Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Their own Racism is OK

Don't you think its funny when people are offended by something that they make such a big to-do about it, that they get it dropped from stores selling that item. I am talking about nothing other than the Illegal Alien costume that was found to be offensive to the Illegal Immigrant advocates. One in particular, the Indigenous Xicano, I have talked about his racism before, but now he has truly shown it without covering it up. I wonder, since he has pictures of Conquistadors along with pilgrams, doesn't that mean that his ancestors were also Illegal Immigrants, or do they in some way not count because he doesn't claim them? Inquiring minds truly want to know!!

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Sensationalized Headline? or Actual Stupidity?

Do Illegal Alien advocates have to lie in order to make themselves feel good? I mean, really, Dee's new topic headline: Napolitano/Holder Keep to Promise! Feds partner with State/Local Authorities to Crack Down on Gangs vs Workers! is so incorrect that the only thing I can come up with is, Stupidity. After reading her links to where she gathered her information from, she is attempting to justify that Napolitano some how has control over what the FBI does, from one of her other blog topics no less. Her other 2 links are to actual articles of the raid, in which they state there was no immigration charges in the list of charges.
The charges, part of a massive racketeering case dubbed Operation Knock Out, were outlined in several indictments charging 147 members and associates of the Varrio Hawaiian Gardens gang with murder, attempted murder, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, extortion, kidnapping and witness intimidation.
This was a 4 year probe into the gang by the FBI, after the gang killed a local Police Officer in 2005. Eric Holder didn't even have influence on this case as he was just put in pace recently as the AG.

Then there is Mary, who cites the ACLU in stating that Illegal Immigration is a "civil offense".
The ACLU Report on the Rights of Immigrants States:

The U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) detains over 300,000 men, women adn children for violating immigration laws each year, placing them in jails and dentention centers even though immigration violations are civil -- not criminal -- offenses. Ironically, immigrants are not given the same access to legal representation and due process afforded to criminals.

The UCLU is non-partisan

Posted by Mary on 05/25/2009 @ 06:34PM PT
Did she not get the memo, Illegal Immigrant Advocates have already accepted and agreed to knowing that "overstaying a visa" (Nonimmigrant Status Violators) is an Administrative Offense (a violation of civil immigration laws), while "entry without inspection" (Violators of Conditions of Entry, Improper entry by an alien) is a Federal Misdemeanor Offense (is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail), which in fact, ironically to use one of her own words, is a criminal offense, both are subject to Deportation without hearing, unless charged with an "infamous crime".
In response to a question from an audience member, Christie said that immigrants are not committing a crime by being in the country illegally.

Monday, Christie said that while entering the country illegally is considered a federal misdemeanor, simply lacking legal immigration status is a civil violation.

“Deportable Aliens” have ‘NO RIGHTS’ granted to them by our Constitution just by being in the United States if they are in violation of our immigration laws. They are only granted ‘due process’ if they are charged with an "infamous crime" for which the Government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise the penalty imposed is Deportation for first time offenders.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Bigotry, Ethnocentrism, Ignorance, and Outright Racism from the Advocates of Luis Ramirez

Does the idiocy ever end within the mind of an advocate who is blinded by their own bigotry, ignorance, racism, and ethnocentrism that they can not be objective or even open minded to actual facts?

Folks, I give you yet another ignorant post by "the Indigenous Xicano". First he states:

So why is it that the only ones with perfect recall were teens whose minds were impaired by alcohol?

People cannot drive straight drunk but they can have perfect recall of a crazy violent beating?

Why is it that the drunken teens who were so emotionally charged that their angry screaming of racist slurs were heard inside the homes of the nearby residents are the only ones with perfect recall from that night?
These kids who told the truth were now accused by the defense for kicking Ramirez.

The arrogant Donchak and Piekarsky stuck to their fabricated story
. They stuck to the advise offered by the cop who slept with Pietarsky's mother.
And yet he wants the "boys" testimony to be upheld as factual truth. I agree with him, let the "boys" testimony stand as it was stated. What he fails to recognize is that the "boys" recollection was given to them by Brandon himself the day after the incident as the boys clearly testify to. None of the "boys", according to court testimony, saw who kicked Ramirez, they stated that Brandon told them that he kicked Ramirez the day after the incident.
Lawson: Piekarsky said he kicked Ramirez during the meeting at his house.
Scully: Piekarsky said he kicked Ramirez, and Donchak "said he was glad he didn't break his knuckles."
Redmond: I saw Ramirez hit the ground, but saw no kick.
Walsh: me, Piekarsky, Donchak and Scully kicked the fallen Ramirez.
Walsh: I took Ramirez down with a solid "uppercut hook" and saw him hit his head
Walsh: Piekarsky kicked Ramirez in the head while he was down.
Another eye witness, Elizabeth Schlack, states she saw 3 boys kicking Ramirez. This also corroborates what Walsh testified to, "me, Piekarsky, Donchak and Scully kicked the fallen Ramirez."
1:17: Schlack: I called 911 after I heard continuous thumping and saw three males kicking a prone man. On cross-examination, defense enters Schlack's 911 tape as evidence. Fanelli points out that Schlack referred to "teenagers fighting and beating each other" and counted 6 to 8 people during the 911 call.
Yet in another topic, he goes off yet again. Does he not read what he writes? Is he unable to actually comprehend his own statements? I have to question his IQ, is it equivalent to others of his ethnicity?
White shoes. Red shoes. Blue shoes. Green eggs and freaking ham. The fact is that two of Brandon's buddies pointed him out in court and said that Brandon KICKED Ramirez in the head.

In Shenandoah, direct testimony by eyewitnesses is not enough to convict White "boys"(they were referred to as just "boys" in jury deliberations) for killing a Mexican.

These two who testified that Brandon kicked Ramirez know Brandon by sight. They did not have to focus on the color of a shoe. They knew Brandon by face. They go to school with Brandon. They play sports with him. They spend boring Saturday nights in Shenandoah drinking with him. They were not confused by whom they saw kick Ramirez.

Yet, the jury was able to ascertain that these two friends were lying. They were somehow able to come to that collective understanding.

This jury could not come to the collective understanding of how easy it would be, under the extreme circumstances, for Ariel to not be sure of the color of a shoe.

Rather than convict with eyewitness testimony, the jury used the understandable confusion of a fellow teen who witnessed a good friend killed before her eyes as grounds for acquittal.
But according to the "boys" testimony that he so desperately wishes to be used and states "These kids who told the truth were now accused by the defense for kicking Ramirez.", but can not see what is clearly in front of his own eyes? All the boys testify to having been told by Piekarsky that he kicked Ramirez. Maybe its a lack of comprehension on his behalf? "Who" were the eye witnesses to the kick, since Piekarsky had to tell the "boys" he kicked Ramirez? Schlack didn't see who did the kick, the Garcia's didn't see who kicked Ramirez, yet Ariel could clearly show how the kick was done. What about Burke? According to her interview, she saw the same as Schlack. So who was/were the "eye witnesses" to this kick in the head? Maybe it was made up and never happened!?

So I ask, does talking in circles and contradicting yourself make you intelligent and able to "think critically"? I don't think so, I think it shows his own bigotry, ignorance, ethnocentrism, and racism.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

If You Can't Refute, Change the Argument.

Well, seems that the Indigenous Chicano now has a new argument as to why the Shenandoah teens have been acquitted. The argument now relies on Ariel Garcias interview and a statement of "It happened so fast".
Ariel was not even sure what color the shoes were that kicked Ramirez. But it happened so fast. Her friend was on the ground foaming from the mouth. It was perhaps the craziest, most chaotic few moments of her life.

This understandable uncertainty was used by the defense attorney used to allow the all-White local jury to "find" the all_white local defendants not-guilty.

Other witnesses' credibility were also attacked for their lack of perfect recall. Eyewitness Eileen Burke was not even called to testify in court. She has stated that the prosecutor told her that she had discrepancies in her statements.
According to the video he has posted of Ariel explaining what happened, at the 39 second mark she states "It happened so fast" in regards to the second fight moving from the grass on W. Lloyd Street to the middle of the Asphalt on W. Lloyd Street. She explains how her Husband Victor is trying to get kids off himself and how Ariel is screaming to "Stop". Next thing they know Luis is laying on the ground. She explains how there was a kid standing next to Luis and then she shows how he was kicked @1:02. Now, if she can show "how" he was kicked, surely she should know who did it, or at the very least recognize the type of shoe that was worn and its description.

As Indigenous questions, Can the Drunk Teenage Boys Have Perfect Recall? I don't think they can simply due, as Indigenous points out, People cannot drive straight drunk but they can have perfect recall of a crazy violent beating? If this truly is the case, then how can anybody take their testimony in court as credible? Since 3 of the boys pointed the finger at Piekarsky for the "last kick to Ramirez' head". How can the advocates then themselves hold Piekarsky as the "MURDERER" of Ramirez when he was only pointed out by the 3 teens who were drunk at the time and were told the next day by, as they alledge, Piekarsky himself told them that he kicked Ramirez in the head? The one teen who was not drinking, Redmond, his testimony points to Ramirez swinging first and Piekarsky "tackling" Ramirez. Redmond ran from the scene at the point of Walsh knocking "Ramirez out cold".

Again, according to court testimony by 2 officers on the scene not of Shenandoah, Ariel stated: "Sculy was the kicker". But according to the advocates, the police, DA, Judge, and Jury have conspired in a cover up of a Mexican National being MURDERED and HATED due to "Walking While Brown."

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

PRO Ethnic Advocates and their own Hypocricy and Racism

Don't you just enjoy it when the Advocates expose themselves for what they really are, Hypocrites and Racists themselves. I give you the Indigenous Xicano and his ramblings of If Only One of the Shenandoah Cowards had an Ounce of Independent Thought and Decency, where in he states:
If only one of these kids could have had the insight, the empathy, the lack of prejudice, and the courage to have stepped between Ramirez and his buddies and said "Stop!"

But there were no independent thinkers that night. It was a mob mentality. There was no empathy that night. There was anger and a hatred for Mexicans.

There was also no decency that night. Everyone of those kids could have stopped a fatal beating. But no one stepped up when they were called upon to save a life. For that they are the Shenandoah Cowards. If any of them are capable of any insight (and I seriously doubt that Brandon Piekarsky has the ability)they will have to ponder the reality that they had a chance to prevent a death but instead they participated in a fatal beating.

Indigenous also claims to accept the testimony from Scully, Walsh, and Lawson as truth in many of his other ramblings. Yet, all 3 witnesses claimed Piekarsky said nothing to Ramirez that could be labeled as "Ethnic Intimidation", but that doesn't stop Indigenous nor any other Advocate from wanting Piekarsky held accountable for Ethnic Intimidation, and because he was accused of kicking Ramirez in the head, the advocates want him held accountable for MURDER, the problem is that 2 separate coroners said the cause of death was due to blunt force trauma. This could have happened during numerous occasions, first could have been Ramirez hitting his head on the ground in the first fight when Piekarsky tackled him, or possibly by 3 of the boys kicking Ramirez as testified by Walsh, or it could have been the punch from Walsh, or when Ramirez hit his head on the Macadam, or when he was kicked in the head at the end. The problem is that Lawson, Scully, and Walsh state Piekarsky kicked Ramirez. The problem lies in the fact that Ariel Garcia told the officers the night of the incident that Scully was the kicker, witnesses testified to it on day 4. In her court testimony on day 3, she states;
9:34 Cross examination by prosecution.

Garcia: I saw multiple feet stomping the fallen Ramirez.
The problem is that Officer Senape on day 4 @9:09 AM;
I interviewed Arielle Garcia on-scene, and she identified Scully as the kicker and the "he's not dead" comments to Walsh.
@ 9:28 Fanelli calls officer Michele Ashman, of the Frackville police. Ashman:
on-scene, I saw Officer Hayes interview Arielle Garcia, and she identified Scully as the kicker.

Now, on to Indigenous' criticism of the boys, Scully on cross examination between 10:11 and 10:41 A.M. of day 2, states in his testimony specifically that, "one fight stopped after Donchak pushed Ramirez away." Donchak pushed Ramirez away, stopping one fight, the first fight, yet, according to Indigenous, "If only one of these kids could have had the insight, the empathy, the lack of prejudice, and the courage to have stepped between Ramirez and his buddies and said "Stop!"", well, it sure seems to me that Donchak had that insight, that empathy, that lack of prejudice, and the courage to say the fight is over, lets go. The boys begin to walk away from the park and up W. Lloyd Street where Burke lives, between 50 & 100 feet from the original incident on Vine Street. Ramirez runs up behind Scully and punches him in the back of the head.

The boys were walking away!! During this time is when Ariel and Victor were trying to calm down Luis, and according to Ariel, "He was so MAD, he went after the boys". This is when Luis ran from the park side of the street, caught up to the boys from behind in front of Burkes house (between 50 & 100 feet away), and punched Scully in the back of the head numerous times. Walsh, defending his friend, punches Luis and knocks him out cold, his head hits the macadam, allegedly he is kicked in the head. A thud was heard by Victor and Burke during the time of "punch, head on ground, kick", but they could not contribute it to any single event, as they did not see what happened.

So, what the advocates advocate for is the heads of these boys for one of their own Raza having died from the lack of "insight, empathy, lack of prejudice, and the courage to just "STOP!" after Donchak pushed him away, the boys were walking away, and Ariel and Victor were attempting to calm Ramirez down." He would probably be alive today, and this incident would never have made headlines had Ramirez listened to his friends and that one "boy" who pushed him away.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Dee and the Eileen Burke Video

How can a person, watch and listen to a video interview, give so much embellished information, and then claim it as what was said?? Will Dee's ignorance and ineptness ever show her to be at least half way intelligent, or is this one of those "Do I have to dumb things down for you" moments? I watched and listened to the video as well, I boldfaced Burkes actual statements she made in the video and I have italicized Dee's embellishments to Burkes interview.

1. She lives across the street from the park where Ramirez was murdered.
The picture in the video appears to be Burkes home on W. Lloyd Street across the street from the park located on Vine Street, with only an upstairs window able to view the park in its entirety, while the lower windows and entry are hampered by her patio cover.
UPDATE: Burkes address is 531 W. Lloyd St., Shenandoah, PA. According to google earth maps, its about the 5th house up the street, not the house on the corner as shown in the video. If this is accurate, it changes the distance Ramirez would have had to run to hit Scully in the back of the head. Can anybody verify Burkes house and its location? Is Google Maps correct?

2. She heard the racial epiteths hurled at Ramirez as he and his friend were walking through the park. She repeats them. "Go back to Mexico." Names/etc. @ 1:50 - 3:00; What Burke says is, I thought it was "kids playing basketball and telling someone "to go back to Mexico" at the park as kids sometimes do, taunting one another". She was going to give it until 12:00 PM, midnight, before calling the police for them to be quite. Then she heard girls screaming a few minutes later outside her home. This is when she called 911.

Here is a link from American Humanity from July 25th, 2008, NOTE: The following paragraph is not exactly what she says in the interview, it does vary quite a bit and is used only for the purpose of showing that she had the A/C on, that she hears screaming all the time from the park, and that she called 911:
“With the park across the street, I hear screaming all the time, but I turned down the air conditioning so I could hear what was going on and I could see kids going back and forth and a girl was screaming ‘Please stop hitting him,’ ” Burke said. “I called 911 to get an ambulance. There seemed to be too many kids around and I thought I’d better be safe than sorry. When I got out the front door, there was one kid running down the pavement. I heard a thud and the kid ran past again.”
This would also corroborate that a second fight took place, as the first fight was at the park, or very close to it, and the second fight where Ramirez (as Ariel states in her testimony, "And so, Victor and I ran up to Luis, and we said, “What happened?” But he was so mad, he wasn’t really talking to us. And those kids kept yelling stuff, and he went back, and the kids turned around, and the fight started again..") came running up and hit Scully in the back of the head and Walsh knocked him out cold.

3. She called 911 to report the crime. They were slow in responding.
@ 3:50 - 4:40; 911 was asking her for information.

4. She became frustrated and went out on her porch. She saw the jocks. She heard the fatal kick to the head. She saw Arielle arrive.
Ariel was already there, how could she see her arrive?
@ 4:40 - 6:05; Burke heard a "thud" and then Burke saw 6-8 boys standing in a circle, when they walked/ran away she saw someone lying on the ground.

5. Piekarsky and Walsh confronted her in her front yard. Piekarsky pushed out his chest and tried to intimidate her. He told her to keep quiet or she would wind up like her Mexican friend on the ground. Burke had never met Ramirez before that evening. @ 5:52 - 6:30; Burke said, "Piekarsky threw his chest into me, she knew right then they were juveniles, Piekarskys eyes got big because he knew I knew who he was". Piekarsky never said anything to Burke. Burke could not identify who yelled back "get your effin"...." to, as Burke said, Ariel or Roxanne.

6. She saw Piekarsky and Donchak run off together with the other jocks, hiding in the other side of the park. @ 11:40; Burke saw the boys remove their shirts and place them in their back pockets, "looked like white tail deer" go to the park over the knoll she is pointing to. Piekarsky and Donchak hit the Garcia's jeep parked at the park. Burke said she told the officer that he should go to the park to see if the boys were by the ball field, she was betting they were still there.

7. She went to Ramirez and Arielle who was hysterical standing next to Luis who was foaming at the mouth. Burke describes the foaming and dent in his head, the swelling, yet no blood. She described the indentation on Luis' chest. @ 7:05 - 7:20; Burke said "there was a big red mark on his chest."
This would explain Ramirez having no shirt, as Roxanne stated, "he took off his shirt, and handed it to me along with his medallion and wallet.
8. When she talked to Arielle, Arielle said she knew Scully and Donchak from school, she did not know the others. Burke said she knew Piekarsky and Walsh from the neighborhood. @ 9:00

9. The police who initially arrived were from different cities and one sheriff. The Shenandoah police, Moyer, arrived later. He was rude and abrasive to both of them. He asked them both if Luis was drunk. When the ambulance finally arrived, he suggested Luis was faking it. He attempted to kick Luis but Eileen stopped him. @ 14:45 - 15:30; Moyer asked the EMT's questions about Ramirez, not Ariel or Burke. Burke states, "he put his foot back", and Burke "ASSUMED" he was going to do something, possibly kick to see if he was faking, but he never did anything beyond that.

10. Eileen told Moyer and Hayes his partner who arrived later that she saw Piekarsky and Donchak and Arielle told them she knew Scully and Walsh from school and they were the perpetrators. Moyer and Hayes would not take their report. @ 16:40

11. Instead, about 30 minutes later, Moyer and Hayes pick up some stranger in town who had a bat in his had and took him to Arielle and asked her if he was the attacker. She said no. Burke said she told them who the perpetrators were.
@ 19:00; The person they brought back had on a ball cap, not a bat.

12. Eileen said the cook from RJs bar came to the scene. The cook came to see what was going on. The cook said officer Jay Hayes had called Tammy Piekarsky who worked at the bar and said she better leave work and get a hold of Brandon because he could be in a lot of trouble. The reason Hayes was delayed in getting to the scene was because he was busy contacting Brandon's mother and developing the cover story for the perpetrators. They all met at Donchak's house to get the story straight. @ 17:50

13. Burke said it took 9 - 10 days before the perpetrators were even charged for the crime because of the cover up. @ 24:35
Officers and DA's need to obtain warrants based on evidence and testimony, and it actually took 12 days to pick up the accused. Incident took place on the evening of July 12, 2008 and Piekarsky and Donchak were arrested on July 25, 2008.

14. The prosecution initially said she would be called as a witness, but a week before the trial said she would only be called if needed. She describes how the lead prosecutor never interviewed her and had no intention of calling her to the stand and how a backup ADA strung her along. There never was serious consideration to strongly prosecuting the case. Her testimony would have broken this case wide open with the TRUTH!!! AND the Cover up!! @ 20:38
Burkes testimony would have done nothing at all other than corroborate what was said by Ariel and Roxanne. The only thing she might be good for is if there is a case brought about against the officers who came to the scene.

Burke was a meter maid for the City of Philadelphia, a low ranking officer with minimal experience in crime scenes. Her statements however of the officers on scene should get something going into an investigation of the way the case may have been handled by the officers.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Luis Ramirez' Death, Unfortunate As It Was, NOT Murder, NOR a Hate Crime!!

I've been following the case of Luis Ramirez from the beginning, and I have to say that I am a little blown away by all the Pro-Advocates claiming this was a murder and a Hate Crime, that Ramirez was killed due to the color of his skin. Nothing could be further from the truth. Digger from Diggers Realm has a really good write up and full coverage, be sure to read his own verdict. Wendi, a.k.a. Turtle, from PA Pundits has also been blogging about this story from the beginning, pointing out many what are now facts, that the MSM left out.

What the Pro-Advocates fail to recognize is that Roxanne points out that Ramirez was actively participating in the fight, he had time to call for back up (6 phone calls) and to give Roxanne his shirt, necklace, wallet, and cell phone. Read Roxanne's Testimony in the court case.

Ariel, shortly after the fight, gave an interview with even more events of the actual night of the fight. She implements Ramirez as becoming an aggressor, after the first fight ended and the boys were walking away, Ramirez was so mad that he ran up behind the boys and punched Scully in the back of the head 6 times before Walsh punched Ramirez and knocked him out. Ramirez then fell, out cold, his head slams into the concrete. At this point it is said that one of the boys kicked Ramirez in the head. According to officers later interviewing Ariel, her husband Victor, Roxanne, and a couple other back-up friends of Ramirez whom he called to help out, stated that it was Scully who kicked Ramirez.

Former Officer Burke heard one of the boys tell, presumably Roxanne but possibly Ariel, "You effin bitch, tell your effin Mexican friends get the eff out of Shenandoah or you're gonna be laying effin next to him." Although Burke could not identify which boy said it, she was also never called as a witness for the Prosecution. Elisabeth Schlack, local resident who lives near the scene of the incident, states she saw 3 boys kicking Ramirez.

All of the previous articles by the MSM, from the beginning up to the court trial, have all had many accounts missed and possibly left out on purpose to incite sales of their papers, or incite division amongst the people.

Now, I feel Piekarsky and Donchak got the punishment they deserved for their involvement in this unfortunate event. It seems Walsh has taken a plea deal through the Federal Government and Scully has yet to have charges brought against him. It also seems from court testimony that Scully was the one making the statements, as listed above. Ramirez did actively participate in the fight from the beginning, I don't believe the boys intended for Ramirez to die as they walked away after the first fight. Now, 2 coroners, both testified that they could not state exactly what caused Ramirez actual death, only that it could have been from a combination of the punch from Walsh, Ramirez hitting his head on the concrete, or from a supposed kick to his head.

Again, this unfortunate event ended in a man dying from his injuries received from a fight that he obviously volunteered/participated in, can not in any way be construed as "Murder", at best it can be construed as "Involuntary Manslaughter". The problem in accusing "one" of the boys for his death is which boy do you lay blame on, as they all can not be held guilty for his death.

The problem with the Pro-Advocates, as usual, they want someone or even all the boys blamed and held accountable, calling it a Murder and a Racial Hate Crime, or as the inept Dee spouts, "Murder due to WWB (Walking While Brown)."

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Illegal Immigrant Advocates are their own Worst Nightmare

Don't you enjoy it when the other side actually makes the same argument that this side has been making since the inception of the debate. Let's look to Siskind's blog and a commenter of which is a Legal Immigrant, I give you Kamal Jain.
Legal immigrants should try to distance themselves from CIR and any talks of CIR. These are doomed to fail in the current economic climate. We should lobby for visa recapture and other measures, rather than hoping for the impossible (passing of CIR) and even more impossible (attaching provisions for legal immigration to CIR) to happen. As long as CIR is pushed for by ethnic organizations and lobbies, it will never be "comprehensive" in the sense that it will include both legal and illegal immigration provisions. The Hispanic caucus only cares about Hispanic immigration, and they have proven this time and again. We should just lobby for peace-meal immigration bills like visa recapture, exemption of family members from EB numbers, exemption of US graduates with Masters or PhDs, etc. We have nothing to do with law-breakers and other groups, which have very strong public opinion against them.
And his points about the Illegal Immigrant Advocates:
Let me get this straight, you guys are saying that people who are in legal status according to the immigration laws of the United States don't deserve any more immigration relief and benefits that people who crossed the border illegally and are constantly hiding from law enforcement? I don't think it makes sense to even argue with you. You appear to be either some kind of anarchist or a completely irrational person...

I just love how illegal immigration advocates like to insult and disparage legal and educated immigrants. Like we are all jerks for following all the laws, spending ridiculous amounts of money to deal with bureaucracies in order to maintain legal status, and then (gasp!) having the nerve to ask for something in return for our efforts. What outrage! But obviously it's not politically correct to expect society to repay someone's efforts and hard work, because "we might send a message to the lettuce pickers that they are not smart enough" (to loosely quote one congressman) if we decide to give easy green-cards to PhDs, scientists, and researchers.

And his final nail in the coffin:
What I was saying is: fine, go and do your own stuff, and lobby for CIR, or whatever you feel like doing, but stop messing with legal immigrants, and stop hijacking bills designed for doctors, nurses, and PhDs, and stop insisting that these issues are linked. There is absolutely no connection between doctors and engineers, and illiterate lettuce pickers, except for the vague idea that they're somehow all "immigrants" (even though the difference between "legal immigrants" and "illegal immigrants" is the same as between "shoppers" and "shoplifters" if we have to be technically precise).

I don't mind your pursuit of humanitarian goals (legalizing everybody, happiness and peace on the planet, etc), of providing sanctuaries, and upholding religious values. But please stop acting like as if you have any real argument or any moral high-ground in this debate. What you have is an unverified number (12 million: wow!) which you keep throwing around, extolling the economic benefits of legalizing these people (proof please?), and insisting that everyone else is less important (300 thousand suckers who played by the rules: big deal!..and who cares about innovation, the next big technology, or finding a cure for cance? Forget about this stuff -- the lettuce pickers, and taco stand workers will truly touch your life, and they may even find a cure for cancer in a few generations, just give them time!).

I'm not saying those people who do menial jobs are not important, but they have their own separate immigration categories, and their own problems. For better or for worse they decided not to put too much effort into becoming legal (just as they decided not to invest much effort into other things like education, careers, etc.) It's their own personal choices and their own business. I don't mind and I'm not doing anything to either help them or hurt them. It's people like you and your senators, however, who are causing problems by attacking legal immigrants, and actually doing real, tangible things to hurt their cause.

Why don't you just admit that you hate legal immigrants because they are the only thing that gives any credibility to the current immigration system, which you want to completely discredit and scrap in order to help the 12 million illegals, and let's leave it at that?

I think this says it all about the Illegal Immigrant advocates:
Why don't you just admit that you hate legal immigrants because they are the only thing that gives any credibility to the current immigration system, which you want to completely discredit and scrap in order to help the 12 million illegals.
Now, what about Kyledeb from Citizen Orange:
As such, the real battle will not be between nativists and migrant advocates, but among migrant advocates themselves.
This pretty much sums it up, they now realize that the problems they have are within their own advocacy groups and that the Legal Immigrants want nothing to do with the advocacy of Illegal Immigrants.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Media Matters, NCLR, and Liberal Bloggers Get it WRONG about Hannity

I find it rather peculiar how the left tends to point fingers and yell hate speech and attempt to label those who disagree with them, various names. But what happens if they blame the wrong person for a statement made by a Conservative when it was actually first published by an Independent? I give you Barbara F. Hollingsworth, former Reporter and Columnist for The Daily Illini (Independent Student News Source) and Topeka-Capital Journal (Liberal Paper owned by Morris Communications), and her opinion editorial from The Examiner, primarily an online format conservative e-paper. I give you Barbara's exact words,
Speaking of beneficiaries, the omnibus bill contains a $473,000 earmark for La Raza, which has called for Mexico to annex the southwestern states. Maybe it’s time to take them up on the offer and let the Mexican government bail out California for a change.
Now lets make note of the time of her publishing, 2/25/09 5:42 PM, and keep in mind this is on the East Coast.

Now, lets look at the time of the statement made by Sean Hannity, since the Hannity show is live on the East Coast at 9:00 PM, his statement was therefor made after 9:00 PM on 2/25/2009, that's approximately 4 hours after it was first stated by Barbara F. Hollingsworth. But do you think Media Matters cares? Not really, it's easier to point the finger at the "other". What about Dee and her Blog, do you think she would be intelligent enough to do some research prior to her blather and spouting, "Sean Hannity is a Big Fat Liar Desperate for Ratings!" Just like Media Matters, Dee is incapable of actual research and objectivity. There are numerous blogs that have linked to her and copied her ignorance, do you think any of them will redact their links?

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Texas Stolen and We didn't Cross the Border, The Border Crossed Us

It seems that those who claim that Mexico has some sort of right to the Southwest of the United States, really don't know what they are talking about. They believe Mexican Nationals have the "right" to cross International Land Boundaries without the need of authorization. They claim that all Peoples living North of the Rio Grand River in the Territories Mexico gained when it won its Independence from Spain were Colonized by Spanish and Mexican Nationals, but what they fail to recognize is that it was only the border area that was scantily populated. In Texas, there were less than 3,000 Mexicans living North of the Rio Grand, approximately 6,000 Californios living in mostly Southern California or a few missions along the coast. The rest of the territories of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho had less than 9,000 living mostly along the New Mexico and Arizona river region of the Rio Grand.

Will they also admit that many Mexican Nationals abandoned the land grants they were granted by either Spain or Mexico at the time due to Indian raids on their lands?? At this point in time, abandoned land grants were auctioned off by the Government of Mexico and sold for mere pennies on the dollar.
By 1840 most of the grants had been abandoned. The most blatant land grab occurred in 1844. Far to the south, in the port of the Guaymas, the Mexican government declared that the mission lands of Tumacacori had been abandoned and auctioned them off for five hundred pesos to Francisco Alejandro Aguilar.
This is where Aminta Zárate comes in, please read the entire article linked here.
She is 86, a widow of prodigious memory and unswerving will. Over the past 27 years, she has gone to court, spoken with senators, met with ambassadors, petitioned presidents. And now the former elementary school cafeteria manager has joined forces with a San Diego law professor, demanding more than $2 billion from Mexico on behalf of her group, the Asociación de Reclamantes, or Association of Land Claimants.

"It's more than money," Zárate said on a recent Saturday morning, seated inside a small office attached to her beige brick house in this quiet town of 45,000 residents. "I want justice for what they've done to our ancestors, that's what I want."

The story is an odd historical footnote, overlooked in textbooks and unspoken in the classrooms of south Texas. But it has been passed down, like a burning torch, from generation to generation among the descendants of the original European settlers of this harsh, flat region on the U.S.-Mexico border – land that belonged to Spain, then Mexico, then the United States. The Cárdenas and the Cantus and the Ballis, the Longorias and the Cavazos and the Zárates, families whose ancestors never crossed the border. Rather, they like to say, the border crossed them, in 1848, after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.(emphasis is mine)

Their petition boils down to this: In 1941, Mexico signed a treaty with the United States, agreeing to compensate 433 south Texas families for the loss of 12 million acres between the Rio Grande and Nueces rivers. The land once belonged to their ancestors and was part of Mexico, then became U.S. territory when the 1848 treaty was signed. But Mexico never did pay – and it shows no signs it will.
But wait, there's more:
In 1923, the United States and Mexico established a General Claims Commission to settle outstanding claims between the two countries rising from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Mexican government officials reached out in south Texas among the population of Mexican origin, soliciting claims for loss of property and other injuries, and presented them as Mexican claims to the commission. It was a tactic, some say, to offset U.S. claims.

The United States presented 2,781 claims against Mexico, worth $513 million, on behalf of its citizens, many of whom had lost oil wells in Mexico. Mexico presented 836 claims against the United States, for $245 million; of those, 433 were in south Texas, representing 12 million acres valued $193.6 million. San Juan Carricitos, Zárate's ancestral land, was among the claims.

For the next 16 years, nothing was done. Then, in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, anxious to prevent Mexico from joining the Axis powers, proposed an arrangement: The two countries would swap claims, and each would treat the claims as a domestic issue.

It was a good deal for Mexico, given the difference in sums. The United States asked for an additional $40 million from Mexico, but agreed to pay all the outstanding claims lodged by U.S. citizens against Mexico.

Mexico, in turn, agreed to pay the claims that had originally been aimed at the United States, including the Texas land grant claims.

By 1948, the United States had paid off its claims. Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho had signed a decree in 1941 calling for legislation to provide compensation for its claimants. But the law was never passed.

"The decree was enacted, and nothing happened after that," said Vargas, of the University of San Diego. "That is certainly a constitutional violation."
It seems Mexico owes some money and those who insist that this land was 'Stolen' had better re-evaluate their argument to reflect the Government in which they should be arguing.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

The confusion of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

By using the correct terminology, many of the PRO sides arguments are nullified, but at the same time they are given some credibility. There is a confusion in which I hope to clear up. The following gives an idea of what it is that differentiates Civil Liberties (granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) vs Civil Rights (based on certain legally-protected characteristics).

It is important to note the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties." The legal area known as "civil rights" has traditionally revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment and housing. "Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties include:

* Freedom of speech
* The right to privacy
* The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
* The right to a fair court trial
* The right to marry
* The right to vote

One way to consider the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties" is to look at 1) what right is affected, and 2) whose right is affected. For example, as an employee, you do not have the legal right to a promotion, mainly because getting a promotion is not a guaranteed "civil liberty." But, as a female employee you do have the legal right to be free from discrimination in being considered for that promotion -- you cannot legally be denied the promotion based on your gender (or race, or disability, etc.). By choosing not to promote a female worker solely because of the employee's gender, the employer has committed a civil rights violation and has engaged in unlawful employment discrimination based on sex or gender.

As you can now see, and hopefully understand, Civil Liberties are what are denied to Illegal Immigrants, however they may poses some Civil Rights. Legal Immigrants do retain Some Civil liberties while also receiving all Civil Rights.

The arguments of the PRO’s and Plausible Distinction

“Plausible Distinction” is the clause the PRO side uses to argue that legal/illegal status can not be determined by simply looking at a person. Sure, we can use deductive reasoning that they may be foreigners, but we can not determine if they are here legally or not.

Due to this argument, “Plausible Distinction”, the PRO side argues that “All persons within the USA are covered by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights”. To a certain degree that may appear to be true, at least up to the point of determining the legal/illegal status of a person. Once their status has been determined, it limits their coverage. The problem is that the PRO side confuses "Civil Liberties" with "Civil Rights" (see above post). A Citizen is granted full coverage of the Constitution (Civil Liberties and Rights), while a legal immigrant (a person here on a granted visa) does retain some basic liberties from the Constitution and civil rights, they are not granted full liberties. Once a person is determined to be in the USA without a legal granted visa or their visa has expired, they are denied all liberties by our Constitution, however they do retain certain civil rights. The civil rights (14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause) they have at that point are the rights granted to them by being "within the jurisdiction" of the United States, however that does not make them "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The next argument is that all children born in the USA are granted automatic birthright citizenship. This is a perceived notion. The Federal Government does not issue birth certificates, the County Government of the State in which the child was born does. When a child is born, the Hospital issues a Certificate of Live Birth, the parent than fills out a form and submits it along with the Certificate of Live Birth to the local Government which then grants a Birth Certificate. The local Government does not question the status of the parents, thus they grant a Birth Certificate which is than accepted as documented proof of Citizenship for the child. SCOTUS has yet to have a case which determines the legality of this practice or if the State can ask for the parents legal status/documents without having reasonable suspicion and/or plausible distinction.

Let’s move on to law enforcement and the 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement. First, Local officers are limited in their ability to ask the legal status of persons, however they are not denied from asking under certain circumstances. An officer can ask for identification of all persons inside a vehicle or within an investigation, and if no documentation is offered, than due to “reasonable suspicion”, the officer can then proceed to determine the status of the persons in question. If found to be in the USA without proper documentation, can be held until an Immigration Officer picks him/her up from custody. 287(g) takes the “reasonable suspicion” out of the equation, simply because the officer who has 287(g) status is working in conjunction with the Federal Government as a Federal Immigration Officer. The guidelines for the 287(g) Officers grants them the ability to question suspected aliens about their immigration status, and can search them and their homes without warrants , nor do 287(g) officers have to read "aliens" Miranda rights. Arrested immigrants do have the right to a lawyer, but they will need to find and pay for the lawyer themselves.

Now, let’s look at E-Verify, which is 99.6% accurate in determining if a person can legally work within the USA. The PRO’s argue that because it is not 100% accurate it is a failure, but what they fail to accept is that the .4% inaccuracy is simply due to women/men who never changed their names on their Social Security Cards due to either marriage or divorce. This is something easily rectified once brought to the attention of the employee, which then has 90 days in which to resolve the issue. The PRO’s argue that employers should be able to hire whom ever they choose, while that may be good for the employer it is far from fair to the employee which if he/she is undocumented, is usually exploited by not getting company benefits if offered, less pay for the same work, and taken advantage of in ways that a legal worker could not be. We all agree the employers should be held accountable, yet the one tool that would do that, the PRO side does not want used.

Lastly, the claim that the Immigration System we have is unfair and not equitable to all is but another misconceived notion. Every person entering the US must have a Passport or equivalent to include American Citizens returning from abroad, our Government has the attitude that every single person on earth wants to become a Citizen of the US. It is required by every country worldwide now, to have a passport to enter. There are even countries that if you are an American Citizen, you are denied entry or at the very least heavily scrutinized prior to being granted entry. Canadians entering the US fall under the same rules as all others, max stay under 180 days, must present documents at border crossings, and can be denied entry due to many things. Canadians can not come and go as they wish, they are also not part of the Visa Waiver Program. I use Canada simply because the PRO side argues that Canadians have special privileges not granted others, yet Canada and Mexico are allotted the TN visa for which no other nationality can hold. Mexico is also given the highest entry on visa quota to the USA in the world. So I ask, how is our immigration system unfair to Mexicans, or for that matter immigrants in general? Because from what I see, Mexicans are granted privileges no other country in the world is granted, with the exception of Canada being given the same privileges as Mexico.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Apples to Apples

Here's what I see in the immigration debate. I will label them so that you can get a clear picture of each.

First, lets start with the Red Apple. I'll call this, the Non-Immigrant Status Violator, or Illegal Border Crosser, (IBC) for short.

Second, the Green Apple. I'll call this, the Violators of Conditions of Entry, or Visa Overstays, (VO) for short.

Third, the Yellow Apples. I'll call this, the immigrants that came here legally and are Legal Permanent Residents, (LPR) for short.

Now, when one discusses the topic of illegal immigration, one person is discussing the cause and effect of say the Red Apple, yet the counter to the argument brought up by the other person is always towards that of the Green Apple, and vise-versa. Why can't we have an intellectual discussion of only one apple at a time? Why is there always this dishonest comparison between the two apples? What complicates things even further is when someone tries to bring in the Yellow Apples and tries to mix the Red and the Green in with those. Then, if something is said to the fact that only the red apples are the ones that are being discussed by you, then you get labeled a racist, xenophobe, nativist, and other ignorant terms for not seeing an apple.

Only when the discussion can be about the specific color of the apple will this immigration dialogue continue with intellectual discourse. Only when people can see beyond the apple itself, realize that each color, Red, Green, and Yellow, all have different uses and flavors, will they be able to objectively discuss a solution to the apples themselves.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Illegal Immigrants "Civil Liberties" - DENIED!!

The jury has returned a "not guilty" verdict in regards to violation of civil liberties of the 6 remaining aliens in the lawsuit of Roger Barnett. There were a total of 16 Aliens to begin with, however 10 were dropped from the proceedings along with Barnett's wife and brother.
All six plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico, five of whom are living in the United States with visa applications pending, and the sixth resides in Mexico but was allowed into the U.S. for the trial, said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Here's the findings:
A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil liberties of a group of illegal immigrants who claimed that he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.

The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.

But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages - $60,000 of which were punitive.

Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said the plaintiffs lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Arapio vs the US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary

The US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary has sent over a letter to Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder concerning allegations of misconduct on the part of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, stating they believe merit federal investigation and action.

Basically what they are asking for is that MCSO lose 287(g) status and that Arpaio be investigated for civil rights violations.
Mr. Attorney General, we request that you direct the Special Litigation and Criminal Sections of the Civil Rights Division to undertake a federal investigation into the actions of the MCSO, under the authority of 42 U.S.C. S. 14141, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 18 U.S.C. S. 242, and any other applicable federal statutes or Constitutional provisions.

Now, what exactly does 42 U.S.C. S. 14141 state:
(a) Unlawful conduct
It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
(b) Civil action by Attorney General
Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of paragraph (1) [1] has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.

I see the following: "for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles" which would lead one to believe persons under the age of 18. How many of these persons have been arrested by the MCSO??

How about 18 U.S.C. S. 242:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Again, from what I see, the key phrase is: "on account of such person being an alien". It will depend on how Holder defines alien.

Now, what about the 287(g) status:
Madame Secretary, we request that you review Maricopa County's agreements with the Department of Homeland Security under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and take such action as necessary to ensure that the MCSO conforms to the terms of that agreement and that such agreement is not used to justify the racial profiling of any Residents of Arizona. We urge that such agreement be terminated if the situation can not be remedied. We further request that you immediatly provide to the Committee a copy of any agreement between the DHS and the County, whether under Section 287(g) or any other provision of law, such as intergovernmental service agreements to house apprehended immigrants.

In 1997, Attorney General Janet Reno filed a lawsuit against Arpaio for allegedly violating the constitutional rights of prisoners in his jail. The lawsuit was eventually settled after the sheriff agreed to improve conditions.

At the time, Napolitano was U.S. attorney for Arizona with ambitions of running for Arizona attorney general. She joined Arpaio, who at the time enjoyed approval ratings near 80 percent, at a news conference and undermined Reno by declaring the lawsuit a "technicality" and dismissing it as little more than "a lawyer's paper." Arpaio threw his support behind Napolitano, which helped her get elected.

The duo quarreled a bit when Napolitano took away $1.6 million in state funds slated to help Arpaio fight illegal immigration. But now the funding has been restored.

So just how will Napolitano rule? What about Holder? What violations were actually commited by Arpaio by moving the "Deportable Aliens" to their own 'tent city'?

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The Happy Meal Metaphore

I must be making it big. I've been "discovered" by the HispanicBusiness Forum. I would like to thank Fake Tony for providing a link to my blog and the topic "The 'Stolen Land' Argument". I've noticed a few additional hits that have came from the link, so again I say thank you.

Since I'm not a registered member of the HB forums and can not directly receive the insult from one commenter there, Tony Cheek: "How does linking to a whackjob web site put anything into perspective? Except the sad ramblings of a man a fry or two shy of a Happy Meal?", I will discuss it here.

First, I see you directly attack me as a typical response attributed to your own ignorance. I'm sorry I don't believe in your "Chicano Studies".

Second, you obviously didn't read the article, or if you did, you had no response to it, which again is typical of someone who agrees with what is said.

Third, you consider me a "whackjob" simply because I am pointing out all the things wrong with the PRO CIR arguments from the view point of an American Citizen against Illegal Immigration. You seem to be making many assumptions about me based on my header.

So, if there is something you don't agree with in my posts or my topics, please feel free to leave a comment and be open to objective discussion.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

The Constitution of the United States, a Living Document?

The United States has historically served as a shining example of Rule by Law in the world.

America is the first nation state openly to be predicated on the concept that a nation should be established under the proposition that all men are created equal, all should enjoy equal opportunities and equal protection under the Law, and that it is the primary duty of the State to protect these God-given rights to its Citizens.

In the Declaration of Independence, that basic premise looks like this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

In all other nation states existant at that time, rights were defined and controlled by a certain class of peoples. The presumption was that this class alone was competent to determine whether certain actions were acceptable by all people, and to decide what rights (pick and choose according to the prejudices of the ruling class) should be 'granted' to the people who were not members of the ruling class.

The United States of America has prospered during the last part of the 18th Century ... since the Constitution of the United States was proposed and accepted as Law.
The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America; the Federal Government of the United States; and all the State & local governments and Territorial Administrative bodies contained therein. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States Government. The document defines the three main branches of the government: The legislative branch with a bicameral Congress, an executive branch led by the President, and a judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court. Besides providing for the organization of these branches, the Constitution carefully outlines which powers each branch may exercise. It also reserves numerous rights for the individual states, thereby establishing the United States' federal system of government. It is the shortest and oldest written constitution of any major sovereign state.

A Lesson in Civics:
Part of our prosperity was because the principle of Capitalism was protected: it encouraged economic growth, and it also encouraged abuse of the freedoms which were central to the basic philosophy of a Free People in a Free Nation. At the same time, as the Citizens of the country learned that some controls were necessary to prevent these abuses, the laws were changed (by an established Legislature) to protect the Rights of its Citizens while continuing to encourage economic growth, and prosperity not only for capitalistic entrepreneurs but for the common working man.

Much of this growth was painful: national expansion resulted in abuse of Native Americans; the desire for 'cheap labor' encouraged the Slave Trade; as more immigrants reached our shores we discovered that Big Business was abusing the Rights of new Citizens to earn a wage commensurate with their labors.

Protection for Native Americans arrived late in America, as did the rights of those who were brought to these shores as indentured servants, and as outright slaves. We fought a Civil War (in part) to free our country of outright and economic slavery; the rights of Native Americans was never adequately addressed, to our everlasting shame and sorrow. Today, Native Americans are not specifically provided with federal protection despite a plethora of Treaties which vowed concessions to this class of citizens "as long as grass grows or water runs".

But most of the wrongs we did were addressed by changing the Laws of the Nation, which continued even to the Constitutional Level until, in 1863 (during the Civil War) President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. (It was flawed, but it was significant as a step to repealing the right of one man to legally possess another.)

In the nineteenth and twentieth Centuries, we addressed the rights of Labor. Congress ("the Legislature") was slow to recognize the societal wrongs implied and explicit in Capitalism vs Labor, and Labor Unions were formed ... not usually in a peaceful manner. Eventually, the Nation recognized that Capitalism was fraught with peril in an unregulated society, and federal laws were proposed and enacted to protect laborers in America.

The recent outcomes:
Today we are on the threshold of revaluing another Constitutional Right: The Second Amendment.

In DC v Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States is tasked with interpreting the United States Constitution to determine whether the Second Amendment is an Individual Right or a States Right.


The Second Amendment is one of the original Ten Amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights.

Let's talk about the Amendments to the Constitution.

During the Constitutional Process, Congress addressed societal issues which, in the opinion of the original Framers of the Constitution, had not been made clear. The goal was to enumerate specific Rights which were "Granted by God", not 'granted by the state'. (This was an expansion on the original acknowledgments in the Declaration of Independence: " ... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ... ".)

The Bill of Rights refers to those rights of "... all men..." not as new 'rights', but as an enumeration of rights already in place; granted by God, not by The State. Specifically, The State (The Nation, not individual states) did not grant these rights, but the Federal Government only acknowledged them on behalf of 'All States'.

The United States Constitution, according to some scholars, is not subject to interpretation other than in the context which existed at the time it was originally enacted.

Witness the Eighteenth Amendment (establishing Prohibition of the 'manufacture, sale or importation of spirituous liquors') and the subsequent Twenty-First Amendment (repealing Prohibition), both of which addressed the issue of Liquor Control. These two amendments addressed a 'societal problem' in which the cure was empirically found to be worse than the problem.

How different is 'Liquor Control' from 'Gun control'?

Well, that is a subjective definition, but it does serve to demonstrate a few facts of the American Constitutional Process.

First, the Constitution is not a 'Living Document', and if you don't like the way the Constitution does NOT restrict Civil Rights, the historically acceptable solution is not by Judicial Fiat; the 'right' way to change it is by legislation.

Second, if 'Judicial Fiat' is accepted as a legitimate manner to change the meaning of the Constitution, there exist no legitimate for the 'Will of the People' to change this interpretation. The Judiciary has already been given unconstitutional powers due to the opinion of a few judges, and the Will of the People is undermined ... as is the power of the Legislature to enact a change in Federal Law (the Constitution) by non-Judicial means.

Third, (and as a sub-set of the 2nd point) by defining the Constitution as a "Living Document", the Balance of Power (specifically and by implication) in the Federal Government loses its ability to 'Check and Balance' one branch of Government against another. This is explicitly and obviously contrary to the intention of the Founding Fathers.

Other Constitutional Amendments provided a further expansion to include "all women" (by enacting the XIX amendment in 1920). This served as an excellent illustration of the way that constitutional amendments ... not judicial activism ... has always before been understood to be the acceptable means to 'modernize' the Constitution to include a more liberal interpretation of rights, not to restrict rights.

Finally, a comparison of the progress of the XIX amendment with the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" (ERA) is an example of a constitutional amendment which was widely lobbied for, but failed to gather sufficient votes from the states to be ratified. The ERA sounded reasonable on its face, and Congress was ready to ratify it. However, a grass-roots campaign forced state legislators (and the general public) to look beyond the emotional furor and understand the likely consequences of its ratification. Today we see some of the same issues which we dodged back in 1977 are again being proposed at the state level (most tellingly in California) -- to the general public distaste across the country.

The attempt to use the Supreme Court to change the Constitution by 'interpretation' is intrinsically flawed.

If the Constitution is perceived to no longer meet the needs of Modern Society, an attempt to change the "Interpretation" of the Constitution is in and of itself unconstitutional.

The only legitimate and legal way to change the 'interpretation' of the Constitution at this point is Legislative, not Judicial.

That is, the Supreme Court of the United States does not have the Constitutional Power to legislate on this question; the Supreme Court should decline to rule in opposition to the Second Amendment, or at a minimum should find that this is an Individual Right as opposed to being a "Collective Right".

If the Legislature opposes this definition, it is empowered to propose, lobby for, and legislate an Amendment to the Constitution ... which must be ratified by the states.

The United States' Government has no powers which are not granted by the Constitution. Any attempt to end-run these powers should be viewed as an attempt to usurp the rights of the Citizen, and treated accordingly.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Hypocrisy and the 14th Amendment - twofer.

This is what you call a hypocrite, people.
Dee said...

Good Ole Liquid. Stated proof by wikipedia, the revisionist view of history you choose to believe.

And yet, if you look on her blog, she gives an answer to the 14th Amendment, from where you ask?? Wiki. the revisionist view of history she chooses to believe, only she changes the paragraph to fit her agenda, shown below.
Why dont you read the case law:

Wong Kim Ark[1] (黃金德; Toisanese: wong11 gim33 'ak3; Cantonese: wong4 gam1 dak1; Mandarin: huáng jīn dé) was born in San Francisco, California, sometime between 1868 and 1873.[2] His father, Wong Si Ping and his mother, Wee Lee[3] were immigrants from Taishan, China and were not United States citizens.

In 1890 Wong's parents returned to live in China. Later that year Wong himself traveled to China and, having returned, was granted entry "upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States". Four years later, however, the circumstances had changed, as Wong, who was employed in San Francisco as a cook, sailed to China on another temporary visit in 1894. When he returned to the U.S. in August 1895, he was detained at the Port of San Francisco by the Collector of Customs and denied permission to enter the country "...because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."

The Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Ark case, was called upon to decide whether an American-born person of Chinese ancestry could constitutionally be denied U.S. citizenship and excluded from the country.

Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent, at the time of the child's birth, BECOMES A CITIZEN of the United States at the time of birth.




January 31, 2009 6:29 PM

Do you see where she states the OPINION of the Held 6-2? Here is the actual paragraph from the wiki she has spun to fit her agenda:
Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
As you can clearly see, not quite what she says it says.

The only problem is that she fails to paste the more relevant information, such as the following:
It has been suggested by some critics of U.S. citizenship policy relating to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants that Wong Kim Ark does not hold such children to be U.S. citizens, because Wong's parents were legal non-citizen residents of the United States at the time of his birth.[7] Those advocating this view assert that a subsequent case before the courts, dealing with U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants, would easily be distinguished from Wong Kim Ark by virtue of this difference in the parents' legal status. Proponents of the conventional view argue that the Wong Kim Ark majority defined the "jurisdiction" exception to the jus soli rule very narrowly; that references in the majority opinion to the legal resident status of Wong's parents were obiter dicta and not an essential part of the holdings of the case; that the court majority's reason for mentioning the legal resident status of Wong's parents was simply to illustrate that they were in the United States as ordinary people and not as representatives of a foreign government; and that the 1982 Plyler case affirmed the conventional, mainstream interpretation of Wong Kim Ark with regard to the question of what being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States means. In the end, no one can really know how the Supreme Court might rule in a new case challenging the citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants until and unless such a case were actually heard, and ruled upon, by the court.

Also note that Wong Kim's parents were here and given LPR status through the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, and that Wong Kim himself was born between the years 1868 and 1873 as pointed out by Dee above:
The Burlingame Treaty, between the United States and China, amended the Treaty of Tientsin and established formal friendly relations between the two countries, with the United States granting China Most Favored Nation status. It was ratified in 1868.

The treaty:

* Recognized China's right of eminent domain over all her territory;
* Gave China the right to appoint consuls at ports in the United States, "who shall enjoy the same privileges and immunities as those enjoyed by the consuls of Great Britain and Russia";
* Provided that "citizens of the United States in China of every religious persuasion and Chinese subjects in the United States shall enjoy entire liberty of conscience and shall be exempt from all disability or persecution on account of their religious faith or worship in either country"; and
* Granted certain privileges to citizens of either country residing in the other, the privilege of naturalization, however, being specifically withheld.

Importantly, Chinese immigration to the United States was encouraged. Opposition in Congress to Chinese immigration led President Rutherford B. Hayes to authorize James Burrill Angell to renegotiate the treaty in 1880. The treaty was amended to suspend, but not prohibit, Chinese immigration, while confirming the obligation of the United States to protect the rights of those immigrants already arrived. [1]

The treaty was reversed in 1882 by the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Take note from the wiki page on the 14th Amendment:
The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[3] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment,[4] although it has generally been assumed that they are.

So, is it possible, that after all this information, that the precedence could be challenged in court overturning the common perception of the citizenship clause? I say look to Dr. John C Eastman.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Pro-illegals eagerly anticipate white minority

Authored by Alie:

The pro-illegals often accuse the antis of racism because we want our immigration laws enforced and the borders secured. What is ironic, though, is that the pro-illegals are the ones who most often inject race into the issue.

They are the ones who express glee over the prospect of Caucasians becoming a minority in this country due to immigration.

So, I ask the question: If it is racist for some to want to maintain the current demographics of their nation, isn't it also "racist" for others to actively use immigration, especially illegal immigration to change it??

Isn't it as "racist" to suggest that a majority non-white country is more desirable than a majority "white" one??? Why all of the eager anticipation of a "less white" nation? Would they rejoice over Mexico/Latin America becoming "less brown?" I really think that pro-illegals are showing their anti-white bias when they rejoice over the diminishment of whites and, therefore, Euro-American culture, in this country.

Would it not be considered racist for whites to rejoice over the diminishment of the traditional Mestizo/indigenous population and culture of Mexico to be replaced with another and to use illegal immigration to accomplish those results?

So why the double standard?

Monday, January 26, 2009

Inspirational Young Man, Doing Things the Right Way!!

Don't you just love it when the PRO Amnesty idiots spout that "there is no line" or that "it takes upwards of 20 years to come here legally"??

Well, I give you, at the time, a 12 year old young man who truly shows what character and morals are all about. So without further delay, I give you Fernando Guadarrama.

SPOTSYLVANIA, Va. (AP) — Fernando Guadarrama was 12 when he decided he couldn't stay in America illegally any longer.

Years earlier, his father, Gustavo, immigrated from Mexico and became an American citizen. His father filed paperwork to bring his wife, Margarita, and son into the country, but Fernando said because there was a mistake on his application, permission came through for his mother only.

So, Fernando, now 15, became one of at least 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Some estimates suggest as many as 20 million people lack proper documents.

Even as a child, the Spotsylvania County student recognized the stigma of his status.

"You feel like you're less than other people," Fernando said. "Like they're one step above you."

Fernando also was concerned about his future. The only way he could go to college and fulfill his dream of becoming a dentist was as a legal resident.

When other boys were worrying about sports or video games, Fernando convinced his parents to let him go back to Mexico. There, he would wait for his application to be processed so he could enter America legally.

At 12, Fernando moved in with his elderly grandparents, on a ranch outside Mexico City.

As the waiting turned to years, the boy became depressed and homesick.

Several times, people making the illegal trek into the United States asked him to come along.

Fernando missed his parents and younger brother and sister — both born in America — so much, he almost packed his bags.

"But I had to be strong," he said.

Fernando finally got an appointment at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office in Juarez.

This past September, almost three years after he left Spotsylvania, he sat through a week's worth of appointments. He was fingerprinted and interviewed and received seven immunizations in one arm.

He left on Sept. 25 with a "green card," as a legal permanent resident of the United States.

This young man is the epitome of what every person wishing to immigrate to the USA should be like. NOTE: It only took 3 years to obtain his Green Card, a far cry from the upto 20 years spouted. This young man has my admiration, welcome to the United States my young friend.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

The "Stolen Land" Argument

The history behind the "Stolen Land" argument.

It starts with the Mexican American War.
The Mexican-American War

The Spaniards had long feared that other European powers were planning to invade their sparsely populated northern frontier. They sparred with the French and English in the Mississippi Valley and watched the Russians expand down the Pacific coast, but after Mexico won its independence from Spain, it was the growth of the United States that proved most significant. The process began with Texas in 1836. Six years later, Mexico's secretary of state, Lucás Alamán, warned, "Where others send invading armies...[the Americans] send their colonists." Desperate to fill empty spaces, Mexico invited Americans and other foreign colonists to settle in Texas in 1824. By 1830 there were already more than twice as many Anglos as Mexicans there (7,000 to 3,000). By 1836 the ratio had risen ten to one. When Sam Houston led his rebels to victory at San Jacinto, Texas remained an independent republic until 1845. Mexicans of Texas soon became a minority in their native land.

"Mexicans of Texas soon became a minority in their native land." Their native land?? Their native land!! How could it be their 'native land' when the Spanish are the ones which colonized the area?? Prior to, and mostly during the claim of ownership for the territory. The original area belonged to the Native Indigenous and not the Mexicans (with less than 3000 Mexican Nationals in 1821) nor the Spanish (where most of the settlements were between the Nueces River and the Rio Grand River. The Texas Revolution in 1836, was a revolution of Mexican citizens, who revolted against the take over of the Mexican government by a dictator. The flag that flew over the Alamo was a Mexican flag with the year 1824 in the middle of it. The reason it has the date 1824, was that this was the date of the Mexican constitution that had been caste aside by Santa Anna.

During Spanish (1598-1821) and Mexican (1821-1846) rule over what was to become the U.S. Southwest, the governments made land grants to various individuals and communities. Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), which ended the Mexican-American War, the United States obtained these territories, and in Article VIII guaranteed the rights of Mexican and former Mexican citizens to their property.[1][2] However, the U.S. Senate in ratifying the treaty eliminated Article 10, which stated that the U.S. government would honor and guarantee all land grants awarded in lands ceded to the United States to citizens of Spain and Mexico by those respective governments. Thus land grants were subject to being proved.[2]

In 1851, Congress passed the first legislation implementing the property protection provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, however it addressed only the Spanish and Mexican grants in California.[3] Congress focused on California’s land grants first because California was already a populous state, and it wanted to encourage further settlement of the public domain land there.

In 1854 the U.S. Congress established the office of the Surveyor General of New Mexico to ascertain "the origin, nature, character, and extent to all claims to lands under the laws, usages, and customs of Spain and Mexico." At first the Congress tried to deal with each land grant by special bill and the House had a Committee on Private Land Claims, seats on which were sought after as a way of dispensing patronage. By 1880 the corruption[4] inherent in determining these claims by politics rather than on a legal basis forced an end to this practice.[5] For ten years no claims could be proved as against the United States.

So the U.S. Congress, in 1891, created the Court of Private Land Claims consisting of five justices appointed for a term to expire on December 31, 1895. The court itself was to exist only during this period, although its existence and the terms of the justices were from time to time extended until June 30, 1904. This court was given jurisdiction over claims to land in the territories of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, and in the states of Nevada, Colorado, and Wyoming, which had not been previously proved and affirmed by the United States. Many of these Spanish or Mexican land grants were based upon incomplete documentation, in part because those governments did not issue deeds to the grantees, and records were kept variously at the territorial, state, vice-royal or imperial level.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the changes made by the US Government.
The version of the treaty ratified by the United States Senate eliminated Article X[15], which stated that the U.S. government would honor and guarantee all land grants awarded in lands ceded to the United States to citizens of Spain and Mexico by those respective governments. Article VIII guaranteed that Mexicans who remained more than one year in the ceded lands would automatically become full-fledged American citizens (or they could declare their intention of remaining Mexican citizens); however, the Senate modified Article IX, changing the first paragraph and excluding the last two. Among the changes was that Mexican citizens would "be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States)" instead of "admitted as soon as possible", as negotiated between Trist and the Mexican delegation.

The treaty was subsequently ratified by the United States Senate by a vote of 38 to 14 on March 10, 1848 and by the Mexican government by a legislative vote of 51 to 34 and a Mexican Senate vote of 33 to 4, on May 19, 1848.

Protocol of Querétaro

On May 30, 1848, when the two countries exchanged ratifications of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, they further negotiated a three-article protocol to explain the amendments. The first article stated that the original Article IX of the treaty, although replaced by Article III of the Treaty of Louisiana, would still confer the rights delineated in Article IX. The second article confirmed the legitimacy of land grants pursuant to Mexican law.[16]

The protocol further noted that said explanations had been accepted by the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Mexican Government,[16] and was signed in Querétaro by A. H. Sevier, Nathan Clifford and Luis de la Rosa.

The United States would later go on to ignore the protocol on the grounds that the U.S. representatives had over-reached their authority in agreeing to it.[17]

Treaty of Mesilla

The treaty of Mesilla which concluded the Gadsden purchase of 1854 had significant implications for the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Article II of the treaty annulled article XI of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and article IV further annulled articles VI and VII of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Article V however reaffirmed the property guarantees of Guadalupe Hidalgo, specifically those contained within articles VIII and IX.[18]

On to the technical details.

Land grants

Before Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, the Spanish government had made a few small grants of land in southern Arizona. In 1789, Toribio de Otero petitioned for a lot from the Tubac presidio in return for military service. The land remained in the Otero family until 1938. In 1807, the O'odham of the Tumacacori mission received title to a long strip along the Santa Cruz River south of Tubac encompassing the former mission lands of Tumacacori, Calabasas, and Guevavi. Part of this grant was the land auctioned off in Guaymas in 1846. In 1812, Agustín Ortiz purchased the site of Arivaca, an important mining and ranching center since the mid eighteenth century, at public auction. Charles Poston purchased that hacienda from Ignacio Ortiz in 1856 for $10,000.

However, most grants in Arizona were made after Mexico gained independence. In 1821, Tomás and Ignacio Ortiz received a total of about 17,000 acres (69 km²) of land known as San Ignacio de la Canoa and located between Tubac and modern Sahuarita. The following year, the ranch of San Bernardino east of modern Douglas became the property of Lieutenant Ignacio Pérez. It totaled more than 73,000 acres (300 km²) in Arizona and northeastern Sonora. León Herreros acquired San José de Sanoita in 1825, while "Ramón Romero and other shareholders, their children, heirs, and successors received title to San Rafael de la Zanja in the San Rafael Valley the same year. The Mexican government issued five more grants, including Buenavista, San Rafael del Valle, San Juan de las Boquillas y Nogales, Tres Alamos, and the Babocómari ranch, between 1826 and 1831.

During the 1820s and 1830s, Sonoran ranchers strove to colonize the grasslands of southeastern Arizona. Their legal tool was the land grant and their instrument of occupation was the mixed-breed longhorn cow. These longhorn, or their descendants, roamed the range as feral survivors long after their masters were gone.

Hispanic Arizona was again making an effort to roll back the borders of the Apachería. The land grants established Mexican title to much of the Santa Cruz and San Pedro valleys. They also extended Mexican domain over the plains south of the Chiricahua Mountains. Most of the cattle country ended up in the hands of the Elías-González family or their relatives. During the colonial period, the Spanish government supported the mission and the presidial systems in order to insure royal control over the northern frontier. By the 1820s, however, private capital had become the usual method of colonization, and most of that capital belonged to a network of elite families who dominated northern Sonora at the time. They provided the livestock and took the risks.

If the Elías-Gonzálezes and their neighbors had received the land grant twenty years earlier, when they would have been protected by the presidios and the Apache peace program, they might have succeeded, but beginning in the 1820s, the Apaches began to burn their buildings and kill their cowboys, run off their horses, and slaughter their beef. By 1840 most of the grants had been abandoned. Even though the U.S. Court of Private Land Claims eventually confirmed eight of the Spanish and Mexican land grants in the early twentieth century, none of the descendants of the original grantees managed to hold on to their titles. John Slaughter owned the San Bernardino Ranch north of the U.S.-Mexico border, and Colin Cameron's San Rafael Cattle Company had acquired the San Rafael de la Zanja grant. Largescale ranching did not return to the area until the 1880s after most of the Apaches had been confined to reservations. When it did, American land-and-cattle companies, not the Mexican elite, held them.

The most blatant land grab occurred in 1844. Far to the south, in the port of the Guaymas, the Mexican government declared that the mission lands of Tumacacori had been abandoned and auctioned them off for five hundred pesos to Francisco Alejandro Aguilar. The few Pimas who had not been driven away by Apache depredations neither knew about nor consented to the sale. Aguilar was the brother-in-law of Manuel Mariá Gándara, one of the most powerful military strongmen in Sonora. He turned Calabasas into his own private hacienda, and by the late 1840s Pima dispossession along the Santa Cruz was nearly complete.

Some presidial soldiers became so poor that they had to sell their weapons to feed their families. In 1840 and 1841 the Mexican government campaigned against the Tohono O'odham of the western deserts, their former allies. The colony reached its nadir at midcentury. In 1843 the Apaches killed at least thirty shareholders of the San Rafael de la Zanja grant at La Boca de Noria near modern Lochiel. Ranching ceased in the San Rafael Valley. Five years later, at least fifteen Tucsonenses, including nine presidial soldiers, rode into ambush in the Whetstone Mountains. By the time the bodies could be recovered, they were so decomposed that the remains had to be carried back to the presidio of Santa Cruz in sacks. Tubac itself was abandoned once again after an Apache assault in January 1849.