white "men"Â in power has always been money, land, and other materialistic garbage. Cheap Mexican laborers have been making evil, race-trading white men richer for generations. They have been selling-off the sanctity of their race within America's borders tomato by tomato.
Arizona first brought us the first legitimate hard-ass sheriff in decades, Joe Arpaio, now this. Looks like the real men in Juan McCain's state are actually making a difference towards our cause.
We all know the be-all and end-all for white "men"Â in power has always been money, land, and other materialistic garbage. Cheap Mexican laborers have been making evil, race-trading white men richer for generations. They have been selling-off the sanctity of their race within America's borders tomato by tomato.
Arizona first brought us the first legitimate hard-ass sheriff in decades, Joe Arpaio, now this. Looks like the real men in Juan McCain's state are actually making a difference towards our cause.
I don't think the law will ever get enforced. It looks like a ballot initiative will delay enactment until 2012 and I'm sure FedGov interference will stop it if that doesn't. Also some court somewhere will find reason to stike it down.
jaxvid said:
Agreed. I saw on the news today where Lindsay Ghraham said that it might be "unconstitutional." heres a link to the law if anyone is interested:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070p.htm
foobar75
Master
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,332
Looks like Hispanics are going to display a big show of force this weekend in major rallies across the country:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63R5HP20100428
It's too bad the majority of idiot, spineless white people in this country cannot be counted upon to come thru with counter rallies to squash the garbage from Hispanics.
Expect Mexican flags to be waving all across this nation Sat/Sun.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63R5HP20100428
It's too bad the majority of idiot, spineless white people in this country cannot be counted upon to come thru with counter rallies to squash the garbage from Hispanics.
Expect Mexican flags to be waving all across this nation Sat/Sun.
Pima County (which includes Tucson) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik was asked what he thought of the new law. 'I think it's crap.', replied the public servant. (And he really said 'crap' right there on TV. Right there on the ol' picture box. Not bleeped out or anything.) Later he gave a press conference explaining just how much he hated the law, 'If I were Hispanic I would be outraged.' (And if you were Hispanic you would have said 'mierda' rather than 'crap'. Maybe next time.)
Dupnik is one of two Arizona Sheriffs against this law. Arizona's only Mexican-American sheriff, Sheriff Estrada of Santa Cruz Country (which includes the city of Nogales), also opposes it.
The mayor of Phoenix, Hebrew Phil Gordon, is perhaps the highest profile Arizona politician to have a fit about the law.
Gabby Giffords is the Congresswoman for District 8 (mostly Tucson) and is perhaps the slyest of them all. You see, she's opposed to SB 1070 but at the same time stamps her size 6 Jimmy Choos and demands the National Guard be sent to the border. Quietly in office since 2006. Ms. Giffords is Jewish. Her mother was a Christian Scientist, but she's Jewish. She is an avid reader and is mad for anything highlighted by Oprah's Book Club.
The lead 'villain' in the effort to pass SB 1070 and enforce the law is AZ State Senator Russell Pearce of District 18, mostly the city of Mesa. Mesa is adjacent to Phoenix, consistently produces championship high school football teams and is heavily Mormon. Pearce is LDS, was a Sheriff's Deputy for 35 years and was shot in the chest while on duty.
In case anyone is wondering Sheriff Joe Arpaio is American-Italian. And yes, he plays quite a bit of Sinatra on the Maricopa County jail's radio station. You can never go wrong with Sinatra.
Congressman Raul Grijalva of AZ's 7th Congressional District claims someone made a threatening phone call. As a result he closed his Tucson and Yuma offices over the weekend and then held a rally. Rep. Grijalva is pro-abortion. He is overweight. He has a big, bushy mustache.
In 2004 Proposition 200 passed in AZ with 56% in favor of the referendum. It requires anyone voting or applying for benefits to prove citizenship. Who opposed it? John McCain and Jon Kyl, to name just two. You know, those two (recent) champions of border control. All political parties, including the Repubs and Greens, also opposed it.
By one estimate 47% of Hispanic voters (which means Mexican-American in AZ) voted for Prop. 200. Another estimate puts the percentage at 54%.
A weird thing is the degree to which the 20+ Indian tribes in AZ are never involved in the debate. The T'hono O'dam (formerly known as Papagos) Reservation is on the border and is a major illegal crossing point. Their police department will destroy any water stations set up for illegals by 'caring' liberal persons. But not much in the way of public commentary.
Dupnik is one of two Arizona Sheriffs against this law. Arizona's only Mexican-American sheriff, Sheriff Estrada of Santa Cruz Country (which includes the city of Nogales), also opposes it.
The mayor of Phoenix, Hebrew Phil Gordon, is perhaps the highest profile Arizona politician to have a fit about the law.
Gabby Giffords is the Congresswoman for District 8 (mostly Tucson) and is perhaps the slyest of them all. You see, she's opposed to SB 1070 but at the same time stamps her size 6 Jimmy Choos and demands the National Guard be sent to the border. Quietly in office since 2006. Ms. Giffords is Jewish. Her mother was a Christian Scientist, but she's Jewish. She is an avid reader and is mad for anything highlighted by Oprah's Book Club.
The lead 'villain' in the effort to pass SB 1070 and enforce the law is AZ State Senator Russell Pearce of District 18, mostly the city of Mesa. Mesa is adjacent to Phoenix, consistently produces championship high school football teams and is heavily Mormon. Pearce is LDS, was a Sheriff's Deputy for 35 years and was shot in the chest while on duty.
In case anyone is wondering Sheriff Joe Arpaio is American-Italian. And yes, he plays quite a bit of Sinatra on the Maricopa County jail's radio station. You can never go wrong with Sinatra.
Congressman Raul Grijalva of AZ's 7th Congressional District claims someone made a threatening phone call. As a result he closed his Tucson and Yuma offices over the weekend and then held a rally. Rep. Grijalva is pro-abortion. He is overweight. He has a big, bushy mustache.
In 2004 Proposition 200 passed in AZ with 56% in favor of the referendum. It requires anyone voting or applying for benefits to prove citizenship. Who opposed it? John McCain and Jon Kyl, to name just two. You know, those two (recent) champions of border control. All political parties, including the Repubs and Greens, also opposed it.
By one estimate 47% of Hispanic voters (which means Mexican-American in AZ) voted for Prop. 200. Another estimate puts the percentage at 54%.
A weird thing is the degree to which the 20+ Indian tribes in AZ are never involved in the debate. The T'hono O'dam (formerly known as Papagos) Reservation is on the border and is a major illegal crossing point. Their police department will destroy any water stations set up for illegals by 'caring' liberal persons. But not much in the way of public commentary.
Rebajlo
Mentor
That's the thing - if the situation was reversed and groups of Americans were, for some reason,protesting in Mexico (or anywhere else in the vast sewer which is the "Hispanic" world), they would be drowned out (and in all probability bashed, shot, lynched or hacked to pieces) by huge counter-protests ofmestizos and other unholy crossbreeds literally foaming with anti-American hatred. Guaranteed. Mind you, the local authorities wouldn't permit such notional protests in the first place...foobar75 said:It'stoo bad the majority of idiot, spineless white people in this country cannot be counted upon to come thru with counter rallies to squash the garbage from Hispanics.
Expect Mexican flags to be waving all across this nation Sat/Sun.
<TABLE style="TABLE-LAYOUT: fixed" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 align=center ="tableBorder"><T><T>
<T>
<TR style="MIN-HEIGHT: 200px; HEIGHT: 200px" ="msgOddTableRow">
<TD vAlign=top ="msgLineDevider">
<DIV ="msg">EDIT: Sorry about the size of the font and spacing - something went seriously awry with this post...
<TR ="msgOddTableRow">
<TD ="msgLineDevider"></TD></TR></T></T></T></TABLE>
<TABLE style="TABLE-LAYOUT: fixed" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 align=center ="tableBorder"><T><T>
<T>
<TR style="MIN-HEIGHT: 200px; HEIGHT: 200px" ="msgOddTableRow">
<TD vAlign=top ="msgLineDevider">
<DIV ="msg"></TD></TR>
<TR ="msgOddTableRow">
<TD ="msgLineDevider"></TD></TR></T></T></T></TABLE>Edited by: Rebajlo
FootballDad
Hall of Famer
This law will be fought tooth-and-nail by the PTB, so enforcement will be tough. Now, a ballot initiative is fine, no way that this would be overturned at the ballot box unless fraud on a massive scale is involved, as the people are overwhelmingly for the bill. It's the loud minority, amplified by the sympathetic media that oppose it.jaxvid said:
The left are also talking about boycotting all Arizona Diamondback road games across the nation. It makes me want to go out and buy a Diamondbacks jersey and cap right now and any other way I can support Arizona. In fact I think the" Don't Tread on me Flag" should be a official emblem for the Diamondbacks!
The usual suspects feverishly working against the will of White people.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/29/2010-04-29_its_national_suicide_mikes_grim_view_if_immig_reform_mess_isnt_fixed.html#ixzz0hmAtlizk
Mayor Bloomberg slams Arizona's anti-immigrant law: 'We are committing national suicide'
A fired-up Mayor Bloomberg warned the U.S. "is committing national suicide" by passing the buck on implementing comprehensive immigration reform.
Hizzoner delivered the blunt message Wednesday as he criticized Arizona's harsh new anti-immigrant law.
"This is not good for the country. I don't agree with it," he said. "We love immigrants here."(snip)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/29/2010-04-29_its_national_suicide_mikes_grim_view_if_immig_reform_mess_isnt_fixed.html#ixzz0hmAtlizk
Mayor Bloomberg slams Arizona's anti-immigrant law: 'We are committing national suicide'
A fired-up Mayor Bloomberg warned the U.S. "is committing national suicide" by passing the buck on implementing comprehensive immigration reform.
Hizzoner delivered the blunt message Wednesday as he criticized Arizona's harsh new anti-immigrant law.
"This is not good for the country. I don't agree with it," he said. "We love immigrants here."(snip)
Thrashen
Hall of Famer
Bart said:
A statement could not possibly be more blunt or clear-cut than "we love immigrants here,"Â now can it?
I'm sure most Neo-Cons and lazy capitalists feel the same way"¦everything is for sale, after all, and utilizing Mexicans (like using black slaves) is a standard practice of idiotic white men. If only they could have more white children help with the workload"¦na, that would cost too many greenbacks. Fools.
Enforcing the national law preventing illegal immigration is now referred to as "National Suicide"Â"¦yeah, right, Opposite Day has been celebrated every day in America since Father Swine, Woody Wilson, took office in 1913. Nearly 100 years of white enslavement.
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
Armies of paid "activists", pro-invader/anti-American muds (mostly invaders themselves) & limp-wristed cultural marxists (empowered by the Globalist Elite) march against AZ's pro-sovereignty law. The invaders just don't seem to get it...this is NOT their country & they don't belong here!
Anger over Ariz. immigration law drives US rallies
May 1, 8:27 PM (ET)
By SOPHIA TAREEN
(AP) People make their way north on Broadway Street during a march and rally for federal immigration...
CHICAGO (AP) - Angered by a controversial Arizona immigration law, tens of thousands of protesters - including 50,000 alone in Los Angeles - rallied in cities nationwide demanding President Barack Obama tackle immigration reform immediately.
"I want to thank the governor of Arizona because she's awakened a sleeping giant," said labor organizer John Delgado, who attended a rally in New York where authorities estimated 6,500 gathered.
From Los Angeles to Washington D.C., activists, families, students and even politicians marched, practiced civil disobedience and "came out" about their citizenship status in the name of rights for immigrants, including the estimated 12 million living illegally in the U.S.
Police said 50,000 rallied in Los Angeles where singer Gloria Estefan kicked off a massive downtown march. Estefan spoke in Spanish and English, proclaiming the United States is a nation of immigrants.
(AP) People gather during a march for federal immigration reform and against Arizona's controversial...
Full Image
"We're good people," the Cuban-born singer said atop a flatbed truck. "We've given a lot to this country. This country has given a lot to us."
Public outcry, particularly among immigrant rights activists, has been building since last week when Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the legislation last week. The law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.
The law's supporters say it's necessary because of the federal government's failure to secure the border, but critics contend it encourages racial profiling and is unconstitutional.
"It's racist," said Donna Sanchez, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen living in Chicago whose parents illegally crossed the Mexican border. "I have papers, but I want to help those who don't."
Organizers estimated about 20,000 gathered at a park on Chicago's West Side and marched, but police said about 8,000 turned out.
(AP) People march past the Brooklyn Bridge, seen in the background, during an immigration rally in New...
Full Image
The event resembled something between a family festival - food vendors strolled through with pushcarts - and a political demonstration with protesters chanting "Si se puede," Spanish for "Yes we can." A group of undocumented students stood on a stage at the Chicago park and "came out" regarding their immigration status.
Juan Baca was among those students. Baca, 19, whose parents brought him from Mexico illegally when he was 4 months old, said he has had to drop out of college and work several times already because he can't qualify for financial aid.
"It's been a struggle," he said. "I missed the mark by four months."
Obama once promised to tackle immigration reform in his first 100 days, but has pushed back that timetable several times. He said this week that Congress may lack the "appetite" to take on immigration after going through a tough legislative year. However, Obama and Congress could address related issues, like boosting personnel and resources for border security, in spending bills this year.
At the White House, U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, was among 35 people arrested in a demonstration of civil disobedience against the Arizona law.
(AP) Manuel Vazquez, 20, of Raleigh, North Carolina, front, attends a May Day immigration reform rally...
Full Image
In Dallas, police estimated at least 20,000 attended a Saturday rally. About a dozen people there carried signs depicting the Arizona governor as a Nazi and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his tough illegal immigration stance, as a Klansman. Organizers were asking sign holders to discard those placards.
Juan Hernandez, the Hispanic outreach coordinator for Arizona Sen. John McCain's unsuccessful presidential run, attended the Dallas rally. He said Arizona was once considered by those south of the border to be a model state with particularly close ties to Mexico.
"It went beyond what most states do," he said. "Now they are a state that goes beyond what the Constitution says you should do."
Juan Haro, 80, was born and raised in Denver, where about 3,000 people rallied. He said he thinks Arizona's new law targets Mexicans.
"This country doesn't seem to be anti-immigrant," said Haro, whose family is originally from Mexico. "It seems to be anti-Mexican."
(AP) Wearing a shirt saying "Fix the Immigration System 4 Me," Francisco Pavon, 2, is held by his...
Full Image
In downtown Miami, several hundred flag-waving demonstrators - many with Cuban and Honduran flags, but mostly American ones - called for reforms.
Elsewhere, an estimated 7,000 protesters rallied in Houston, about 5,000 gathered at the Georgia state Capitol in Atlanta and at least 5,000 marched in Milwaukee. About 3,000 attended a Boston-area march.
And in Ann Arbor, Mich., more than 500 people held a mock graduation ceremony for undocumented immigrant students near the site of Obama's University of Michigan commencement speech.
In Arizona, police in Tucson said an immigration rights rally there drew at least 5,000 people. Several thousand people gathered in Phoenix for a demonstration Saturday evening.
A smattering of counterprotesters showed up at rallies. In Tucson, a few dozen people showed up in support of the new law and Brewer. A barricade separated about two dozen counterprotesters from a pro-immigrant rights rally in San Francisco.
The counterprotesters there carried signs that read, "We Support Arizona" and "We Need More Ice At This Fiesta," an apparent reference to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
May 1 - International Workers Day - is a traditional date for political demonstrations. Immigration advocates latched onto that tradition in 2006, when more than 1 million people across the country - half a million alone in Chicago - protested federal legislation that would have made being an illegal immigrant a felony. That legislation ultimately failed.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100502/D9FECDM00.html
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
Anger over Ariz. immigration law drives US rallies
May 1, 8:27 PM (ET)
By SOPHIA TAREEN
(AP) People make their way north on Broadway Street during a march and rally for federal immigration...
CHICAGO (AP) - Angered by a controversial Arizona immigration law, tens of thousands of protesters - including 50,000 alone in Los Angeles - rallied in cities nationwide demanding President Barack Obama tackle immigration reform immediately.
"I want to thank the governor of Arizona because she's awakened a sleeping giant," said labor organizer John Delgado, who attended a rally in New York where authorities estimated 6,500 gathered.
From Los Angeles to Washington D.C., activists, families, students and even politicians marched, practiced civil disobedience and "came out" about their citizenship status in the name of rights for immigrants, including the estimated 12 million living illegally in the U.S.
Police said 50,000 rallied in Los Angeles where singer Gloria Estefan kicked off a massive downtown march. Estefan spoke in Spanish and English, proclaiming the United States is a nation of immigrants.
(AP) People gather during a march for federal immigration reform and against Arizona's controversial...
Full Image
"We're good people," the Cuban-born singer said atop a flatbed truck. "We've given a lot to this country. This country has given a lot to us."
Public outcry, particularly among immigrant rights activists, has been building since last week when Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the legislation last week. The law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.
The law's supporters say it's necessary because of the federal government's failure to secure the border, but critics contend it encourages racial profiling and is unconstitutional.
"It's racist," said Donna Sanchez, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen living in Chicago whose parents illegally crossed the Mexican border. "I have papers, but I want to help those who don't."
Organizers estimated about 20,000 gathered at a park on Chicago's West Side and marched, but police said about 8,000 turned out.
(AP) People march past the Brooklyn Bridge, seen in the background, during an immigration rally in New...
Full Image
The event resembled something between a family festival - food vendors strolled through with pushcarts - and a political demonstration with protesters chanting "Si se puede," Spanish for "Yes we can." A group of undocumented students stood on a stage at the Chicago park and "came out" regarding their immigration status.
Juan Baca was among those students. Baca, 19, whose parents brought him from Mexico illegally when he was 4 months old, said he has had to drop out of college and work several times already because he can't qualify for financial aid.
"It's been a struggle," he said. "I missed the mark by four months."
Obama once promised to tackle immigration reform in his first 100 days, but has pushed back that timetable several times. He said this week that Congress may lack the "appetite" to take on immigration after going through a tough legislative year. However, Obama and Congress could address related issues, like boosting personnel and resources for border security, in spending bills this year.
At the White House, U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, was among 35 people arrested in a demonstration of civil disobedience against the Arizona law.
(AP) Manuel Vazquez, 20, of Raleigh, North Carolina, front, attends a May Day immigration reform rally...
Full Image
In Dallas, police estimated at least 20,000 attended a Saturday rally. About a dozen people there carried signs depicting the Arizona governor as a Nazi and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his tough illegal immigration stance, as a Klansman. Organizers were asking sign holders to discard those placards.
Juan Hernandez, the Hispanic outreach coordinator for Arizona Sen. John McCain's unsuccessful presidential run, attended the Dallas rally. He said Arizona was once considered by those south of the border to be a model state with particularly close ties to Mexico.
"It went beyond what most states do," he said. "Now they are a state that goes beyond what the Constitution says you should do."
Juan Haro, 80, was born and raised in Denver, where about 3,000 people rallied. He said he thinks Arizona's new law targets Mexicans.
"This country doesn't seem to be anti-immigrant," said Haro, whose family is originally from Mexico. "It seems to be anti-Mexican."
(AP) Wearing a shirt saying "Fix the Immigration System 4 Me," Francisco Pavon, 2, is held by his...
Full Image
In downtown Miami, several hundred flag-waving demonstrators - many with Cuban and Honduran flags, but mostly American ones - called for reforms.
Elsewhere, an estimated 7,000 protesters rallied in Houston, about 5,000 gathered at the Georgia state Capitol in Atlanta and at least 5,000 marched in Milwaukee. About 3,000 attended a Boston-area march.
And in Ann Arbor, Mich., more than 500 people held a mock graduation ceremony for undocumented immigrant students near the site of Obama's University of Michigan commencement speech.
In Arizona, police in Tucson said an immigration rights rally there drew at least 5,000 people. Several thousand people gathered in Phoenix for a demonstration Saturday evening.
A smattering of counterprotesters showed up at rallies. In Tucson, a few dozen people showed up in support of the new law and Brewer. A barricade separated about two dozen counterprotesters from a pro-immigrant rights rally in San Francisco.
The counterprotesters there carried signs that read, "We Support Arizona" and "We Need More Ice At This Fiesta," an apparent reference to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
May 1 - International Workers Day - is a traditional date for political demonstrations. Immigration advocates latched onto that tradition in 2006, when more than 1 million people across the country - half a million alone in Chicago - protested federal legislation that would have made being an illegal immigrant a felony. That legislation ultimately failed.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100502/D9FECDM00.html
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
Bart said:
What is it with this love of immigrants? I don't love them. Sorry. I am tired of all immigrants. I wish we had leaders like the Japanese who don't want to give their jobs and country away to the whole world.At the most 1-2% of society should be foreign born. That would still be 1 or 2 out 100 people in the country. Why should it be more than that?
Solomon Kane
Mentor
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 783
All these non-Arizonan pols who oppose this law really burn me up.
Who cares what they think?
There was a good article on lewrockwell.com recentlyarguing that all immigration policy is governed by the states, according to the constitution. The Federal Government only has the right to set uniform laws of naturalization. Here it is. Some good points.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="75%" align=center>
<T>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TABLE borderColor=#000000 cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=9 width="100%" align=center border=1>
<T>
<TR>
<TD>
<H1 align=center>Secession and Immigration: Who Should Be InCharge?</H1>
by Russell D. Longcore
by Russell D. Longcore
Recently by Russell D. Longcore: Secession and State Governors: AnOpen Letter Encouraging Self-Interest
var addthis_pub = "egarris";
< ="http://s7.add.com/js/152/add_widget.js" =text/>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=315 align=right>
<T>
<TR>
<TD width=15></TD>
<TD>
<DIV align=right>
GA_googleFillSlot("B2");
< ="http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?correlator=1272828384891&output=json_&callback=GA_googleSetAdsBySlotForSync&impl=s&a2ids=qs6A&cids=SYKejA&client=ca-pub-9106533008329745&slotname=B2&page_slots=B1%2CB2&=ID%3Dfd306467626706c6%3AT%3D1272828285%3AS%3DALNI_MZOYFiA5QEEO--ecoxGHuiw6yZlTQ&ga_vid=1038319888.1272828285&ga_sid=1272828285&ga_hid=419331608&ga_fc=true&=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Flongcore%2Flongcore20.1.&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Findex-fri.&lmt=1272641887&dt=1272828385141&cc=1963&biw=1001&bih=589&ifi=2&oe=iso-8859-1&u_tz=-240&u_his=44&u_java=true&u_h=768&u_w=1024&u_ah=738&u_aw=1024&u_cd=32&flash=10.0.32.18">
<DIV id=google_ads_div_B2>< id=google_ads__B2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px" name=google_ads__B2 marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 ="about:blank" Border=0 width=300 scrolling=no =GA_googleSyncAdSlotLoaded; height=250 allowTransparency></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width=15></TD>
<TD></TD></TR></T></TABLE>
In light of the Arizona immigration bill just signed into law, I've had some thoughts about this whole issue. And grant me this: I'm no lawyer, but I am a thinker"¦and I can read. Hang with me as I chew this over.
Columnist Patrick J. Buchanan has a column in Human Events entitled Whose Country Is This? He asks a lot of questions, and pretty much blames President Obama and Washington for the mess at our borders.
But is it really THEIR fault that things are so horribly messed up?
That ragged, toothless old document, the US Constitution, authorizes Congress only one duty remotely related to immigration"¦with only seven words. Article I, Section 8 says: "(Congress shall have the power) To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization."
That's it, friends and neighbors. There isn't even a definition of the word "naturalization" in the Constitution. But generally speaking, naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship or nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born.
But that has NOTHING to do with immigration or securing borders against illegal immigration. Remember that not all that enter the USA WANT to become citizens. Some just want to live here.
The rule of naturalization, in its simplest form, would define which persons are eligible for citizenship, and the steps whereby they would become US citizens.
Beyond that, I cannot see any authorization for the United States to enact laws or enforce laws dealing with ANY persons entering any state legally or illegally. That would include those who enter any state legally but remain in the state after their legal immigration documents expire.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=135 align=left>
<T>
<TR>
<TD>< style="WIDTH: 120px; HEIGHT: 240px" marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 ="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&nou=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=lewrockwell&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&asins=1595552669" Border=0 scrolling=no></TD></TR></T></TABLE>
Seems to me that immigration laws are the purview of the states, since under the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."
At first, immigration in America happened slowly. Historians estimate that under one million immigrants...perhaps as few as 400,000"¦came from Europe to the Americas during the 200 years after the settlement of Jamestown in 1607. But immigration began its long boom period around 1820. Between 1820 and 1860, over 5 million immigrants crossed the Atlantic.
And the flood of immigrants continued: in the 1860s, 2.3 million came; in the 1870s, 2.8 million came. Between 1880 and 1920, nearly 26 million men, women and children flocked to America.
In 1875 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that immigration was a federal responsibility. Then the Immigration Act of 1891 established an Office of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury Department. A "head tax" of fifty cents per person was assessed on each immigrant.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=135 align=right>
<T>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV align=right>< style="WIDTH: 120px; HEIGHT: 240px" marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 ="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&nou=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=lewrockwell&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&asins=0895260476" Border=0 scrolling=no></TD></TR></T></TABLE>
All during these centuries, the Federal Government set no limitation on immigration. In fact, at least thirty states actively recruited overseas. Most of the barriers to immigration were set by European nations, not American states. For example, England prevented the emigration of skilled artisans until 1820. But soon, those barriers fell and foreign governments released their people to emigrate to America.
But in 1921, it came to an abrupt end. Congress bowed to pressure from those who had already immigrated and settled here to stem the tide of immigrants. Congress passed The Emergency Quota Act of 1921, a strict law based upon national origins, that limited immigration to no more than 150,000 entrants annually. This law favored immigration from those of British and European origin. This law was further tightened by the Immigration Act of 1924.
All during the period from 1776 to 1921, the Federal Government played almost no role in immigration, leaving the responsibilities to the states. In 1790, Congress had set a two-year residency requirement for naturalization...but it did not interfere with the rights of the states to accept as many immigrants as they desired. After Jefferson's inauguration, the term of residency was set to five years, and remains the same to this day.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=135 align=left>
<T>
<TR>
<TD>< style="WIDTH: 120px; HEIGHT: 240px" marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 ="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&nou=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=lewrockwell&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&asins=1595550402" Border=0 scrolling=no></TD></TR></T></TABLE>
Once again, seems to me that Congress has entirely overstepped their Constitutional authority and enacted law upon law upon law dealing with an issue that should be handled by each state.
What if Michigan decides that they want to increase the number of immigrants into their state? That should be their business alone. If neighboring Ohio doesn't want immigrants and passes laws that effectively close its borders, so be it.
And the same thing should be happening at the border between Mexico and the Southwestern states, from the Pacific Ocean to the mouth of the Rio Grande in Texas. Each state should decide their own immigration policy, enact laws pertaining to it, and go about enforcing the law.
I know that present immigration woes are hopelessly intertwined with US drug policy and the stupidly-called "War on Drugs." But acknowledging how the DC criminals have bungled many issues, costing billions of dollars and countless lives, only shows how much Americans need to separate themselves from Washington.
The schizophrenia of Washington is writ large in this issue. If Washington understood the Constitution, it could tell the states that immigration is their problem, thereby saving Washington jillions. But DC likes power and the jillions it takes to screw up immigration for all 50 states and the rest of the world. So DC muscles everyone like a mob enforcer.
So, to answer the title question: the 50 states all bear principal responsibility for the woeful immigration debacle in America today. If the states would have asserted their sovereignty over the last 160 years, they would control immigration and the DC criminals would have no voice whatsoever in the matter.
Any seceding state would instantly face immigration and naturalization issues. Why not start dropping off the shackles of DC tyranny NOW? If Arizona can tell Washington to go pound sand, why can't the politicians in YOUR state do the same"¦even before secession? Even if you never want to secede?
Secession can cure all the terminal political illness of the United States. Who will be first?
<DIR></DIR>
April 30, 2010
Russell D. Longcore [send him mail] is president of Abigail Morgan Austin Publishing Company. He is married to "his Redhead" Julie, has three wonderful children and three even more wonderful grandchildren. Visit his secessionist website at: www.DumpDC.com.
Copyright © 2010 Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
The Best of Russell D. Longcore
< ="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" =text/>
< ="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/expansion_.js">
< ="http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/test_domain.js">
< ="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/render_ads.js">
google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
<INS style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; VISIBILITY: ; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 336px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; : relative; HEIGHT: 280px"><INS style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; DISPLAY: block; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; VISIBILITY: ; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 336px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; : relative; HEIGHT: 280px">< id=google_ads_3 style="LEFT: 0px; : ; TOP: 0px" name=google_ads_ marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 ="http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-9106533008329745&at=336x280_as&output=&h=280&w=336&lmt=1272641887&ad_=text&flash=10.0.32.18&=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Flongcore%2Flongcore20.1.&dt=1272828385297&shv=r20100422&correlator=1272828385313&frm=0&ga_vid=1038319888.1272828285&ga_sid=1272828285&ga_hid=419331608&ga_fc=1&u_tz=-240&u_his=44&u_java=1&u_h=768&u_w=1024&u_ah=738&u_aw=1024&u_cd=32&u_nplug=0&u_nmime=0&biw=1001&bih=589&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Findex-fri.&fu=0&ifi=3&dtd=47&xpc=pbj0V1nuMk&p=http%3A//www.lewrockwell.com" Border=0 width=336 scrolling=no height=280 allowTransparency></INS></INS></TD></TR></T></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV align=center>Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page</TD></TR></T></TABLE>Edited by: Solomon Kane
Who cares what they think?
There was a good article on lewrockwell.com recentlyarguing that all immigration policy is governed by the states, according to the constitution. The Federal Government only has the right to set uniform laws of naturalization. Here it is. Some good points.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="75%" align=center>
<T>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TABLE borderColor=#000000 cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=9 width="100%" align=center border=1>
<T>
<TR>
<TD>
<H1 align=center>Secession and Immigration: Who Should Be InCharge?</H1>
by Russell D. Longcore
by Russell D. Longcore
Recently by Russell D. Longcore: Secession and State Governors: AnOpen Letter Encouraging Self-Interest
var addthis_pub = "egarris";
< ="http://s7.add.com/js/152/add_widget.js" =text/>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=315 align=right>
<T>
<TR>
<TD width=15></TD>
<TD>
<DIV align=right>
GA_googleFillSlot("B2");
< ="http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?correlator=1272828384891&output=json_&callback=GA_googleSetAdsBySlotForSync&impl=s&a2ids=qs6A&cids=SYKejA&client=ca-pub-9106533008329745&slotname=B2&page_slots=B1%2CB2&=ID%3Dfd306467626706c6%3AT%3D1272828285%3AS%3DALNI_MZOYFiA5QEEO--ecoxGHuiw6yZlTQ&ga_vid=1038319888.1272828285&ga_sid=1272828285&ga_hid=419331608&ga_fc=true&=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Flongcore%2Flongcore20.1.&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Findex-fri.&lmt=1272641887&dt=1272828385141&cc=1963&biw=1001&bih=589&ifi=2&oe=iso-8859-1&u_tz=-240&u_his=44&u_java=true&u_h=768&u_w=1024&u_ah=738&u_aw=1024&u_cd=32&flash=10.0.32.18">
<DIV id=google_ads_div_B2>< id=google_ads__B2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px" name=google_ads__B2 marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 ="about:blank" Border=0 width=300 scrolling=no =GA_googleSyncAdSlotLoaded; height=250 allowTransparency></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width=15></TD>
<TD></TD></TR></T></TABLE>
In light of the Arizona immigration bill just signed into law, I've had some thoughts about this whole issue. And grant me this: I'm no lawyer, but I am a thinker"¦and I can read. Hang with me as I chew this over.
Columnist Patrick J. Buchanan has a column in Human Events entitled Whose Country Is This? He asks a lot of questions, and pretty much blames President Obama and Washington for the mess at our borders.
But is it really THEIR fault that things are so horribly messed up?
That ragged, toothless old document, the US Constitution, authorizes Congress only one duty remotely related to immigration"¦with only seven words. Article I, Section 8 says: "(Congress shall have the power) To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization."
That's it, friends and neighbors. There isn't even a definition of the word "naturalization" in the Constitution. But generally speaking, naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship or nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born.
But that has NOTHING to do with immigration or securing borders against illegal immigration. Remember that not all that enter the USA WANT to become citizens. Some just want to live here.
The rule of naturalization, in its simplest form, would define which persons are eligible for citizenship, and the steps whereby they would become US citizens.
Beyond that, I cannot see any authorization for the United States to enact laws or enforce laws dealing with ANY persons entering any state legally or illegally. That would include those who enter any state legally but remain in the state after their legal immigration documents expire.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=135 align=left>
<T>
<TR>
<TD>< style="WIDTH: 120px; HEIGHT: 240px" marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 ="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&nou=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=lewrockwell&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&asins=1595552669" Border=0 scrolling=no></TD></TR></T></TABLE>
Seems to me that immigration laws are the purview of the states, since under the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."
At first, immigration in America happened slowly. Historians estimate that under one million immigrants...perhaps as few as 400,000"¦came from Europe to the Americas during the 200 years after the settlement of Jamestown in 1607. But immigration began its long boom period around 1820. Between 1820 and 1860, over 5 million immigrants crossed the Atlantic.
And the flood of immigrants continued: in the 1860s, 2.3 million came; in the 1870s, 2.8 million came. Between 1880 and 1920, nearly 26 million men, women and children flocked to America.
In 1875 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that immigration was a federal responsibility. Then the Immigration Act of 1891 established an Office of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury Department. A "head tax" of fifty cents per person was assessed on each immigrant.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=135 align=right>
<T>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV align=right>< style="WIDTH: 120px; HEIGHT: 240px" marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 ="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&nou=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=lewrockwell&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&asins=0895260476" Border=0 scrolling=no></TD></TR></T></TABLE>
All during these centuries, the Federal Government set no limitation on immigration. In fact, at least thirty states actively recruited overseas. Most of the barriers to immigration were set by European nations, not American states. For example, England prevented the emigration of skilled artisans until 1820. But soon, those barriers fell and foreign governments released their people to emigrate to America.
But in 1921, it came to an abrupt end. Congress bowed to pressure from those who had already immigrated and settled here to stem the tide of immigrants. Congress passed The Emergency Quota Act of 1921, a strict law based upon national origins, that limited immigration to no more than 150,000 entrants annually. This law favored immigration from those of British and European origin. This law was further tightened by the Immigration Act of 1924.
All during the period from 1776 to 1921, the Federal Government played almost no role in immigration, leaving the responsibilities to the states. In 1790, Congress had set a two-year residency requirement for naturalization...but it did not interfere with the rights of the states to accept as many immigrants as they desired. After Jefferson's inauguration, the term of residency was set to five years, and remains the same to this day.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=135 align=left>
<T>
<TR>
<TD>< style="WIDTH: 120px; HEIGHT: 240px" marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 ="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&nou=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=lewrockwell&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&asins=1595550402" Border=0 scrolling=no></TD></TR></T></TABLE>
Once again, seems to me that Congress has entirely overstepped their Constitutional authority and enacted law upon law upon law dealing with an issue that should be handled by each state.
What if Michigan decides that they want to increase the number of immigrants into their state? That should be their business alone. If neighboring Ohio doesn't want immigrants and passes laws that effectively close its borders, so be it.
And the same thing should be happening at the border between Mexico and the Southwestern states, from the Pacific Ocean to the mouth of the Rio Grande in Texas. Each state should decide their own immigration policy, enact laws pertaining to it, and go about enforcing the law.
I know that present immigration woes are hopelessly intertwined with US drug policy and the stupidly-called "War on Drugs." But acknowledging how the DC criminals have bungled many issues, costing billions of dollars and countless lives, only shows how much Americans need to separate themselves from Washington.
The schizophrenia of Washington is writ large in this issue. If Washington understood the Constitution, it could tell the states that immigration is their problem, thereby saving Washington jillions. But DC likes power and the jillions it takes to screw up immigration for all 50 states and the rest of the world. So DC muscles everyone like a mob enforcer.
So, to answer the title question: the 50 states all bear principal responsibility for the woeful immigration debacle in America today. If the states would have asserted their sovereignty over the last 160 years, they would control immigration and the DC criminals would have no voice whatsoever in the matter.
Any seceding state would instantly face immigration and naturalization issues. Why not start dropping off the shackles of DC tyranny NOW? If Arizona can tell Washington to go pound sand, why can't the politicians in YOUR state do the same"¦even before secession? Even if you never want to secede?
Secession can cure all the terminal political illness of the United States. Who will be first?
<DIR></DIR>
April 30, 2010
Russell D. Longcore [send him mail] is president of Abigail Morgan Austin Publishing Company. He is married to "his Redhead" Julie, has three wonderful children and three even more wonderful grandchildren. Visit his secessionist website at: www.DumpDC.com.
Copyright © 2010 Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
The Best of Russell D. Longcore
< ="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" =text/>
< ="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/expansion_.js">
< ="http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/test_domain.js">
< ="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/render_ads.js">
google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
<INS style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; VISIBILITY: ; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 336px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; : relative; HEIGHT: 280px"><INS style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; DISPLAY: block; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; VISIBILITY: ; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 336px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; : relative; HEIGHT: 280px">< id=google_ads_3 style="LEFT: 0px; : ; TOP: 0px" name=google_ads_ marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 ="http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-9106533008329745&at=336x280_as&output=&h=280&w=336&lmt=1272641887&ad_=text&flash=10.0.32.18&=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Flongcore%2Flongcore20.1.&dt=1272828385297&shv=r20100422&correlator=1272828385313&frm=0&ga_vid=1038319888.1272828285&ga_sid=1272828285&ga_hid=419331608&ga_fc=1&u_tz=-240&u_his=44&u_java=1&u_h=768&u_w=1024&u_ah=738&u_aw=1024&u_cd=32&u_nplug=0&u_nmime=0&biw=1001&bih=589&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Findex-fri.&fu=0&ifi=3&dtd=47&xpc=pbj0V1nuMk&p=http%3A//www.lewrockwell.com" Border=0 width=336 scrolling=no height=280 allowTransparency></INS></INS></TD></TR></T></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV align=center>Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page</TD></TR></T></TABLE>Edited by: Solomon Kane
FootballDad
Hall of Famer
Amidst all of the manufactured "outrage" over the weekend over this "oppressive" new law, here is some information about the "peaceful immigrants" and their demonstrations that you won't see in the MSM:
Corporate Media Plays Down Pro-Illegal Immigration Thugs Who Terrorized Santa Cruz
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, May 3, 2010
Imagine the uproar if 200 Tea Party members had gone on a rampage through a downtown city, smashing windows, starting fires, and spraying graffiti everywhere, the corporate media would be all over it, and yet gangs of pro-illegal immigration demonstrators do this and much worse on a regular basis, with no national news coverage whatsoever.
"A large group of protesters demonstrating at a May Day rally for worker's and immigrant rights downtown broke off into a riot vandalizing about a dozen businesses around 10:30 p.m. Saturday, police said,"Â reports The Santa Cruz Sentinel.<NO><O>
An Associated Press report states that eighteen businesses were damaged as pro-immigrants rights activists engaged in violent riots, spraying graffiti, smashing windows, setting fire to shop fronts, and causing damage to a cost of up to $100,000 dollars.
"The damage that was caused was without purpose,"Â Capt. Steve Clark said. "It was senseless violence that victimized a community who cannot afford to be victimized in this manner. This did nothing to add credit to whatever they believed their cause was."Â
The riot followed the announcement that pro-amnesty demonstrators would march across the country on May 1st, which is also a date on which socialists rally worldwide to celebrate Communism, euphemistically labeled "International Workers Day"Â by the media.
In addition, during a pro-amnesty rally in San Francisco, 40 Golden Gate Minutemen, who were staging a peaceful counter-protest, were chased, beaten and injured by the pro-immigration thugs.
If Tea Partiers so much as dare to carry a vaguely inflammatory sign or shout at a lawmaker, they are nationally demonized by the corporate media as dangerous racist extremists and even domestic terrorists. And yet anarchists and pro-illegal immigrant demonstrators can run riot, engage in violence and cause monumental damage to private property and it barely even makes the news.
Watch the clip below. Despite the best efforts of ABC News to characterize the culprits solely as "anarchists"Â and not pro-illegal demonstrators, at the end of the clip, people in the background can be heard shouting "deport illegal immigrants,"Â making it clear who the business owners and residents held responsible for the damage.
As we have previously highlighted, despite media characterizations of anyone who opposes big government or illegal immigration as violent extremists, by far the most dangerous and violent individuals have proven to be pro-Obama goons as well as radical racist La Raza groups.
During an August 2009 demonstration in Mehville, Missouri, Obamacare opponents were locked out of a town hall meeting before Union thugs viciously attacked patriot and Tea Party activist Kenneth Gladney, who was handing out Gadsden flags outside the stage-managed event, while hurling racist insults.
During a November 2009 immigration enforcement rally, A.N.S.W.E.R.-hired pro-illegal thugs attacked 62-year-old Dave Caulkett of Floridians for Immigration Enforcement, pummeling him with their signs and kicking him in the face as other A.N.S.W.E.R. goons cheered.
But you won't see hide nor hair of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann or Bill Maher attacking racist pro-illegal hate groups who threaten to murder Americans with axes, because it simply doesn't fit into their or the federal government's primary mission, which is to smear peaceful Americans angry at how big government and huge corporations are manipulating and siding with millions of illegal aliens to crush the middle class, as violent racist extremists who need to be silenced.
Corporate Media Plays Down Pro-Illegal Immigration Thugs Who Terrorized Santa Cruz
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, May 3, 2010
Imagine the uproar if 200 Tea Party members had gone on a rampage through a downtown city, smashing windows, starting fires, and spraying graffiti everywhere, the corporate media would be all over it, and yet gangs of pro-illegal immigration demonstrators do this and much worse on a regular basis, with no national news coverage whatsoever.
"A large group of protesters demonstrating at a May Day rally for worker's and immigrant rights downtown broke off into a riot vandalizing about a dozen businesses around 10:30 p.m. Saturday, police said,"Â reports The Santa Cruz Sentinel.<NO><O>
An Associated Press report states that eighteen businesses were damaged as pro-immigrants rights activists engaged in violent riots, spraying graffiti, smashing windows, setting fire to shop fronts, and causing damage to a cost of up to $100,000 dollars.
"The damage that was caused was without purpose,"Â Capt. Steve Clark said. "It was senseless violence that victimized a community who cannot afford to be victimized in this manner. This did nothing to add credit to whatever they believed their cause was."Â
The riot followed the announcement that pro-amnesty demonstrators would march across the country on May 1st, which is also a date on which socialists rally worldwide to celebrate Communism, euphemistically labeled "International Workers Day"Â by the media.
In addition, during a pro-amnesty rally in San Francisco, 40 Golden Gate Minutemen, who were staging a peaceful counter-protest, were chased, beaten and injured by the pro-immigration thugs.
If Tea Partiers so much as dare to carry a vaguely inflammatory sign or shout at a lawmaker, they are nationally demonized by the corporate media as dangerous racist extremists and even domestic terrorists. And yet anarchists and pro-illegal immigrant demonstrators can run riot, engage in violence and cause monumental damage to private property and it barely even makes the news.
Watch the clip below. Despite the best efforts of ABC News to characterize the culprits solely as "anarchists"Â and not pro-illegal demonstrators, at the end of the clip, people in the background can be heard shouting "deport illegal immigrants,"Â making it clear who the business owners and residents held responsible for the damage.
As we have previously highlighted, despite media characterizations of anyone who opposes big government or illegal immigration as violent extremists, by far the most dangerous and violent individuals have proven to be pro-Obama goons as well as radical racist La Raza groups.
During an August 2009 demonstration in Mehville, Missouri, Obamacare opponents were locked out of a town hall meeting before Union thugs viciously attacked patriot and Tea Party activist Kenneth Gladney, who was handing out Gadsden flags outside the stage-managed event, while hurling racist insults.
During a November 2009 immigration enforcement rally, A.N.S.W.E.R.-hired pro-illegal thugs attacked 62-year-old Dave Caulkett of Floridians for Immigration Enforcement, pummeling him with their signs and kicking him in the face as other A.N.S.W.E.R. goons cheered.
But you won't see hide nor hair of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann or Bill Maher attacking racist pro-illegal hate groups who threaten to murder Americans with axes, because it simply doesn't fit into their or the federal government's primary mission, which is to smear peaceful Americans angry at how big government and huge corporations are manipulating and siding with millions of illegal aliens to crush the middle class, as violent racist extremists who need to be silenced.
celticdb15
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,469
Cinco de Mayo should be interesting tomorrow. We'll see how many people turn to violence after they've had a couple Corona's Edited by: celticdb15
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
The NBA & the Suns join the appeasement effort (in pandering to the untermenschen).
Spurs to Wear "Los Suns" Jerseyes on "Cinco De Mayo"
BTW, Steve Nash spews out the cultural marxist BS in speaking against AZ's anti-invader law.
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
Spurs to Wear "Los Suns" Jerseyes on "Cinco De Mayo"
BTW, Steve Nash spews out the cultural marxist BS in speaking against AZ's anti-invader law.
Edited by: DixieDestroyer
Yeah, the Suns are going to wear jerseys with the inscription of "Los Suns" if they wanted to get it right it would state "Los Soles". And Steve Nash is opening his liberal misguided trap again. Just shut up and play ball. We don't any friggin Canadian tell US how to secure the border or force the Feds to do their job.
celticdb15
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,469
Dixie beat me to it and I agree w\Westside 100% Nash needs to focus on leading his team to victory not worrying about another country's affairs. This law is taking a lot of heat, unfortunately I do not think it will stick
All in the name of conformity, gentlemen!
If Nash said he supports the law, that's losing league wide credibility and All-Star votes. IMHO, it sounds like any politician trying to win votes. I like Nash for his basketball, but not his politics.
The same is true for Dirk, Gasol, any NBA player, and other sporting and celebrity otherwise. Truly a sad sight to see.
If Nash said he supports the law, that's losing league wide credibility and All-Star votes. IMHO, it sounds like any politician trying to win votes. I like Nash for his basketball, but not his politics.
The same is true for Dirk, Gasol, any NBA player, and other sporting and celebrity otherwise. Truly a sad sight to see.
Great, now Religious leaders are getting into the act.
If there's one big irony among these illegal immigrants, they DON'T support gay rights!
Religious Groups Unite in Calling for Immigration Reform</font>
By AMY SULLIVAN / WASHINGTON Amy Sullivan / Washington
Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 7:30 p.m. ET
When Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony heard about Arizona's new immigration-enforcement law, the Catholic leader reacted with some good old-fashioned righteous anger. Taking to his blog, Mahony blasted the measure as the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited and useless anti-immigration law, comparing it to German Nazi and Russian communist techniques that forced individuals to turn one another in.
Mahony is hardly the only religious leader outraged by Arizona's approach to immigration, which requires police to ask for papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The progressive Evangelical leader Jim Wallis has declared the state's new law a social and racial sin. The president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society declared that by passing the law, Arizona has taken itself out of the mainstream of American life. And Mahony's Catholic colleague the bishop of Tucson has suggested that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) join lawsuits challenging the law. (See the top 10 religion stories of 2009.)
The vigorous response to the Arizona law from faith communities is providing new energy to a national campaign for immigration reform that was already gathering steam this spring, including a massive rally in March on the National Mall. In the past week, however, Democratic leaders have sent mixed signals about their willingness to press ahead with immigration reform this year. Senate majority leader Harry Reid is backing off his vow from last week to make the issue a priority with or without GOP support. Similarly, after appearing to endorse swift action last weekend, President Barack Obama told reporters that there may not be an appetite to reform immigration laws this year. If immigration reform does fight its way to the top of the Democratic agenda, it will be largely through the efforts of a remarkably broad coalition of religious leaders.
The near universal support among religious groups for comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, is a change from the bruising fights over health reform that often saw faith leaders facing off against one another. But across theological lines, religious advocates say their traditions obligate them to care for immigrants. As the group New Evangelicals for the Common Good put it in a statement opposing the Arizona law, throughout the Bible, God commands us in no uncertain terms to show kindness and hospitality to the foreigner and the stranger. (See pictures of spiritual healing around the world.)
The Catholic Church is the biggest player in the push for immigration reform. The issue has long been a concern of the Church and was a lesser-noted reason the bishops' conference ultimately opposed health reform. The USCCB strongly criticized the health measure for prohibiting illegal immigrants from participating in the insurance exchange, writing that undocumented immigrants should not be barred from purchasing a health insurance plan with their own money.
The USCCB is encouraging swift action on comprehensive immigration reform through its Justice for Immigrants campaign, which has provided hundreds of thousands of postcards for parishioners to send to Congress and sponsored teach-ins on the issue in dioceses around the country. A March 2010 poll by Public Religion Research found that among churchgoing Americans, Catholics were the most likely to say they had heard a local clergy member speak sometimes or often about immigration reform.
But while Catholics may be the most visible religious supporters of immigration reform, they are a joined by a broad coalition of other faith advocates. The Interfaith Immigration Coalition (IIC) includes Quaker, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, mainline Protestant, Evangelical Christian and Catholic organizations. The IIC began quietly building pressure for immigration reform last year while the health care debate dominated Washington's attention, and it is largely responsible for keeping the issue on the radar of many congressional offices.
See why Mexico opposes the Arizona decision.
See why police are split on the new reform.
The newest voices in the immigration debate - and those with the potential to shape support for reform - are Evangelical Christians. Earlier this month, the Christian international aid group World Relief and the National Association of Evangelicals co-hosted a forum in New Hampshire for church leaders to learn about immigration from a Biblical perspective. (The sponsoring groups also hoped to put pressure on retiring GOP Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, one of the Republicans faith leaders are lobbying to lend bipartisan support to Senate immigration legislation.)
A new book by two young Evangelicals is taking on concerns within the community about the security aspects of immigration reform. Jenny Hwang and Matt Soerens say they wrote Welcoming the Stranger: Justice, Compassion and Truth in the Immigration Debate to debunk myths some Evangelicals have about immigrants in American society. Willow Creek Community Church, a Chicago-area megachurch, ordered thousands of copies of the book last year for its members. And the pastor's wife, Lynne Hybels, was one of several religious figures who testified last fall in favor of reform before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Refugees.
Evangelicals are less likely to support comprehensive immigration reform than are members of other religious groups, according to Robert Jones of Public Religion Research. But the changing face of American Evangelicalism is leading many Evangelicals to reconsider their beliefs about immigrants. These days, new Latino immigrants to the U.S. are more likely to be Evangelical than Catholic, and their presence in church can challenge stereotypes held by their fellow worshippers. According to a 2006 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey, white Evangelicals who attend church most often are more likely to support a path to citizenship.
Many religious groups have begun framing the immigration issue as a matter of family values. "These detentions split families when parents are sent back and deported," says Sister Marie Lucey, who lobbies for the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. "It's not true to our values." Rich Nathan, pastor of the Evangelical 10,000-member Vineyard Church in Columbus, Ohio, has emerged as a leader on the issue and cites his own experience with members of his congregation. "We have 75 nations represented within our congregation," says Nathan. "Some of our African members have been unable to return to their homes to be with dying parents or attend funerals because of their undocumented status. As Evangelicals, we have to see the immigration issue as a family issue."
Still, the idea that immigration reform is about protecting family values has yet to trickle down into the most conservative pews. The March Public Religion Research poll found that Republicans were more concerned about using immigration laws to protect national security and ensure fairness to taxpayers than to keep families together. But it also found surprisingly robust support for comprehensive reform, with 63% favoring a path to citizenship over other alternatives.
Despite that broad support for immigration reform and the momentum from Arizona-law backlash, religious leaders fear the cause may suffer from bad timing this year. A rally for immigration reform that drew an estimated 150,000 to Washington in late March ended up unexpectedly competing with the final health reform vote in the House of Representatives held on the same day. The following day, a group of religious leaders that included unlikely allies from the National Association of Evangelicals and the mainline Protestant National Council of Churches met with White House officials to push for swift action and presidential leadership on immigration reform. But the meeting was all but ignored by the press in the aftermath of the health bill's passage.
Now religious leaders worry that financial reform and a Supreme Court nomination battle could occupy too much of the White House's energy and postpone action on immigration reform until after the midterm elections. The hot-button nature of the issue cuts both ways - Democrats would dearly love to further separate Hispanics and other minority voters from the GOP, but they can't afford a backlash of their own from white independents. Still, the faith communities remain optimistic that the reaction to Arizona's new law could fuel a sense of urgency. And if all else fails, they still believe in miracles.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100505/us_time/08599198632000
If there's one big irony among these illegal immigrants, they DON'T support gay rights!
Religious Groups Unite in Calling for Immigration Reform</font>
By AMY SULLIVAN / WASHINGTON Amy Sullivan / Washington
Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 7:30 p.m. ET
When Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony heard about Arizona's new immigration-enforcement law, the Catholic leader reacted with some good old-fashioned righteous anger. Taking to his blog, Mahony blasted the measure as the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited and useless anti-immigration law, comparing it to German Nazi and Russian communist techniques that forced individuals to turn one another in.
Mahony is hardly the only religious leader outraged by Arizona's approach to immigration, which requires police to ask for papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The progressive Evangelical leader Jim Wallis has declared the state's new law a social and racial sin. The president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society declared that by passing the law, Arizona has taken itself out of the mainstream of American life. And Mahony's Catholic colleague the bishop of Tucson has suggested that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) join lawsuits challenging the law. (See the top 10 religion stories of 2009.)
The vigorous response to the Arizona law from faith communities is providing new energy to a national campaign for immigration reform that was already gathering steam this spring, including a massive rally in March on the National Mall. In the past week, however, Democratic leaders have sent mixed signals about their willingness to press ahead with immigration reform this year. Senate majority leader Harry Reid is backing off his vow from last week to make the issue a priority with or without GOP support. Similarly, after appearing to endorse swift action last weekend, President Barack Obama told reporters that there may not be an appetite to reform immigration laws this year. If immigration reform does fight its way to the top of the Democratic agenda, it will be largely through the efforts of a remarkably broad coalition of religious leaders.
The near universal support among religious groups for comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, is a change from the bruising fights over health reform that often saw faith leaders facing off against one another. But across theological lines, religious advocates say their traditions obligate them to care for immigrants. As the group New Evangelicals for the Common Good put it in a statement opposing the Arizona law, throughout the Bible, God commands us in no uncertain terms to show kindness and hospitality to the foreigner and the stranger. (See pictures of spiritual healing around the world.)
The Catholic Church is the biggest player in the push for immigration reform. The issue has long been a concern of the Church and was a lesser-noted reason the bishops' conference ultimately opposed health reform. The USCCB strongly criticized the health measure for prohibiting illegal immigrants from participating in the insurance exchange, writing that undocumented immigrants should not be barred from purchasing a health insurance plan with their own money.
The USCCB is encouraging swift action on comprehensive immigration reform through its Justice for Immigrants campaign, which has provided hundreds of thousands of postcards for parishioners to send to Congress and sponsored teach-ins on the issue in dioceses around the country. A March 2010 poll by Public Religion Research found that among churchgoing Americans, Catholics were the most likely to say they had heard a local clergy member speak sometimes or often about immigration reform.
But while Catholics may be the most visible religious supporters of immigration reform, they are a joined by a broad coalition of other faith advocates. The Interfaith Immigration Coalition (IIC) includes Quaker, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, mainline Protestant, Evangelical Christian and Catholic organizations. The IIC began quietly building pressure for immigration reform last year while the health care debate dominated Washington's attention, and it is largely responsible for keeping the issue on the radar of many congressional offices.
See why Mexico opposes the Arizona decision.
See why police are split on the new reform.
The newest voices in the immigration debate - and those with the potential to shape support for reform - are Evangelical Christians. Earlier this month, the Christian international aid group World Relief and the National Association of Evangelicals co-hosted a forum in New Hampshire for church leaders to learn about immigration from a Biblical perspective. (The sponsoring groups also hoped to put pressure on retiring GOP Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, one of the Republicans faith leaders are lobbying to lend bipartisan support to Senate immigration legislation.)
A new book by two young Evangelicals is taking on concerns within the community about the security aspects of immigration reform. Jenny Hwang and Matt Soerens say they wrote Welcoming the Stranger: Justice, Compassion and Truth in the Immigration Debate to debunk myths some Evangelicals have about immigrants in American society. Willow Creek Community Church, a Chicago-area megachurch, ordered thousands of copies of the book last year for its members. And the pastor's wife, Lynne Hybels, was one of several religious figures who testified last fall in favor of reform before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Refugees.
Evangelicals are less likely to support comprehensive immigration reform than are members of other religious groups, according to Robert Jones of Public Religion Research. But the changing face of American Evangelicalism is leading many Evangelicals to reconsider their beliefs about immigrants. These days, new Latino immigrants to the U.S. are more likely to be Evangelical than Catholic, and their presence in church can challenge stereotypes held by their fellow worshippers. According to a 2006 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey, white Evangelicals who attend church most often are more likely to support a path to citizenship.
Many religious groups have begun framing the immigration issue as a matter of family values. "These detentions split families when parents are sent back and deported," says Sister Marie Lucey, who lobbies for the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. "It's not true to our values." Rich Nathan, pastor of the Evangelical 10,000-member Vineyard Church in Columbus, Ohio, has emerged as a leader on the issue and cites his own experience with members of his congregation. "We have 75 nations represented within our congregation," says Nathan. "Some of our African members have been unable to return to their homes to be with dying parents or attend funerals because of their undocumented status. As Evangelicals, we have to see the immigration issue as a family issue."
Still, the idea that immigration reform is about protecting family values has yet to trickle down into the most conservative pews. The March Public Religion Research poll found that Republicans were more concerned about using immigration laws to protect national security and ensure fairness to taxpayers than to keep families together. But it also found surprisingly robust support for comprehensive reform, with 63% favoring a path to citizenship over other alternatives.
Despite that broad support for immigration reform and the momentum from Arizona-law backlash, religious leaders fear the cause may suffer from bad timing this year. A rally for immigration reform that drew an estimated 150,000 to Washington in late March ended up unexpectedly competing with the final health reform vote in the House of Representatives held on the same day. The following day, a group of religious leaders that included unlikely allies from the National Association of Evangelicals and the mainline Protestant National Council of Churches met with White House officials to push for swift action and presidential leadership on immigration reform. But the meeting was all but ignored by the press in the aftermath of the health bill's passage.
Now religious leaders worry that financial reform and a Supreme Court nomination battle could occupy too much of the White House's energy and postpone action on immigration reform until after the midterm elections. The hot-button nature of the issue cuts both ways - Democrats would dearly love to further separate Hispanics and other minority voters from the GOP, but they can't afford a backlash of their own from white independents. Still, the faith communities remain optimistic that the reaction to Arizona's new law could fuel a sense of urgency. And if all else fails, they still believe in miracles.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100505/us_time/08599198632000