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.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

UN Documents on Human Rights and Rights of the Indigenous.

Could someone please show me, where in either of these two documents, it states that Deportable Aliens (those that overstay their visas or cross the border of our Sovereign Nation without authorization) or Indigenous of other nations have the right to be here against our Immigration Laws.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behavior of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.


United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Illegal Immigrants ARE a Drain to State, County, and City Governments.

Here it is, straight from the horses mouth:

States are facing bankruptcy with governors running all over Washington looking for handouts, warning of certain catastrophe if aid is denied them. Instead of begging like this, they should try demanding. They should demand that the federal government reimburse them for all the immigrant services they pay for on behalf of the feds. When it comes to immigration the Federal government sets the policy but the states pay the cost. That’s not fair. Claiming reimbursement affords the states the high ground, a much better position to get money than begging on Pennsylvania Ave., pedaling fear.

For decades states have provided mandatory services to immigrants, teaching them, training them, and providing emergency room treatment as well as police and fire protection for them. These services have gone to all immigrants, both undocumented and on the path to citizenship. It’s work for which states seldom get credit, though it amounts to billions of dollars every year.

If states could win reimbursement, it would go directly into saving jobs. Providing services to immigrants is labor intensive. These are the jobs that are most vulnerable: teachers, social workers, police, firemen, and EMT workers. Keeping these folks employed benefits everyone not just immigrants. And federal reimbursement would free up state money to plug other holes. This is a win/win: good for immigrants, good for the states.

The National Governors Association and the United States Conference of Mayors should make federal reimbursement for immigration costs a top priority. It turns out that the states which would benefit the most are the most broke—think California and Florida, even Michigan. Full reimbursement for immigration costs would be huge for these states.

Sound crazy? It’s happened before. Washington reimbursed states for immigration costs in 1986 when immigration reform was last passed. The bill required the federal government to pay states for the costs for legalizing three million immigrants. Called State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG)—surely we can come up with a better acronym—the program allocated $4 billion to the states. It included money for public assistance, education, ESL training, health benefits, and more.


Did you read what I read?? They know that on the Local levels, i.e., State, County, and City Governments, that Illegal Immigrants receive more in services than they pay in taxes. They admit it!! So then why all the hoopla about they (Illegal Aliens) pay more in taxes then they receive in benefits?? Why the lying on their part??

I think the idea above is a good one, and as stated, "it has been done before". I think everybody would agree that the states should be paid back by the Federal Government for the services paid to harbor Deportable Aliens.

Friday, January 16, 2009

The Chicano Self Resistance Stratagy, Self Segregation!!!

From the great Oscar Garcia on the HB Forums, some of his best work yet!! His comments are as follows:

most anglos that do not have any idea of what our culture and heritage is all about think and see us.

Those "illegal aliens" may be brothers, sisters, cousins, and grandparents. You do not understand because you do not have familia whose only crime is not having a document that says they are here what you call "legally". You do not understand our culture, heritage, or our sense of unity.

Typical answer from a white person who does not understand our sense of pride.

Chicano ideals involve a rejection of borders. The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was the peace treaty that ended the Mexican-American War.... transformed the Rio Grande region from a rich cultural center to a rigid border enforced by the United States government. At the end of the Mexican-American War, 80,000 Spanish-Mexican-Indian people were forced into sudden U.S. habitation. As a result, Chicano identification is aligned with the idea of Aztlán

Aztlan is the legendary ancestral home of the Nahua peoples, one of the main cultural groups in Mesoamerical, which extends to the Aztec period of Mexico, celebrating a time preceding land division.

Paired with the dissipation of militant political efforts of the Chicano movement

The Chicano Movement, also called the Chicano Civil Rights Movement, the Mexican-American Civil Rights Movement,... in the 1960s was the emergence of the Chicano generation. Like their political predecessors, the Chicano generation rejects the "immigrant/foreigner" categorization status. Chicano identity has expanded from its political origins to incorporate a broader community vision of social integration and nonpartisan political participation.

The shared Spanish language, Catholic faith, close contact with their political homeland Mexico to the south, a history of labor segregation, ethnic exclusion and racial discrimination encourage a united Chicano or Mexican folkloric tradition in the United States. Ethnic cohesiveness is a resistance strategy to assimilation and the accompanying cultural dissolution.

(I bolded his prime points)

Not separatism, self determination, which is defined as ones own acts without external compulsion, and especially as the freedom of the people of a given territory to determine their own political status or independence from their current state.

Here is the Self Determination link. Might I suggest reading the Current Issues portion of self determination:

Since the early 1990s, the legitimatization of the principle of national self-determination has led to an increase in the number of conflicts within states, as sub-groups seek greater self-determination and even full secession, and as their conflicts for leadership within groups and with other groups and with the dominant state become violent.

Something about full secession that makes Oscars arguments very threatening. The mindset of these people is truly treasonous against the USA. The argument of secession falls in line with the secession of the South West of the USA back to Mexico.



From Wiki, take it as you will, but make note of the bold sentence:


Many currents came together to produce the revived Chicano political movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Early struggles were against school segregation, but the Mexican American cause, or La Causa as it was called, soon came under the banner of the United Farm Workers and César Chávez. However,Corky Gonzales and Reies Tijerina (not a native New Mexican) stirred up old tensions about New Mexican land claims with roots going back to before the Mexican-American War. Simultaneous movements like the Young Lords, to empower youth, question patriarchy, democratize the Church, end police brutality, and end the Vietnam War all intersected with other ethnic nationalist, peace, countercultural, and feminist movements.

Since Chicanismo covers a wide array of political, religious and ethnic beliefs, and not everybody agrees with what exactly a Chicano is, most new Latino immigrants see it as a lost cause, as a lost culture, because Chicanos don't identify with Mexico or wherever their parents migrated from as new immigrants do. So in essence new immigrants are not Chicanos and their kids will not be Chicanos because Chicanoism is now only being prolonged by academics; it's an appreciation of a historical movement.

For some, Chicano ideals involve a rejection of borders. The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo[25] As a result, Chicano identification is aligned with the idea of Aztlán, which extends to the Aztec period of Mexico, celebrating a time preceding land division.[26] Paired with the dissipation of militant political efforts of the Chicano movement in the 1960s was the emergence of the Chicano generation. Like their political predecessors, the Chicano generation rejects the "immigrant/foreigner" categorization status.[26] Chicano identity has expanded from its political origins to incorporate a broader community vision of social integration and nonpartisan political participation.[27] transformed the Rio Grande region from a rich cultural center to a rigid border poorly enforced by the United States government. At the end of the Mexican-American War, 80,000 Spanish-Mexican-Indian people were forced into sudden U.S. habitation.

The shared Spanish language, Catholic faith, close contact with their political homeland (Mexico) to the south, a history of labor segregation, ethnic exclusion and racial discrimination encourage a united Chicano or Mexican folkloric tradition in the United States. Ethnic cohesiveness is a resistance strategy to assimilation and the accompanying cultural dissolution.


The concept of Chicano nationalism is perhaps best articulated in the 1968 Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, generally considered the manifesto of the Chicano Movement[citation needed]. It states,

"El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán sets the theme that the Chicanos (La Raza de Bronze) must use their nationalism as the key or common denominator for mass mobilization and organization. Once we are committed to the idea and philosophy of El Plan de Aztlán, we can only conclude that social, economic, cultural, and political independence is the only road to total liberation from oppression, exploitation, and racism. Our struggle then must be for the control of our barrios, campos, pueblos, lands, our economy, our culture, and our political life. El Plan commits all levels of Chicano society - the barrio, the campo, the ranchero, the writer, the teacher, the worker, the professional - to La Causa."

Monday, January 12, 2009

Immigration Law: An Overview - Follow-up

This is directly from Cornell University Law School, have a look at the Menu of Sources also on the link.


Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the United States. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation's border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.

Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens' constitutional rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable.

States have limited legislative authority regarding immigration, and 28 U.S.C. § 1251 details the full extent of state jurisdiction. Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 994 details the federal sentencing guidelines for illegal entry into the country.

By controlling the visa process, the federal government can achieve the goals of its immigration policies. There are two types of visas: immigrant visas and nonimmigrant visas. The government primarily issues nonimmigrant visas to tourists and temporary business visitors. The government divides nonimmigrant visas into eighteen different types, but for most types, does not impose a cap on the number that may be granted in a year. Only a few categories of non-immigrant visas allow their holders to work in the United States. Immigrant visas, on the other hand, permit their holders to stay in the United States permanently and eventually to apply for citizenship. Aliens with immigrant visas can also work in the United States. Congress limits the quantity of immigrant visas, which numbered 675,000 in 1995. Many immigrant visas remain subject to per-country caps.

Early History of American Immigration Law

Congress's first attempt to set immigration policy came in 1790 with the enactment of the Naturalization Act of 1790. This Act restricted naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character" and required the applicant to have lived in the country for two years prior to becoming naturalized. In 1795 an amendment increased the residency requirement to five years. The five-year requirement remains on the books to this day.

Upon ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, all children born within the United States received citizenship at birth. In 1870 Congress broadened naturalization laws to allow African-Americans the right to become naturalized citizens. Asian Americans, however, did not receive such a right for many years. Xenophobia from an influx of Asians between 1850 and 1882 prompted Congress to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act, which restricted further Chinese immigration.

In 1921 Congress passed the Emergency Immigration Act, creating national immigration quotas, which gave way to the Immigration Act of 1924, capping the number of permissible immigrants from each country in a manner proportional to the number already living within the United States. The aggregate number from the eastern hemisphere could not eclipse 154,227 immigrants. Franklin D. Roosevelt's Administration essentially closed to the country to immigration essentially during the Great depression, drastically reducing the numbers per country that could enter the United States.

Modern Immigration Law

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, eliminated all race-based quotas, replacing them with purely nationality-based quotas. The INA continues to influence the field of American immigration law. To enforce the quotas, the INA created the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The INS served as the federal agency that enforced these caps for remainder of the 20th century.

When Congress passed the INA, it defined an "alien" as any person lacking citizenship or status as a national of the United States. Different categories of aliens include resident and nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant, and documented and undocumented ("illegal"). The terms "documented" and "undocumented" refer to whether an arriving alien has the proper records and identification for admission into the U.S. Having the proper records and identification typically requires the alien to possess a valid, unexpired passport and either a visa, border crossing identification card, permanent resident card, or a reentry permit. The INA expressly refuses stowaway aliens entry into the U.S.

The need to curtail illegal immigration prompted Congress to enact the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. The IRCA toughened criminal sanctions for employers who hired illegal aliens, denied illegal aliens federally funded welfare benefits, and legitimized some aliens through an amnesty program. The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 sought to limit the practice of marrying to obtain citizenship. The Immigration Act of 1990 thoroughly revamped the INA by equalizing the allocation of visas across foreign nations, eliminating archaic rules, and encouraging worldwide immigration.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 revolutionized the process of alien entry into the United States. The IIRIRA eliminated the term "entry," replacing it with "admission." An application for admission occurs whenever an alien arrives in the U.S. regardless of whether the arrival occurs at a designated port-of-entry. Applicants at either designated ports or otherwise must submit to an inspection by U.S. customs, even if the applicant possesses an immigrant visa. The IIRIRA also employs the term "arriving alien" to describe applicant aliens attempting to enter the U.S., regardless of whether they arrive at a designated port, a non-designated point on the border, or are located in U.S. waters and brought to shore.

Post-9/11 Reform

On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security opened, replacing the INS. The Bush Administration had designed the Department of Homeland Security to foster increased intelligence sharing and dialogue between agencies responsible for responding to domestic emergencies, such as natural disasters and domestic terrorism. Within the Department, three different agencies - U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement (CBE), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) - now handle the duties formerly held by the INS. Currently, the CBE handles the INS's border patrol duties, the USCIS handles the INS's naturalization, asylum, and permanent residence functions, and the ICE handles the INS's deportation, intelligence, and investigatory functions.

Refugee and Asylum Seekers

The Refugee Act of 1980 defines the U.S. laws relating to refugee immigrants. Under the Refugee Act, the term "refugee" refers to aliens with a fear of persecution upon returning to their homelands, stemming from their religion, race, nationality, membership in certain social groups, or political opinions. Anyone who delivers a missing American POW or MIA soldier receives refugee status from the United States.

The United States, however, denies refugee status to any alien who actively persecuted individuals of a certain race, political opinion, religion, nationality, or members of a certain social group. As a matter of public policy, the government also typically refuses refugee applicants previously convicted of murderer. For refugees who have "firmly resettled" in another country, the United States will deny a request for refugee admission. The government considers refugees "firmly resettled" if the refugees have received an offer of citizenship, permanent residency, or some other permanent status from a foreign country.

Under international law, the Geneva Convention, or the laws of the United States, foreign citizens who have become disillusioned with their homeland cannot take temporary refuge within the United States. The Refugee Act of 1980 specifically leaves out temporary refuge as a form of refugee status that the U.S. government will recognize.

To qualify for refugee status under the persecution provision, the refugee applicant must prove actual fear. A proof of actual fear requires meeting both a subjective and an objective test. The subjective test requires that the refugee actually have an honest and genuine fear of being persecuted for some immutable trait, such as religion, race, and nationality. Seekers of asylum must show a fear that membership in a social or political group has caused past persecution or has caused a well-founded fear that persecution will occur upon returning. The applicant meets the objective standard by showing credible and direct evidence that a reasonable possibility of persecution exists upon the applicant's return to the homeland.

The President retains the ultimate decision making authority when determining the number of refugees to allow into the country during a given year.

Deportation

Deportation refers to the official removal of an alien from the United States. The U.S. government can initiate deportation proceedings against aliens admitted under the INA that commit an aggravated felony within the United States after being admitted. An alien's failure to register a change of address renders the alien deportable, unless the failure resulted from an excusable circumstance or mistake. If the government determines that a particular alien gained entry into the country through the use of a falsified document or otherwise fraudulent means, the government has the grounds to deport.

Other common grounds for deportation include the following: aiding or encouraging another alien to enter the country illegally; engaging in marriage fraud to gain U.S. admission; participating in an activity that threatens the U.S.'s national security; voting unlawfully; and failing to update the government with a residential address every three months, regardless of whether the address has changed. The last of these policies served as the grounds for the government to deport 2,000 Pakistanis following the September 11th attacks.

If the government brings a proceeding for deportation because of fraud or falsification, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that alleged falsification or fraud occurred and that the falsification or fraud proved material to the granting of admission to the alien. Upon such a proof, the government has established a rebuttable presumption that the alien gained admission through material falsification or fraud. To rebut the presumption, the alien must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that admission would have been granted even without the falsification or fraud.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Truly Understanding the Debate

I just came across a great comment left by Aakash on Migra Matters. It dispels the arguments of Republicans are racist, for which we all know Dee and the PRO-Blogosphere has been ignorantly harping as of late. Too many out there do not have the understanding of what is actually being said, they only hear what it is they want to hear, history be damned.

So, here is the comment:

The issues that have turned voters off from the Republican Party, and Republican candidates, have to do largely with Iraq and foreign policy, as well as the economy, and the unpopularity of the Bush administration.

Even many supporters of illegal immigration have acknowledged that, in elections, those opposing their position do have advantages, with respect to vote-garnering.

Furthermore, the immigration issue is not about "the right" vs. "the left" - there are deep cleavages on each side of the ideological spectrum, on this issue, with conservatives and liberals on each side.

As I've said before, there are many aspects of immigration reduction that are consistent with left-wing beliefs, values, and goals. Liberals have long been at the forefront of opposing illegal immigration, as well as reducing immigration levels overall, and some continue to do so.

As both liberals and conservatives pointed out, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee could have defeated President Bush in the last election, if he had used the immigration issue. John McCain was even weaker than Bush on this matter however, and the "Republican" from Arizona, praised by supporters of illegal immigration, did miserably.

The last time a Democrat President won re-election, he took a stance in favor of stopping illegal immigration, and reducing legal immigration as well [in accordance with the recommendations of civil rights leader Barbara Jordan (D-TX).]


With respect to the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), this is widely-regarded as a mainstream organization, focused on matters such as workers' rights, the environment, and sustainability. Among those who have served on FAIR's Advisory Board include left-wing, anti-war icon Eugene McCarthy (D-MN), who was the co-sponsor of the 1965 bill that greatly increased immigration, environmentalist leader Paul Ehrlich and his wife (The Population Bomb), PBS anchor Bonnie Erbe, and Sierra Club leader (the recently-deceased) Dr. Alan Kuper).


This issue is not about left vs. right, or about "nativism" - It is about bettering the lives of all Americans (including immigrants), blue-collar workers and minority-Americans, in opposition to Big Business and corporate greed, and about protecting the environment through the moral means of stewardship and conservation, rather than through immoral means.



So as you can see, the argument is actually about Nationality, not Race, not Ethnicity. The PRO- side would rather make it about race and/or ethnicity to gain sympathy. They intentionally mislead the actual information about immigration and the laws to garner support for their 'globalization' ideals where all the world is one. Until they can argue with objectivity and intellectual intelligence vs the intellectual dishonesty they choose, they will forever be labeled as traitors to a Sovereign nation.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Texas Stolen??

Live, from the HB forums, Tony Cheek and Oscar Garcia insinuating that Texas and the South West were stolen from Mexico.

"the reason Mexico lost Texas: they trusted all those gabacho settlers."

They obviously receive there information from Chicano Studies, such as those taught here at the University of Dayton. The only problem is that it is an incomplete and poorly interpreted history to demonize the USA and "white" American Citizens. They fail to realize what lead up to the Texas Disillusionment.
Texians had become increasingly disillusioned with the Mexican government. Many Mexican soldiers garrisoned in Texas were convicted criminals who had been given the choice of prison or serving in the army in Texas. Many Texians were also unhappy with the location of their state capital, which moved periodically between Saltillo and Monclova, both of which were in southern Coahuila, some 500 miles (800 km) away; they wanted Texas to be a separate state from Coahuila (but not independent from Mexico) and to have its own capital. They believed a closer capital would help to stem corruption and facilitate other matters of government.
And then you have Santa Ana's contributions to the problem as well:

The Constitution of 1824 that was no longer being recognized by General Antonio López de Santa Anna Pérez de Lebrón who decided to abolish the Constitution of 1824 and proclaimed a new anti-federalist constitution in its place, the Siete Leyes of 1835.

Between 1829 and 1832, a series of Mexican presidents were killed in a series of coups. Santa Anna had a hand in each of these events. The Mexican Republic became heavily divided between two factions known as Conservatives, who were for a centralized monarchical government, and Liberals, who were for a democratic federal government. In the presidential elections of 1833, Santa Anna ran as a liberal and won. Soon after, Santa Anna retired to his hacienda, allowing Vice President Valentín Gómez Farías to run the country. The government initiated drastic liberal reforms, angering the Conservatives. Returning from his hacienda, Santa Anna renounced the government's policies and overthrew the presidency, forcing Gomez Farías and many of his supporters to flee Mexico for the United States. Santa Anna declared that Mexico was not ready for democracy, became an openly Conservative centralist, and appointed himself dictator. The War of Mexican Independence started after Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808, now Santa Anna fancied himself, the Napoleon of Mexico.


At the same time Texas declared independence, other Mexican states also decided to secede from Mexico and form their own republics. The state of Yucatán formed the Republic of Yucatán, which was recognized by Great Britain, and the states of Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas joined together to form the Republic of the Rio Grande. Several other states also went into open rebellion, including San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Jalisco and Zacatecas. All were upset with Santa Anna abolishing the 1824 Constitution, disbanding Congress, changing the structure of government from a federal structure to a centralized one, and the expulsion of the Spaniards. Texas, however, was the only territory to be successful in detaching itself from Mexico.


So, after the missing information left out by those that blame the "white man" for their own ethnic strife, where is it that the USA or the "white man" stole Mexican land, i.e. Texas from Mexico??

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Dee, the "Ignorant Mexican-American"

Recently on Immigration Talk with a Mexican American, the blog owner was doing her due diligence in throwing out the race card and playing the race baiting hand. She attempted to portray me as silly, poor, sad, and even went so low as calling me a racist, simply because she doesn't understand what it was that David Ehrenstein wrote when he penned "Obama the 'Magic Negro'". It is now very funny to me and those others that followed along on her blog, to have one of her own iconic figures to whom she agrees with more often than not, to come out and say exactly what it was I was trying to get her to understand and that her cries of racism are nothing more than her own racism being exposed. So, I give you the following from the San Diego Union-Tribune:

When do song lyrics that are meant to be entertaining hit a sour note and become offensive?

Many conservatives think rap music crosses the line. In 1990, Republican officials in Broward County, Fla., declared obscene an album by the group 2 Live Crew and sheriff's deputies arrested members of the group after a performance. In 1992, the rapper Ice-T released an album featuring the song “Cop Killer,” which President George H.W. Bush called a threat to police officers. After law enforcement associations boycotted his record label, Time Warner, Ice-T pulled the song from the album.

During those skirmishes in the culture wars, you would hear liberals defend the creative process, praise the First Amendment and dismissively tell anyone who was offended by vulgar lyrics to “get over it” and develop thicker skins. Now those on the left have the chance to show us how it's done and walk it like they talk it.

And it's all thanks to “Barack the Magic Negro,” a cheeky parody of “Puff, the Magic Dragon” that pokes fun at the jealousy and resentment that older black leaders initially exhibited toward Barack Obama. Did you catch that? This is not a song that makes fun of Obama – as some might assume from media reports – but rather one that makes fun of those who claimed that Obama was not being black enough or appreciative enough of the struggles of those who came before him. Mimicking the voice of the Rev. Al Sharpton.
.......
The “guy from the L.A. paper” is Los Angeles-based writer David Ehrenstein, who penned an op-ed piece that ran in the Times on March 19, 2007. Describing himself as “an African-American whose last name has led to his racial 'credentials' being challenged,” Ehrenstein wrote that, besides running for president, Obama was also “running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination – the 'Magic Negro' . . . (who is) there to assuage white 'guilt' (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history.” The only hiccup, Ehrenstein wrote, was “criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged 'inauthenticity', as compared to such sterling examples of 'genuine' blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg."

Why is Obama magic? Because like the dragon in the 1960s folk song, Obama is – according to Ehrenstein – not real. Instead, he's “like a comic-book superhero” – “the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.”

That's radical stuff. It's basically a message to white folks that just because they've accepted Barack Obama doesn't mean they're off the hook for more than 200 years of oppression and discrimination against African-Americans and other minorities.

That's not the kind of thing you'd normally hear from the Republican National Committee, which finds itself embroiled in this controversy after Chip Saltsman, a former chair of the Tennessee Republican Party who is running for RNC chairman, sent fellow Republicans a CD that included “Barack the Magic Negro.”

It was a boneheaded thing to do, if Saltsman really wants to lead a party that has managed to scare off or tick off just about every color in the rainbow and now finds itself with an ever-shrinking base of white rural voters right about the time that census figures are telling us that whites are just three decades away from becoming a statistical minority.

But it wasn't racist. The racism is coming from those on the left, and their simpaticos in the media who twisted this story to fit the narrative of a GOP hostile to minorities. That story line lets the Democratic Party look progressive by comparison – which allows it to rest on its laurels instead of doing its part to improve race relations.

That's how it is in the game of racial politics. Conservatives are often held to higher standards while liberals skate by on what we might call – to borrow a phrase – the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Even by me 'dumbing things down' for her, she still insisted I didn't get it!! Might I suggest to you, Dee, pull your ignorance from your head and place it back in your ass where it belongs, I'll await my public apology.

No 287(g) Required!!

Arrest of Illegal Aliens by State and Local Officers from the Criminal Resource Manual 1918

Subsection 1324(c) of Title 8 specifically authorizes state and local officers "whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. There is also a general federal statute which authorizes certain local officials to make arrests for violations of federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 3041. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 18 U.S.C. § 3041 authorizes those local officials to issue process for the arrest, to be executed by law enforcement officers. See United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977).

Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an arrest warrant "shall be executed by a marshal or by some other officer authorized by law." The phrase, "some other officer," includes state and local officers. Bowdach, supra.

Section 439 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1252c which provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported and left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.

In the absence of a specific federal statute, the validity of an arrest without a warrant for violation of federal law by local peace officers is to be determined by reference to local law. See Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958); United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 589 (1948).

In approving a state trooper's arrest of persons who appeared to be illegal aliens, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, simply, as follows: "A state trooper has general investigative authority to inquire into possible immigration violations." See United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301, n. 3 (10th Cir. 1984).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983), that the structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not evidence an intent to preclude local enforcement of the act's criminal provisions. Id. at 474. Based on the pertinent legislative history, the court of appeals rejected the argument that since 8 U.S.C. § 1324(c) specifically authorizes local officers to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a) and 1326 contain no comparable provision, Congress must have intended that local officers be precluded from making arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a) and 1326. Id. at 475. The decision warns, however, that the first violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) is a misdemeanor, and that if applicable state law authorizes law enforcement officers to arrest for misdemeanors only if committed in their presence, they would not be authorized to arrest aliens for illegal entry (unless the officers should happen to know that the alien had previously been convicted of illegal entry) unless they saw him/her cross the border.

The disappointing aspect of Gonzales is the statement that an alien's "inability to produce documentation does not in itself provide probable cause (to arrest)." See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, supra, at 16. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e), aliens are issued registration cards and must carry such cards with them at all times. Aliens who gain entry without the requisite inspection, and who therefore are not issued such cards, violate 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Consequently, a law enforcement officer confronting an alien who is unable to produce documentation arguably has probable cause to believe that a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) (failure to possess documents or 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) (entry without inspection) has occurred. (If the alien is undocumented and has been in the United States for longer than 30 days, he or she has also violated 8 U.S.C. § 1306(a)).


So as you can now see, 287(g) is not mandatory for law enforcement to merely have justified suspicions of someone being within the United States without authorization. As Judge Lisi states:

"a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case found that “an officer did not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status during the execution of a search warrant,” and the rule applied in this case as well.

Inquiring about a person’s name, date and place of birth, or immigration status does not constitute unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, she said.

Lisi said the trooper had a right to inquire about immigration status after all but four of the occupants of the van “had failed to provide any identification and Chabot’s suspicions reasonably escalated.”

She said that under two Supreme Court decisions, “It is permissible for officers to inquire into the immigration status of individuals without triggering the Fourth Amendment or requiring independent reasonable suspicion.”

The men in the van said they were going to work in Westerly, and immigration was contacted only after learning that most people in the van lacked documentation."

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

The First Bills of the 'New Congress'

There was a leaking of the first 10 bills of the new Congress. Here they are, courtesy of the American Prospect.

We need to pay special attention to the Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009, "as it seems to be a placeholder for comprehensive immigration reform, including stronger border and employment security to crackdown on illegal immigration while "reforming and rationalizing avenues for legal immigration."

The one thing we can hope for is if this goes the way of the 110th Congress where "a quick perusal of the 110th Senate's first ten bills suggests about half of that legislation was passed by Congress (it included ethics reform, the minimum wage increase, stem cell research, the 9/11 Commission reforms and legislation to increase higher ed access) though not all of it was signed by the President."

Monday, January 5, 2009

The people of Conscience

Those that wish to give away our sovereignty and allow all the world to become Citizens of the USA, know all to well that their arguments are based strictly on their own emotions.

From the comments of Citizen Orange on the videos of Robb Pearson, the ANTI gone PRO.

Commenter
1. Rule of law: Restrictionists know they are on their strongest ground when they talk about this. I like to talk about the history of racist immigration laws propelled forward by nativism and the importance of changing unjust laws, just as MLK did in the civil rights movement. But I feel there are ways for us to sharpen our arguments on this point that we might have overlooked so far.

2. Passion: Pearson says at one point he considers himself to be a "person of conscience." He changed his views on this issue, but fundamentally he is the same person now that he was two years ago. Of course there are some unreasonable restrictionists. But many of them are passionate about their cause because they believe they are on the right side of an important moral issue. Many feel this way because they are taught to do so by parents, church leaders, school teachers, politicians, and pundits. In the "nationalism/patriotism" frame that so bewitches our country and others, protecting group solidarity is a natural response. I think we will get further by respecting the passion that many people feel on this issue and challenging the frame that leads to that feeling of moral certainty on the other side.

As per the "Rule of Law", they admit they know they are in the wrong about it, ethically and morally, the "Rule of Law" wins every time. Their equating their movement to that of the 'Civil Rights Movement' from the 1960's is whimsical at best. First, the peoples that fought and attained 'civil rights' were in fact 'legal' American Citizens that were, to an extent, oppressed by our own Government and denied the equality they truly deserved. "Deportable Aliens" do not fall into the category of Citizen, thus what the PRO side is in fact arguing is to give away our sovereignty and cheapening what it means to be a Citizen of the United States of America.

Second, they wish to frame the debate into a moral argument of doing what's right. The only problem is the type of morals they are choosing is from their beliefs from the Bible passages they choose to use or the church doctrine they seem to be able to make up due to the freedom of religion thing we have in the USA. They seek to impose their moral values onto society.

The definition of Morals is: conforming to a standard of right behavior. This can and does pertain to the morals of our laws just as easily as it does to their moral values. It seems they want the distinction of church and state only when it is of convenience to them, but wish to impose their moral values on all who do not agree with them.

Saturday, January 3, 2009

Deportable Violations of Illegal Immigrants

During my daily read of opposition blogs and other various sources for “Illegal Alien” sympathizers, I see they are again blurring the lines between a “Lawfully Admitted Immigrant” and an undocumented “Deportable Alien”. Why is it they do this, you ask?? Simple, they are attempting to use our own laws against us. Note in Section 237 of the INA there is no term of “Illegal Alien”, only the terms of “Alien”, “Deportable Alien”, “Inadmissible Alien”, “Nonimmigrant Status Violators”, and “Violators of Conditions of Entry”. Therefore, in their eyes, “no human being is ‘illegal’” so the term “immigrant” is the preference they choose instead of just “alien”.

Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237

Sec. 237 [8 U.S.C. 1227]

(a) Classes of Deportable Aliens.-Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens:

(1) Inadmissible at time of entry or of adjustment of status or violates status.-

(A) Inadmissible aliens.-Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable.


(B) Present in violation of law.-Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 221(i) , is deportable.


(C) Violated nonimmigrant status or condition of entry.-


(i) Nonimmigrant status violators.-Any alien who was admitted as a nonimmigrant and who has failed to maintain the nonimmigrant status in which the alien was admitted or to which it was changed under section 248 , or to comply with the conditions of any such status, is deportable.

(ii) Violators of conditions of entry.-Any alien whom the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies has failed to comply with terms, conditions, and controls that were imposed under section 212(g) is deportable.


Now, let’s look at this from the perspective of the court system. If I am the one going against you in court, it is a civil matter, if the government is taking you to court, whether it is State or Federal, it is criminal matter.

In civil law, a private party (a corporation or individual person) files the lawsuit and becomes the plaintiff. In criminal law, the litigation is always filed by the government, who is called the prosecution.

Criminal law is much better known to laymen than civil law. They often misapply principles from criminal law to situations in civil (e.g., tort) law, which results in their misunderstanding.

Illegally entering the US is a crime (entry without inspection, i.e. “Violators of Conditions of Entry”). Unlawful presence is also a crime (legally entered visa overstay, i.e. "Nonimmigrant Status Violators"). Both violations are removable offenses under the Immigration Act. As deportable aliens are not citizens of the U.S., they do not have the same rights as a U.S. citizen or Legal Permanent Resident. Their deportation hearing takes place before an immigration judge. Since the penalty is deportation and/or a fine and/or jail time (civil and criminal penalties), many people think of the Immigration Court as a civil court. In fact, the Immigration Court is a criminal court, as it is the government prosecuting the offense.

But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is deportation.) Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts.

When deportable aliens are prosecuted under criminal law, instead of being expelled through an administrative proceeding, those accused have the right to a jury trial and all the rules of evidence apply as mandated by the Equal Protection Clause. The government is burdened with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and the following punishment may actually be considered a Misdemeanor as Section 1325 suggests below; “for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.”

Imagine the cost and the caseload, that's why “Deportable Aliens” are encouraged to sign a document admitting their status and quickly be removed under immigration proceedings vs. waiting here for a criminal hearing which could take up to 2 years, all the time they remain on an immigration hold in jail, awaiting their court date. Most sign so they don't have to sit in jail and can be deported expediently.

Deportable aliens in detention centers are not being held on criminal law charges, they are being held on Administrative Law charges, for which the Government can hold them for a period of time.

Therefore, in conclusion:

The Government has the choice to prosecute for a criminal charge, i.e. document fraud/forgery, for which the Government must now provide burden of proof. Or to plea deal it down to, sign this paper and be barred for 3 - 10 years and if caught you will be charged with a 'felony' as an 'Administrative Violation'.


The Administrative Violation relieves the Government of having to provide any 'rights' to the 'Illegal Alien', thus detention center or immediate deportation, depending on country of origin.

The Criminal Charge would require the "Deportable Alien" to remain in the custody of our criminal system until his/her court date, which could be as long as 2 years in jail. Most "Aliens" opt for the sign and leave.

Now, if we go over to Criminal Resource Manual 1911 - 8 U.S.C. § 1325;


Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud

Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.

We see the amended term of ‘shall be subject to a civil penalty’. This is nothing more than what was added by IIRIRA as an amendment to Section 1325, adding Section 1325 (b).

Section 1325 reads as follows:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts. Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties. Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of -

(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.


Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

So, as you can now see and hopefully understand, “Deportable Aliens” have ‘NO RIGHTS’ granted to them by being in the United States if they are in violation of our immigration laws and are only granted ‘due process’ if they are charged with an infamous crime. Our first line of defense is our Local Police Officers and them knowing their job duties.