Archive for the ‘U.S. Borders Issues’ Category
Well, hallelujah, after FIVE turncoat Senate Republican RINOs voted to approve the inexperienced, highly un-American ethics liberal Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, they also approved $600 million for Border Security.
After Clinton appointed Judge Susan Bolton ruled Wednesday that—for all intents and purposes—Arizona does not have the right to protect itself or its citizens from invading drug cartels and the illegal foreign hordes that are bleeding it dry of its resources, it should have become apparent to even the dimmest that We-the-People no longer exist. We are now living under a tyranny developed, directed, implemented and enforced by the Marxists in power.
Article II, Section I of The Constitution of the United States: The Presidential Oath of Affirmation states “I do solemnly swear(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Any federal law that has justly been approved and entered into the United States Code becomes part of the Law of the Land, the Constitution. Therefore, the protection of our country, in any terms from protecting our borders to protecting our environment, is a direct obligation of the President of the United States. Question: When is the President of the United States of America guilty of violating the Law of the Land? Answer: when he willfully violates the Oath of Affirmation.
This is from the LA Times. Goes to show, not everyone is in favor of boycotting AZ:
The city councils of Hemet and Lake Elsinore, both in Riverside County, approved proclamations Tuesday in support of Arizona’s controversial anti-illegal immigration law.
The Yorba Linda City Council in Orange County approved a similar resolution earlier this month, countering actions taken by leaders in cities such as Los Angeles, who voted to boycott doing business with Arizona companies in protest of the law. . .
. . . The Hemet City Council unanimously approved the measure, proposed by Mayor Eric McBride. Dozens of residents testified throughout the evening, with supporters praising the council for taking a stand against illegal immigration and for the rule of law, and opponents accusing the council of fostering racial profiling and discrimination. Residents on both sides criticized the White House and Congress for failing to address the issue.
This is a good explanation of Arizona’s new Immigration law, if you are talking to someone who maybe a little dense or slow.
This was written by a Mexican who is now a naturalized US Citizen from Globe, Arizona, and I think it's a great explanation of the illegal immigration issue.
Here is the quote:
"If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland, or for an airline flight, and when you got to your assigned seat you found someone else was in that seat, what would you do? You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed. You would properly be asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat. The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, which they would not be able to produce. They would be called "gate crashers" and they would properly be removed.
Now in this huge stadium called the USA we have had millions of gate crashers. We have been asking security to check for tickets and remove the gate crashers. We have been asking security to have better controls in checking at the door. We have asked security to lock the back doors. Security has failed us. They are still looking the other way. They are afraid to ask to see the tickets. Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not, no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price!
In "section AZ", of "Stadium USA", we have had enough of the failures of Security. We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets. Now it seems very strange to me that so many people in the other 49 "sections", and even many in our own "section" do not want tickets checked, or even to be asked to show their ticket! Even the head of Security is chastising us, while not doing his own job which he has sworn to do.
My own ticket has been bought and paid for, so I am proudly going to show it when asked to do so. I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate crashers to be asked to show their tickets too. The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it, such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation. Is that what I am hearing from all of the protesters such as Phoenix Mayor Gordon, US Rep. Grijalva, even President Obama? If you are not in favor of showing tickets, (proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal document) when asked, as I would do proudly, then you must be condoning those illegal activities."
This makes perfect sense to me. What do you think?
Since Obama has never shown his ticket I guess he feels obligated to not ask others to show theirs.
Is San Fransisco's reaction to Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law cause for alarm for San Fransisco's residents? Since the federal government does not want to protect the legal citizens in our country, Arizona was left with no choice with all the violence and killings along their border with Mexico.
State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, which was signed by Governor Jan Brewer writes in FrontPageMag.com:
. . . Why did I propose SB 1070? I saw the enormous fiscal and social costs that illegal immigration was imposing on my state. I saw Americans out of work, hospitals and schools overflowed, and budgets strained. Most disturbingly, I saw my fellow citizens victimized by illegal alien criminals.
The murder of Robert Krentz—whose family had been ranching in Arizona since 1907—by illegal alien drug dealers was the final straw for many Arizonans. But there are dozens and dozens of other citizens of our state who had been murdered by illegal aliens. Currently 95 illegal aliens are in Maricopa County jail for murder. When do we stand up for Americans and the rule of law? If not now, when? We are a nation of laws, a Constitutional Republic. . .
And in regards to San Francisco's boycott attempt with Arizona:
In 2008, San Francisco began a campaign to encourage illegal aliens to take advantage of the city’s public services. Mayor Gavin Newsom stated, “We have worked with the Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Health, labor and immigrant rights groups to create a city government-wide public awareness campaign so that immigrants know the city won’t target them for using city services.”
The results were tragic. A few months after the campaign, Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien and member of the MS 13 gang, murdered San Francisco resident Tony Bologna and his two sons who he mistook for rival gang members. Ramos had a lengthy criminal record including a felony assault on a pregnant woman. He was arrested on gang and weapons charges and promptly released just three months before the murder. Not once did San Francisco report him to immigration authorities.
One month after the murder of Bologna, illegal alien Alexander Izaguirre stole Amanda Keifer’s purse and then intentionally ran her over with an SUV, laughing as she hit the pavement and fractured her skull. Four months earlier, Alexander Izaguirre had been arrested for felony dealing of crack cocaine. Not only did San Francisco refuse to turn him over to immigration authorities, they expunged his record and helped get him a job, which is criminal in and of itself.
Read the full article at FrontPageMag.com
By Jim Kouri
Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton finally agreed to appear on the highly-rated Fox News show The O’Reilly Factor. Her interview, which was taped earlier this
week while she was campaigning in South Bend, Indiana, was broadcast on The Factor over two consecutive nights.
On Thursday night, part two of “Hillary in the No Spin Zone” aired, and she was asked questions on the topics of foreign policy, the War on Terror, and illegal immigration. When Bill O’Reilly turned to the immigration debate, he asked, “Will you shut down sanctuary cities?” Hillary responded, “No, I will not.”
According to a new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the illegal immigrant population within the United States currently exceeds 13 million, an estimate that has almost doubled since 2000. Given this increasing trend, Hillary’s response should be frightening to American families, who are forced to live with frequent criminal activity committed by illegals in sanctuary cities. Even during the Senate debate of the Grand Amnesty bill last year, Senator Clinton voted against the Coleman Amendment which would have banned sanctuary cities (Roll Call 177).
“It is an outrage that Hillary Clinton is running to become President of the United States, yet she is openly admitting that she will not enforce America’s laws,” said Eagle Forum Executive Director Jessica Echard.
“Sanctuary city policies put all Americans in danger, and as an elected official, Hillary Clinton is well aware of that fact. Do we really want to elect someone who will enable criminal aliens to roam our streets?” she added
Last August, several African-American college-bound teenagers were brutally murdered while listening to music in a playground in Newark, New Jersey, one of many US sanctuary cities. Although Newark is no stranger to violence, the perpetrator was an illegal alien from Peru, who had been previously charged with raping a 5-year-old girl, but was released despite his obvious illegal presence in this country.
“If Hillary Clinton will not enforce the law against sanctuary cities, why should we believe she will enforce any other immigration laws or build the fence?” stated Echard. “She will simply continue the Bush open border policies which she pretends to condemn and that have allowed our illegal immigration population to nearly double since 2000.”
By Jim Kouri
Duncan Hunter, R-Calif, author of the fencing provisions of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, has introduced new legislation in the House of Representatives to require the construction of double-layered fencing along the U.S. border with Mexico within six months, according to a memo sent to the National Association of Chiefs of Police.
As previously reported, the language of an amendment submitted by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, into the Fiscal Year 2008 Department of Homeland Security funding bill, H.R. 2638, specifically exempts DHS from having to build any fence at all.
The Hutchison amendment reads, in part, " … nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location."
"While these lawmakers living in their Ivory Towers in Washington continue to play political games with one another and collude with the Mexican government in repeated incidents of violation of US sovereignty by armed Mexicans, the American people are being victimized by illegal aliens some of whom are using fully-automatic assault rifles and other state-of-the-art weaponry, "claims Lieutenant Steven Rogers, a police commander in New Jersey.
Lt. Rogers heads the board of directors of a police-counterterrorism organization called AmeriCop.com. (http://www.AmeriCop.com)
According to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office — an entity that reports to the legislative branch of government rather than the executive and judicial branhes.– the increase in the number of incursions is staggering"
17 documented, illegal border crossings into America by armed Mexican soldiers in 2006
29 documented, illegal border incursions of all kinds by Mexican forces in 2006
253 documented, illegal border crossings by Mexican soldiers and policemen to assist drug and weapons traffickers in the past decade
1000 attacks against US Border Patrol agents in 2007
By Christopher Adamo
As the 2008 Campaign Season shifts from jockeying and publicity stunts to actual voting, it is all important to consider what America is likely to actually reap by electing any particular candidate. Honesty being a commodity of ever dwindling supply, it is dangerous to rely solely on the words of many candidates. All is not as it seems once the cameras and spotlights are turned off, or once the primary season is concluded.A couple of glaring recent examples, when considered in comparison to each other, tell the grim story. Washington is not about the business of the American people or, as the Declaration so eloquently puts it, securing the God-given rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Rather, it seeks to put a public face of mock concern and "compassion" on its increasingly self-serving endeavors.
Cynical and depressing as such an assessment may sound, the facts nonetheless speak for themselves. Beltway reactions to the ongoing hemorrhage at America’s southern border, when contrasted against the ostensibly monumental subprime mortgage "crisis," provide the necessary evidence for such a claim.
Despite a vast array of excuses and obfuscations intended to convince the American public that the ongoing flood of illegal immigrants is either no real problem, or is simply unfixable, common citizens see their country, its traditions, and its heritage disappearing from before their very eyes. By margins of more than seventy percent, Americans demand action to secure their nation’s border in an effort to curb this invasion.
But what have they gotten in response from Washington? In 2006, after a hard-fought battle in the Congress, a measure was grudgingly passed that assured the construction of 700 miles of border fence. The event was promoted with great fanfare as proof of decisive leadership within a Congress intent on dealing effectively with border security. From the start, the situation lacked credibility, since its principals had been so reluctant to truly confront the border issue. Not surprisingly, things only deteriorated from there.
To begin with, a little elementary math is all it takes to recognize that even if the entire fence were built as promised, more than sixty-five percent of the border would remain open. Does anyone really believe this token effort constitutes border "security"? Moreover, those doubters whose reflexive reaction was to cynically insist that the fence would never be built are being validated daily.
Somehow, according to the way business is conducted inside D.C., the "actual" fence requirement magically diminished from 700 miles down to 370, which would leave 81% of the border unchecked. Yet even that length of fence is an empty promise, with deadlines for construction completely ignored. To date, the government claims that 70 miles of fence has been installed, hardly a "Manhattan Project" to restore our national integrity and sovereignty. But it still gets worse. The actual length may be less than ten miles.
The American people should never forget that, in the beginning, Congress only conceded to the notion of a border fence as a means of throwing a few crumbs to those citizens who otherwise rejected any immigration "reform" measures (read: amnesty) without first securing the border. Apparently, the illegal immigration problem is simply too overwhelming for the U.S. Government to honestly and effectively address it.
So, one might ask, just what are all of those bureaucrats and officials back in Washington paid to accomplish for the American people? The abominable answer can be found in their response to the "subprime mortgage" debacle, a real (we are told) crisis that requires their immediate attention.
By Alan Caruba
It’s an issue that will dominate the elections in 2008. It is illegal immigration, but there was scarce attention paid during the debates leading up to the Iowa caucuses. The candidate that promises to put a stop to it will be the candidate that wins. The party that temporizes will be the party that fails.
The conflict in Iraq has siphoned the energy to pay attention to Mexico, but as that battlefront recedes, the eyes of voters will be on our southern border. A war is being fought there. Some may argue that no such war has been authorized or declared, but a full-scale invasion has been taking place for years, resulting in an estimated one tenth of all Mexicans presently living in the United States.
They are not pilgrims. They are parasites.
The drain on our economy is something that, while well documented, has not received sufficient attention from the mainstream media. After all, we are “neighbors” with Mexico, so how could they hardly be considered an invading horde costing Americans billions of dollars every year?
Good neighbors don’t do that kind of thing, but Mexico is not a good neighbor.
Mexico is working very hard to provide the seaports for goods shipped more cheaply there than to American ports. They would then be transported via a super highway from the Texas-Mexico border to a Mexico owned and operated customs port in Kansas. Presently, some 40% of all imported goods arrive in the U.S. via the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Putting American dockworkers in the unemployment lines and harming our trucking industry is of little concern to our “neighbor” to the south.
Perhaps, however, the real war receiving scant attention is the one being conducted by Mexican drug lords and their cartels. At present most of the war is being fought in Mexico and, as Terence Jeffrey, the editor-in-chief of CNSnews, recently pointed out, one episode was fought in Cananea. Where’s that? “It is almost in Arizona.” Cananea is about 20 miles south of the U.S. border in Mexico. “The nearest town of any size is Nogales, Arizona and the nearest big city is Tucson. Cananea is a war zone.
How long before that shooting war takes place in the streets of American cities? Not long at all. In June 2007, World Net Daily reported that, “The ultra-violent, U.S.-trained elite, Mexican paramilitary commandos known as the ‘Zetas’, responsible for hundreds of murders along the border this year, have expanded their enforcement efforts on behalf of a drug cartel by setting up trafficking routes in six U.S. states.” Texas law enforcement officials report that the Zetas “have been active in the Dallas area since 2003.”
The war is all about the provision of huge amounts of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine into the U.S. market. Read the rest of this entry »