Posts Tagged ‘SB 1070’

Mexico Says Their Citizens Returning Home Are A Burden: How Were They Not A Burden To America?

June 3, 2010

This is too damn funny…

As reported by the Tucson Citizen:

by Jim Kelley on Jun.01, 2010
Mexico feeling the impact of Exodus of Illegal Aliens from US

El Imparcial (Hermosillo, Sonora) 5/29/10
Sonora foresees Mexican invasion
[Column by  Victor Mendoza Lambert ]

It’s a fact, the SB 1070 law will be a true nightmare for Sonora.  To the Sonoran immigrants who will return for obvious reasons, we must add the thousands and thousands of Mexicans who  will cross the border daily to enter our country to avoid being jailed.  I hope that the Federation and the State foresee this, because cities like Nogales are already suffering.

The problem is not that they cross for a few days; the problem is that they stay; the problem is the unemployment that we have and that we see mounting in that area; the problem is the violence and the risk that many of those unemployed and desperate Mexicans will join the ranks of organized crime which, as we well know, has taken a liking to Nogales.  From this arises the urgency of a true strategy in which the Federation might contemplate helping all those people so that they return to their places of origin and avoid this nightmare in the border areas of Sonora.

The Arizona authorities in the past few days have toughened their campaign to find and deport undocumenteds.  In Nogales, there are days when up to 1,200 men and women are deported and the disputed law has not yet even been applied.  Can one imagine when that happens? This means it is urgent that the concerns become actions and for the implementation of a regulated plan.

Then, how it appears, neither the “lovely” speeches by Felipe Calderon nor the good intentions of Barack Obama will be able to counteract this enormous problem.  Unemployment is the darkest shadow our country will have in the coming months and Sonora will suffer before the others.  Because of this, Guillermo Padres [Governor of Sonora] will have much work to do in Mexico City; he has to knock on many doors to avoid our border from becoming an uninhabitable zone.  There is not the slightest doubt that Sonora will be one of the most vulnerable states.  If living in Nogales is a risk now, just imagine what it will be with thousands of Mexicans who, day after day, return …   It goes without saying, our state finds itself between a rock and a hard place, or better said, between a rock and the border.

[End El Imparcial article]

It appears that Mexico is starting to feel the impact of years of illegal aliens entering the United States. As more and more Mexicans who have entered the US illegally are self deporting or being deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, they themselves are wondering what they are going to do when their citizens return. The assumptions that the writer makes about the illegals that may return is striking. ” The problem is not that they cross for a few days; the problem is that they stay…” […]

Thus Mexico begins to see a huge burden when their citizens return to their own country.  And the obvious question comes to mind: “And how were these same Mexican citizens not a burden on the United States when they were illegally living in OUR country?”

The myth that these illegal immigrants were a “boon” to America is finally permanently put to rest.

The DemocRAT Party has been assuring us that Mexican illegal immigrants aren’t a “nightmare” or a “burden.”  Oh, no.  They have been little blessed darlings and all they do is make America more wonderfuller than ever.  They don’t swamp our social support system; they don’t overwhelm our schools and our emergency rooms; they don’t take jobs that poor Americans WOULD be willing to do if the wages hadn’t been artificially depressed by illegal immigrants who in many cases live 20 to a house.  And, of COURSE illegal immigrants aren’t involved in anything like those nasty criminal gangs.

Except they ARE members of nasty criminal gangs.  See hereAnd hereAnd here.  Here’s a bullet point from a Center for Immigration Studies article:

25-50% of all gangsters arrested in northern and western Virginia are estimated to be deportable aliens. Gang investigators estimate that 90% of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal aliens.

And that’s not in Arizona, where the problem is huge.  It’s in Virginia!!!

And, of course, they ARE draining our nation, one-by-one, thousand-by-thousand, million-by-million.

Rep. Lamar Smith points out the following:

When it comes to taxes, amnesty supporters like to say that illegal immigrants will pay their “fair share” of taxes after being granted amnesty.  This is deceptive.

Low-skilled workers often pay no taxes and receive a check from the Internal Revenue Service in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit.  Putting illegal immigrants on the IRS rolls will actually cost the federal government money.

Since most illegal immigrants have less than a high school education and have well below average incomes, even those illegal immigrants who pay taxes pay far less in taxes than they (and their families) consume in taxpayer-supported benefits.  Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation found that the average immigrant household headed by an immigrant without a high school degree receives over $19,000 more in total government benefits each year than it pays in federal, state and local taxes!

So with every illegal immigrant entering the country, you can hear the cash register: “Ka-ching!  Ka-ching!  Ka-ching!”  $19,000.  Another $19,000.  Another $19,000.  And so on, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Well, they’ve been a burden here for years.  And now when those same illegal immigrants return home to their own country, the very same people who burdened our system are now burdening Mexico’s system.

Obama AG Eric Holder Refuses To Acknowledge That Radical Islam Even AMONG Reasons For Terrorist Attacks

May 19, 2010

We have seen that Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder has been lightening fast to denounce and demonize the residents of an entire state as being racist over a law that he admits he never even bothered to actually read.

But now watch how careful the top American law enforcement official is to not say that radical Islam has even been AMONG the reasons that the recent rash of terrorists have attempted to murder Americans, even after repeated requests to do so:

Reading a transcript should drive you nuts as you plumb the depths of the ignorance, political correctness, and moral cowardice of the highest law enforcement official in the land:

SMITH: Let me go to my next question, which is — in — in the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?

HOLDER: Because of?

SMITH: Radical Islam.

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. It’s — one, I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we are in the process now of talking to Mr. Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action.

SMITH: Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people

SMITH: But was radical Islam one of them?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious…

SMITH: OK. But all I’m asking is if you think among those variety of reasons radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did.

HOLDER: You see, you say radical Islam. I mean, I think those people who espouse a — a version of Islam that is not…

SMITH: Are you uncomfortable attributing any other actions to radical Islam? It sounds like it.

HOLDER: No, I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion that is not

SMITH: No, no. I’m not talking about religion. I’m talking about radical Islam. I’m not talking about the general religion.

HOLDER: Right. And I’m saying that a person, like Anwar Awlaki, for instance, who has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of it…

SMITH: But…

HOLDER: … and who espouses a radical version…

SMITH: But then is — could radical Islam had motivated these individuals to take the steps that they did?

HOLDER: I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad.

SMITH: OK. And could it have been the case in one of these three instances?

HOLDER: Could that have been the case?

SMITH: Yes, could — again, could one of these three individuals have been incited by radical Islam? Apparently, you feel that that they could’ve been.

HOLDER: Well, I think potentially incited by people who have a view of Islam that is inconsistent with…

SMITH: OK. Mr. A.G., it’s hard to get an answer yes or no, but let me go on to my next question.

I mean, it would have been easier to teach a pre-schooler  the mathematical intricacies of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.  That’s the way it is with moral idiots.  They simply cannot understand.   Objective morality and common sense are like an alien language to them.  They are so open-minded their brains have fallen out and splattered all over the floor.  They were so committed to their “liberal studies” that all room for any competing idea whatsoever has been utterly discarded and cannot even for the briefest nanosecond be considered.  They have determined themselves to be utterly stupid by sheer brute force of will.

The Obama administration respects the terrorists, their religion, their culture, and their worldview so very, very much.

It’s a bleeping long-string-of-profanities-type shame that Barack Obama and his top law dog don’t have so much as a fraction of the same respect for the American citizens and residents of the state of Arizona.

The National Review had this to point out:

How can you ever hope to stop something when you refuse even to speak its name?

Interesting, by the way, to hear Mr. Holder has become such an expert in Islam that he now purports to know more about the subject than people who have spent years studying it. He referred to al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki as beholden to “a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of it.” I wonder if he will enlighten us on what exactly Awlaki has gotten wrong. Hopefully, Mr. Holder will at least let Secretary Clinton know because the State Department is showcasing the Dar al-Hijra Islamic Center — Awlaki’s old Virginia haunts, where the imam used to minister to 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood mass-murderer — as the model depiction of Islam in America. (See Steve Emerson’s reports at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, here and here).

Sun Tzu – in one of the great analyses of warfare, said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles.  Barack Obama and Eric Holder won’t even consider their actual enemy, and it is almost as shocking how utterly ignorant they are concerning themselves and their many flaws.

These people are dangerous and depraved.  And they need to go.

California To Arizona: ‘Please Don’t Boycott Us For Boycotting You’

May 18, 2010

The liberal view: “If we slap you in the face, it’s justice.  If you slap us back, it’s just wrong.”

I can’t help but think how liberals – who were so filled with hatred and anger at George W. Bush and Republicans that it was positively unreal – are now so utterly flabbergasted that conservatives would dare feel the same way now that a liberal guy and a liberal party has total control.

It’s like, “How can you possibly treat us the way we treated you?  That’s just so immoral.”

Some in Arizona canceling trips to S.D.
Outrage over local censure votes may be a misunderstanding
By Lori Weisberg, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Friday, May 14, 2010 at 12:04 a.m.

San Diego tourism leaders and hoteliers fear they could lose a sizable chunk of business this summer from valued “Zonies” who are so angered by elected leaders’ recent censure of Arizona for its illegal-immigration law that they’re mounting an informal boycott of their own.

The San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau and several hotels report receiving e-mails and letters from Arizona visitors saying they intend to change their plans to travel here in light of local outcry over their home state’s anti-illegal-immigration stance.

Tourism officials are striking back. In an open letter, they urge Arizona residents to overlook local politics and come to San Diego just as they always have for its mild climate, beaches and attractions. The visitors bureau, in conjunction with the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association, plans to circulate the letter to media outlets and in advertising this weekend in The Arizona Republic.

The bureau says it has received about 25 to 30 e-mails from Arizona residents reacting to resolutions passed last month by the San Diego City Council and school board, which were little more than symbolic protests aimed at the neighboring state’s lawmakers.

Still struggling from the prolonged economic downturn, San Diego’s visitor industry can ill afford to lose any of the 2 million Arizonans it counts on annually, said ConVis President Joe Terzi.

“We’re in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don’t need another negative impact to our industry,” Terzi said. “This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don’t do something that hurts their livelihoods.”

Although the summer months typically are an economic bonanza for the San Diego visitor industry, the recession and continued high unemployment have eaten away at lodging revenue as hotels have steeply discounted rates to fill their rooms. The Convention & Visitors Bureau spent $9 million last year promoting the region for the spring and summer months and is dedicating $7 million toward that effort this year.

“I’ve been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they’ve received cancellations from Arizona guests,” said Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association. “It’s a huge piece of business for not just the hotels but for all of San Diego. Everybody’s excited because they think occupancies will be stronger this summer, and now this.”

I am in Arizona as I write this, and I can assure you that Arizonans are pissed off.  Even the Democrat Arizonans I’ve talked to are pissed off.  70% of Arizonans are in favor of this bill; and they feel singled out and under attack.

And Arizonans aren’t just going to take their ire out on San Diego.  They’re pissed off at Los Angeles, they’re pissed off at the state of California, and they’re pissed off at anywhere else that wants to attack them with a boycott.

As I was driving from California, I ate at an Arizona Burger King.  I have never seen so much stuff embracing a state on the walls of a fast food restaurant in my entire life.

Here is the text of the Arizona law.  Read it.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with this law.  All it does is make what is already a federal crime a state crime as well.  It doesn’t allow racial profiling; in fact it has more stipulations preventing racial profiling than the federal law.

The Los Angeles Lakers are in the NBA Western Conference Finals against the Phoenix Suns.  There is outrage over the fact that a Los Angeles City Council member said that the Lakers should take their own food to Phoenix so as not to spend money in Arizona. 

Los Angeles announced it was boycotting Arizona.  Rather than tell the Lakers to bring their own food, the city should require the Lakers to forfeit the series.  That would at least have the virtue of being consistent.  Instead, the message from liberals in Los Angeles is that they have no intention of hurting BIG Los Angeles issues; rather, they just want to hurt thousands of little people – in both states – who might well lose their jobs over this stupid boycott.

I’m a Californian, but in my atttitude I’m another pissed-off Arizonan.  I’m buying as much stuff as I can in this state to help out a righteous cause against an unrighteous one.

Right now, it costs a full third more to drive a U-Haul truck from California to Texas as it costs to drive one from Texas to California.  Do you want to know why you have to pay a huge premium to drive out of California?  Because you are just one more rat fleeing a sinking ship, that’s why.

And what does California want to do?  Cut off its damn nose to spite its face, that’s what.

Well, in that spirit, allow me to stick a fork in your eye, too, California.

Law Professors Say Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law Is Constitutional

May 16, 2010

We keep hearing people who claim that the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law (SB 1070) is “unconstitutional.”  But it keeps turning out that those who are decrying it on the mainstream media haven’t actually bothered to even read the law.

Well, the Arizona law is ever bit as “constitutional” as the federal law – considering it basically IS the federal law with even more limitations added to it.

Oh, you’ve got the crowd that says that a state can’t protect its own citizens.  The fact that the federal government has refused to do its job and protect Arizona from illegal immigrants for the last 25 years means nothing.  Let an out-of-control situation continue for ANOTHER 25 years, such people say.

Well, baloney, say three law professors who did something that AG Eric Holder and most liberals have refused to do – and actually bothered to read the law before demonizing it:

REGION: Three USD professors say Arizona law is constitutional
By EDWARD SIFUENTES  May 13, 2010 7:44 pm

Arizona’s controversial new immigration law probably would withstand legal challenges on constitutional grounds, according to a panel of three University of San Diego law professors.

However, the professors said the law could create problems, such as racial profiling, if it is not implemented properly.

The professors spoke Thursday during a panel discussion on UC San Diego’s campus in La Jolla hosted by the Institute of the Americas, an organization that promotes cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America.

Arizona’s law, Senate Bill 1070, requires police officers to check a person’s immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally. It makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal documentation; it already is a federal crime.

Critics say the law, which takes effect later this year, could lead to racial profiling of Latinos and other ethnic minorities. Some Latino and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, say they plan to challenge the law in court.

Those groups say the Arizona law also violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration power and authority.

Professor Lawrence Alexander, who teaches constitutional law at USD, said that argument would fail because the Arizona law does not conflict with federal immigration law. The state law is only seeking to enforce the federal law, he said.

“I don’t see anything in this law that is going to fail a challenge on the grounds of federal supremacy,” Alexander said.

Alexander was a panelist along with professors Donald Dripps, a scholar on criminal law, and Maimon Schwarzschild, who specializes in constitutional law. Former U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is president of the Institute of the Americas, served as moderator.

Supporters said the law was needed due to the federal government’s failure to secure the border.

In response, several cities across the country have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including Oakland and San Diego. On Tuesday, San Francisco city supervisors approved a resolution that urges a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asks sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.

About 50 people attended the panel discussion at UCSD, including students, attorneys and immigration rights advocates. About a dozen people who spoke during a question-and-answer session criticized the law.

“The problem is the application of the law,” said San Diego immigration attorney Lilia Velasquez. “On the ground, (the) Border Patrol or the police officers in Arizona will arrest people based on their race and maybe solely on their race.”

Under the law, police officers who detain a person, such as in a traffic stop, are required to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally.

The panelists agreed that defining what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” could be problematic. But that alone does not render the law unconstitutional, Alexander said.

“Could a police officer overstep the bounds and do something that the Constitution does not permit? Of course,” he said. “Police officers can do that now. They can do that without the law, but the law itself does not authorize anything that is unconstitutional.”

The Arizona law, which said that race or ethnicity cannot be the only factor prompting a police officer to ask a person’s immigration status, was later amended to say that race could not be considered at all in questioning a person’s status.

Dripps said the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a person’s apparent Mexican ancestry can be a factor in stopping someone for an immigration stop by immigration agents. The question, he said, is whether that authority would also apply to police officers asking someone about his or her immigration status.

Schwarzschild also raised questions about whether the law could be discriminatory.

“I think the answer there is: It could. In the way that it is enforced,” Schwarzschild said. “But it certainly doesn’t, on its face.”

CORRECTION: Law professors incorrectly identified

The original version of this story incorrectly stated that the three law professors who took part taught at UC San Diego. They teach at the University of San Diego School of Law.

We apologize.

In any event, ANY law enforcement officer can abuse ANY law.  If the left wants to abolish this law because a police officer could conceivably abuse it, let’s abolish all laws and have total anarchy instead.

We get to the root of the real issue: the people who are protesting this anti-immigration law are not doing it because it’s “unconstitutional,” but rather because they are opposed to any form of action to deal with the soaring and searing crisis of illegal immigration.  They are open borders fanatics; they are leftwing ideologues who want illegal immigrants from Mexico to be able to undermine the vote of legitimate citizens and impose the next failed socialist Utopia.

They don’t want the United States to do ANYTHING to control our borders.

Here is the text of the Arizona law.  Read it.  If there’s something wrong with it, then cite the relevant passage in your argument.  Don’t give me any of your bogus penumbras and emanations in which you gaze into a crystal ball and find things that aren’t even there simply because you want to see them.

Otherwise, let’s have less complaining, and more shutting the hell up.

Obama AG Eric Holder Never Bothered To Read Arizona Law But Demonized It Anyway

May 15, 2010

This is how you can know that an issue has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with facts or principles or justice, and everything to do with political opportunism and blatant demagoguery.

Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly appeared on national television to denounce and demonize the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, but never bothered to read the ten-page law for himself (a total of sixteen pages, counting all footnotes and addendums!).

Instead he relied upon mainstream media accounts.  Which is another way of saying, instead he relied upon leftwing propaganda, to make his determinations.

Apparently, the highest law enforcement official in the land will arrest you on the basis of some liberal loon’s opinion.  That is beyond incompetent; it’s dangerous.

Youtube video of Holder admitting he hadn’t read the law he demonized and threatened to use the full weight and power of the federal government to attack:

Here is a transcript of that encounter:

REPRESENTATIVE TED POE, (R-TEXAS): So Arizona, since the federal government totally fails to secure the border desperately then passed laws to protect its own people. The law is supported by 70 percent of the people in Arizona, 60 percent of all Americans, and 50 percent of all Hispanics according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll done just this week. And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. Seems to me the Administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them, and that the Administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have not had a chance to, I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.

POE: It’s ten pages. It’s a lot shorter than the healthcare bill which was 2,000 pages long. I’ll give you my copy of it if you would like to have a copy. Even though you haven’t read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it’s Constitutional?

HOLDER: I have not really, I have not been briefed yet.

Later during his questioning, Poe further challenged the Attorney General:

POE: You have some concerns about the statute. It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being un-Constitutional if you haven’t even read the law. Seems like you wouldn’t make a judgment about whether it violates civil rights statutes, whether it violates federal preemption concepts if you hadn’t read the law. So, can you help me out there a little bit, how you can make a judgment call on that, but you haven’t read the law and determined whether it’s Constitutional or not?

Holder’s response will even FURTHER amaze most Americans on both sides of the aisle:

HOLDER: Well, what I’ve said is that I’ve not made up my mind. I’ve only made, made the comments that I’ve made on the basis of things that I’ve been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, looking at television, talking to people who are on the review panel, on the review team that are looking at the law. But I’ve not reached any conclusions as yet with regard to. I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in the position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people doing the review, exactly what my position is.

Eric Holder relied on wildly inaccurate and biased news reports, and then went out and made several wildly inaccurate and biased statements to the press.

On April 28 Holder stated that the Arizona law is an “unfortunate one that I fear is subject to potential abuse” (video).   On May 9, Attorney General Holder was on Meet the Press and said the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” And on May 11, he said “I certainly think it’s divisive. I don’t think there is any question about that” (video).

And none of those demonic denunciations were based on the actual facts.  Eric Holder is reading the muckraking journalists and deciding to go to war on their urgings.

Meanwhile, the same Eric Holder who denounced and demonized Arizona refused – even after several requests – to acknowledge that radical jihadist Islam was even among the factors contributing to the terrorist attacks we’ve seen.  Which have ALL had radical Islam as the primary motive.

I just wish that Eric Holder had a tiny fraction of the respect for the rights of the citizens of Arizona that he has demonstrated for the radical jihadist Muslim terrorists who would gleefully murder every single one of us if they could.  Just a tiny fraction would do.


The only thing that there isn’t any question about is that Barack Obama’s attorney general is shockingly incompetent and partisan.  This is not about law, but about the rabid pursuit of political power and demagoguery of the worst kind.

Here is the entire text of the Arizona law (SB 1070).  I defy anyone to actually cite a passage that is racist, or which actively endorses any racist policy.