Liquids Reign

Plyler vs Doe Does Not Grant Birthright Citizenship to Illegal Aliens

2011-07-20T19:56:00.000-07:00

Those that believe that footnote 10 of Plyler vs Doe somehow grants Birthright Citizenship fails to understand the actual statement as made by Justice Brennan.

Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction."^[n10] We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [p212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.

Footnote 10 states:

10. Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was

impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

This refers to the section of Wong Kim Ark:

[I]t is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

This paragraph is in conjunction with Gray discussing the case of the Schooner Exchange.

In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that, upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war, and that the implied license under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants for purposes of business or pleasure can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See also Carlisle v. United States (1872), 16 Wall. 147, 155; Radich v. Hutchins (1877), 95 U.S. 210; Wildenhus' Case (1887), 120 U.S. 1; Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604.

Note the bolded area, which means that if a person comes here with or without the consent of our Government they are still, by implied license, subject to our laws. This does not grant or bring them (illegal aliens) "within the allegiance" of the USA making them "subject to the jurisdiction" as defined, “Not owing allegiance to anybody else,” by Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Now, the question is why did footnote 10 end with a quote from Bouvé, Clement Lincoln (Of the Districf of Columbia Bar; Member of the American Society of International Law). A treatise on the laws governing the exclusion and expulsion of aliens in the United States. Washington, D.C. : John Byrne & Co., 1912. In which Bouve is making an argument allowing "domicile" to be the criteria of birthright citizenship and due to this, by virtue of residing here without the consent of our government, they have shown "temporary allegiance".

Does the fact that the parents belong to a class of aliens whose allegiance the United States does not desire and whose entrance into the United States is forbidden by law affect the political status of the child? Obviously not, unless the bare legal prohibition suffices to prevent the parents
from acquiring a residence or domicile — it is immaterial which — in this country. True, the parents never acquired a municipal status by virtue of or under the immigration law ; and they never acquired a lawful domicile in the sense that they were never entitled to enter for the purpose of establishing a home. But the fact remains that they entered this country and proceeded to reside here, until their arrest, in enjoyment of every benefit which the law of the United States confers on persons lawfully resident here, and under the same duty to carry out their correlative obligations. Their temporary allegiance to the United States was complete and gave rise to reciprocal protection on the part of the state, unaffected by the fact that in order to enjoy and exercise the rights and duties incident thereto they had violated the immigration law.

As one should be able to conclude, Gray does not grant automatic birth right citizenship to anybody, it does however claim that WKA is a citizen by definition of his parents being domiciled and residing within the US at the time of his birth, by which his parents owed allegiance to the US as they were permitted to be here by the Treaties agreed to by the Chinese and US Governments. Domiciled as defined by Gray:

Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356; Law Ow Bew v. United States 144 U.S. 47, 61, 62; Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), 149 U.S. 698, 724; Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1893), 158 U.S. 538, 547; Wong Wing v. United States (1896), 163 U.S. 228, 238.

Why would Bouve be arguing for BRC to illegal aliens in 1912 if the case of WKA granted BRC to all born within the boundaries of the USA?

Footnote 10 in Plyler vs Doe in NO WAY grants Birthright Citizenship to children born of illegal aliens, or for that matter non-immigrant visa holders, within the borders of the USA.

Wong Kim Ark does not Grant Birthright Citizenship to Children Born of Illegal Aliens

2011-07-02T15:32:00.000-07:00

A federal appellate court ruled for Wong Kim Ark, and the government appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

To come to a ruling, the Court had to interpret whether the Fourteenth Amendment truly granted Wong citizenship (The Geary Act requiring all Chinese persons to carry a “resident permit” due to his return from china in 1893), despite being born to two non-citizens who were ineligible to ever become citizens.

At the hearing, the District Attorney of the United States was permitted to intervene in behalf of the United States in opposition to the writ of habeas corpus issued October 2, 1895.

The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts agreed by the parties: That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco.

It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. (this is defined later in Gray’s opinion with: Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.)

In Minor v. Happersett, "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." Gray proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.

In Udny v. Udny, “The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.”

And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status.

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

The case of The Charming Betsy, refers to (Jared Shattuck born in Connecticut before the American Revolution) a person born prior to the American Revolution and becoming a US Citizen by way of established law (the US Constitution 1787).

In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were "native-born citizens of the [p662] United States,".

Again, in Levy v. McCartee, “Common Law” practices prior to 1787.

In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), it merely conveys that “Common Law” is in use prior to the 14^th Amendment ratification of 1868.

Etc., etc. Now we move to the point of Gray interpreting the 14^th Amendment.

At the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. [p668]

Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.

The “implied license” was in allowing the ship to port, in the Schooner Exchange. Thus those making port are in essence granted status as allowed by the Government, they were “permitted by the United states” to make port.

Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.

It is true that Chinese persons born in China cannot be naturalized, like other aliens, by proceedings under the naturalization laws. But this is for want of any statute or treaty authorizing or permitting such naturalization, as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes, treaties and decisions upon that subject -- always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution.

The Convention between the United States and China of 1894 provided that Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, either permanently or temporarily residing in the United States, shall have for the protection of their persons and property all rights that are given by the laws of the United States to citizens of the most favored nation, excepting the right to become naturalized citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.

No one doubts that the Amendment, as soon as it was promulgated, applied to persons of African descent born in the United States, wherever the birthplace of their parents might have been, and yet, for two years afterwards, there was no statute authorizing persons of that race to be naturalized. It wasn’t until the INA of 1870 that they were “Naturalized”. The point is Wong Kims parents were in this situation, though they were here with the “permission of the USA” (Burlingame Treaty).

The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.

For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

According to Immigration Lawyer Gary Endelman, J.D., PhD, as stated in Bender's Immigration Bulletin, April 1, 2006, pages 307 - 340, one of the best Immigration Law Journals in publication or on the web:

Critics of birthright citizenship rightly point out that the parents of Wong Kim Ark, though they could never become citizens under the law then in effect, were resident aliens of the United States and their presence here was completely lawful. This is not a case dealing with the children of illegal aliens. Nonetheless, the importance of this case goes far beyond its specific facts. This is the flagship for birthright citizenship whose influence has extended down through many subsequent decisions until the present day. Not since Wong Kim Ark have federal courts seriously questioned birthright citizenship or doubted the meaning of the Citizenship Clause. The reasoning of Wong Kim Ark, namely that the rights of children should not be diminished by the status or conduct of their parents, has been extended by the courts to the protection of children where citizenship is not an issue. Children born out of wedlock, for example, can not be denied insurance for that reason. Children of the undocumented are entitled to a free public education. Newborns of illegal alien mothers must receive the same Medicaid coverage after birth in the United States as the children of citizen mothers. As the Supreme Court has made crystal clear, equal protection extends to “all persons within the territory of the United States,” including those whose presence here is subject to challenge. Precisely because the acceptance of Wong Kim Ark was, before 9/11, virtually universal, because neither the courts nor Congress seriously questioned it or sought to revisit the issue, we have never had any subsequent judicial scrutiny that really examined what the decision said and whether the Court got it right. The Court could have done this when deciding Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, where Hamdi was born in Louisiana while his father was working temporarily in the United States as an L-1 intra-company transferee before returning to Saudi Arabia while Hamdi was still a toddler. Hamdi did not return again to the United States before American military authorities brought him back here as an enemy combatant. However, the Court simply assumed that Hamdi was a citizen and offered no new insights into birthright citizenship. Sadly, however much we might agree or disagree with the wisdom or folly of such an assumption, this was a chance not taken. Had the Court not taken the easy way out, we might have learned some valuable lessons about whether, and to what extent, birthright citizenship has a place in our post-9/11 world.

SB1070 Temporary Injunctions

2010-07-28T11:13:00.001-07:00

Upon reading the ruling of SB1070 from Judge Bolton, it clearly allows most of what the law was intended to do, however, there are portions that do appear to extend beyond Federal Law.

I will put up each of the temporary injunctions as allowed by Judge Bolton and follow them with the actual wording from SB1070 and the amendment HB2162. I then will attempt to give there meanings.

Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:

Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person.

B. For any lawful contact STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person,

Note the use of the word by Judge Bolton "requiring", this simply means that the State of Arizona cannot mandate or force the officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person. It in no way says the officer can not do so if (s)he chooses, it is left at the officers discretion.

Section 3 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers

This is for the entire section of 13-1509 overstepping Federal Law, To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, Article 1, Section 8. It is not up to the State level authorities to determine who can or can not be "naturalized", but the State level authorities may in fact question a person of their status if they have reasonable suspicion they are here , it would than be up to DHS and ICE to instruct the officer to either detain the person(s) or allow them to remain under their own recognizance.

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work

C. It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.

This portion of 13-2928 is also being temporarily held on account of overstepping Federal Law, as there is no law stating that an entry violator or visa overstay can not apply for work, solicit work, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor at the Federal level. This doesn't mean that they can not be found guilty of employment violations by way of E-Verify or the use of forged documents or for failing to pay taxes. If they make money, they fall within the Federal and State requirements to also report that income.

Section 6 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

"Plausible Distinction" comes into play here, until it is known or verified that a person is here in violation of immigration law, they do fall under the protections of some aspects of "civil laws".

As you can now see, the "temporary injunction" is limited as to what has been held and is very specific as to what may or may not be authorized. This does allow for more State Congress Amendments to possibly parse the wording of the specified sections to conform to the requirements as set forth by Judge Bolton.

Part 3: The forming of the United States and Naturalization

2010-06-03T20:45:00.000-07:00

1773, the Boston Tea Party becomes the fuse to the powder keg of the War for Independence. It is not until 1776, that the Declaration of Independence is adopted by the 1^st Continental Congress, which was nothing more than delegates from the 13 colonies that met first in 1775, they condemn King George III in stating; He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

We are now in the time of the Articles of Confederation as written by the 2^nd Continental Congress as commissioned in 1776, sent to the states for ratification in 1777, and ratified in 1781 legally federating the sovereign and independent states, already cooperating through the Continental Congress, into a new federation styled the "The United States of America". Under the Articles the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the central government.

In deciding the wording and the compromise of creating a federation of sovereign and independent states, the 2^nd Continental Congress would determine what would be constituted as Federal Powers and States Powers, thus creating the first Constitution of the USA, the Articles of Confederation.

In Art. 4, Sec. 1., the only Article dealing with the movement of :

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and redress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties impositions and restrictions, as the inhabitants thereof respectively."

This is to mean, “free inhabitants” and “free citizens” as already discussed in previous topics as, “those that had colonized through the granting patent company from 1606 – 1619, the London (Virginia) Company, and were then freed by the company allowing them to purchase and own their own lands in the new world and also by the 7 year indentured servant of the Africans brought to the new world by slave traders to be freed at the end of their 7 year term and to also be allowed to purchase and own land.” The true meaning of the word "free," as used in the English law, in the colonial charters, and in the State constitutions up to this time, when applied to persons, was to describe citizens (subjects - today's equivocal, Naturalized or Natural-born), or persons possessed of franchises (denizens - today's equivocal, Legal Resident), as distinguished from aliens (foreigners looking to join the ranks of the colony, must first register with the local governor and obey all laws as instituted for aliens, required to take an oath appointed by Parliament swearing allegiance to the King of England, and live without incident within the colony for 7 years) or persons not possessed of the same franchises. Usage, then, would give this meaning to the word "free" in this section.

The rules of Naturalization were still left up to the individual states, and each state had its own rules. The above, Article 4, only allows "free" persons to actually move freely between the Colonies, now States, and entitled them to “all the privileges and immunities” in the several states.

This was all happening during the American Revolutionary War, to wit, in the end, 1785; the United States was no longer under the rule of Britain. Before the United States won their independence, the states followed the English Common Laws, including the British Naturalization Laws under King James I through King George III, for which all colonizers were subjects of Britain. During this time is when “subjects” of the King of England became “citizens” of the Republic as free men, “He that had owed primary allegiance to the King of England now owed primary allegiance to the United America.”

In 1787, the United States completed the United States Constitution in Pennsylvania and on March 4, 1789, it took effect. The rule to establish a Uniform rule of Naturalization was addressed in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” was the only wording in regards to naturalization in the Constitution.

Part 2: Naturalization Before the American Revolution

2010-06-01T21:18:00.000-07:00

During the colonial period, there were no citizens of the United States because there was no such country! For the most part, the colonists living within the British Colonies were subjects of the British Empire with the exceptions of those brought in by the Slave ships or members of other Nations colonies that became acquired by British expansion or War.

In order to have all the rights and privileges of a British subject, one had to become a subject of the British monarch. Therefore, because most of the colonial immigrants were from England and were already British subjects they retained all their rights and privileges in the colonies. There were some immigrants that had previously immigrated to the British Isles from other European countries and were naturalized there before coming to the American colonies, others came directly to the colonies and petitioned to become British subjects.

According to English law, an alien (a stranger, subject to another monarchy with no allegiance to the territorial holding monarchy) could neither hold nor inherit real property, nor pass it to his heirs. If he acquired property it passed to the Crown upon his death. The alien would have to go and submit a letter of intent to the local magistrate, where in they would be given a license allowing them to stay, mandate that they follow all laws which relate to strangers and aliens, and pay double the local tax. After living in the colony for at least 7 years, the alien could apply for a change of status, where the colonial governor could grant by letter of patent the status of “denizen”, a status akin to permanent residency today, for a paid a fee and would take an oath of allegiance to the British Parliament, akin to taking the oath to the US Constitution today. The denizen was not a “natural-born subject”; therefore he did not have any political rights: he could not be a member of parliament or hold any civil or military office.

Colonial naturalization law was made by the Parliament in England. Colonies were not allowed to decide naturalization procedures for themselves. An immigrant coming directly to the colonies would have become naturalized by an act of the colonial governor acting in place of the monarch, or by act of the colonial legislature and would be naturalized as a denizen. Colonial naturalization's prior to 1740 were strictly local in nature and the rights obtained did not extend to other colonies nor to the British Isles. Turning to the attitude of individual colonies, we find Massachusetts upholding, as we should expect, the notion of a close corporation, membership in which was given with great care. Outsiders desiring admission had to seek the permission of the authorities. In 1662, by a resolve of the general court, a few French Protestants were permitted to enter the colony, but it was not until 1700 that a general immigration law was put in force. Every ship coming into the ports of Massachusetts had to furnish to the authorities a list of the passengers, and this was followed a few years later by an act which forbade the importation of poor, infirm, or vicious people. The French Protestants that went there behaved themselves so well that in 1739 an act of naturalization was passed in their favor.

After 1740, the procedure changed. The 1740 Act of Parliament [13 George II, c.7] was entitled "An Act for Naturalizing such foreign Protestants, and others therein mentioned, as are settled or shall settle in any of His Majesty's Colonies in America." It allowed a denizen who had lived seven years in a colony to become “naturalized” by fulfilling certain requirements (such as taking the oath of allegiance and producing a certificate that he had taken the Sacrament in front of witnesses) in the colony of residence. His naturalization applied in

England

as well as in all of the colonies. The payment for the naturalization under this act was two shillings. Large numbers of denizens, immigrants, (excluding Catholics) became naturalized under this act, their children born after this date became "natural-born subjects".

The spirit of exclusiveness, however, was by no means overthrown, for we find an English traveler writing as late as 1760 that few people of foreign birth were to be found dwelling in Massachusetts. Connecticut was in the habit of demanding an oath of all strangers who came to dwell within her territory. New York had little or no immigration until the coming of the Germans. In fact, Governor Dongan called attention to the small number of immigrants who entered the province after its capture from the Dutch. When immigration did come, it spread into the Mohawk valley and from there into Pennsylvania. Most of the southern colonies offered grants of land to attract settlers (colonists from other British colonies whether natural-born subject or denizen), and the possession of land gave not only material wealth, but also social rank and, generally, political privileges. Acts were passed to secure and guarantee these land-titles, and in some cases taxes were exempted. South Carolina went so far as to prohibit the collection of money for all debts that had been contracted before the person came to the colony. This made the territory a refuge for those who had suffered under the severe English laws and was naturally much disliked by the creditor class.

The colonies employed the same methods of naturalization that England used. Letters of denization were issued by the governors; then there were special acts of the legislature relating to particular persons; and finally there were general naturalization laws. Colonial legislation, however, was much more limited than that of England, for no colony could give any rights outside of its own borders. The naturalization acts gave many valuable rights, such as the privilege to acquire lands and to vote at elections, but that they were not intended to give the newcomers the right to act as factors and merchants or to own vessels, for that would be contrary to the navigation laws. Aliens pleading colonial acts of naturalization as a protection for their trading had their vessels seized and condemned by the courts of admiralty, whose decisions were sustained on appeal to the king in council. Several governors, who were of royal appointment, had given letters of denization, under which aliens had traded contrary to the navigation acts. On this account William ordered that no more letters of denization be granted. The limited character of colonial naturalization is shown in repeated decisions. For example, Chief-Justice North ruled that a Virginian naturalization had merely local effect and did not confer the privileges of citizenship in any other colony. The solicitor-general in 1718 held that a New Jersey act merely gave the rights of a natural-born subject in that province alone, and consequently there would be no harm in approving it.

Naturalization legislation continued to be enacted, and as late as 1773 it was provided that foreign Protestants who had served for two years in any of the royal American regiments could become naturalized under restrictions regarding office-holding in England. It was evident that England had resolved to keep the matter of citizenship under her immediate control; for, in the same year, instructions were issued to all governors in America not to give their consent to any naturalization bill passed by the legislative bodies of the colonies under their charge. The following year, 1774, an act was passed to prevent people from becoming naturalized merely for the sake of claiming the immunities of British subjects in foreign trade.

New England and especially Massachusetts Bay turned a cold shoulder to new-comers, and received with but few exceptions only those that strengthened the narrow theocratic state, on the whole strangers were welcomed; for the greatest need of America was men to develop the resources of the country. The seventeenth century drew its immigrants from England, Ireland, and Scotland, while most of the foreigners that came here were French Protestants. The eighteenth century marked a great change in colonization, for modern methods were brought into use, and the movement became more general. The foreign immigrants went chiefly to the central and southern colonies, this being especially true of the Germans and the Scotch-Irish. New England, on the other hand, kept strict watch over all immigrants. Consequently that part of the country remained more purely English than any other. The immigrants found their way to the frontiers, where they cleared the land and formed a bulwark against the Indians. New York and Virginia seemed, with that definite object in mind, to push the strangers to the west.

Part 1: The History of US - The First century, 1600 - 1700

2010-06-01T13:35:00.000-07:00

We are all immigrants? Maybe, but not during the colonization of this country, it's not until much later when a man would be able to come here of his own accord as a "freeman" and not as a "subject" of the King of England.

The first settlements, in what is now the USA, were actually Conquistadors, Soldiers and Explorers, early history shows the Chinese have records showing "trees of Red wood" around 498A.D. from the west coast, the Vikings landed around 1000A.D. on the north eastern coast of Canada and possibly as far south as modern day New England, later arrivals from Spain, Portugal, France and the Netherlands date to around 1513. The Spanish also laid claim to the entire west coast of what is now the USA in 1513; they did start colonies in St. Augustine, Florida as early as 1565 and New Mexico in 1598, while the French had their first colonies in South Carolina since 1562. In 1579 English Explorers also claimed the west coast of North America; The Russians laid claim to parts of the west coast, mostly from Northern California to Alaska, but not until around 1812.

The British didn’t begin to colonize the now USA until 1584, in what was called Virginia back then. This first colony failed. After Queen Elizabeth’s death, King James I established by Royal Charter, The London Company, in 1606 with the sole purpose of establishing colonial settlements in North America, the first being the Charter of Virginia in 1606. It wasn’t until 1607, when the Virginia colony of Jamestown became the first permanent English settlement founded by the London Company (later known as the Virginia Company).

In 1619, the Colony of Virginia started its first legislative assembly, known as the House of Burgesses. The Virginia Company decided to end its monopoly on land ownership believing the colonists would display greater initiative if they could gain ownership of land and would encourage private investment in the colony. The Virginia Company designed four large corporations termed cities to encompass the developed portions of the colony. The Virginia Company officials adopted English Common Law as the basis in the colony, replacing the British appointed Governor as the final voice on legal matters. The changes of 1619 also created a legislative body to be elected by the colonists that would meet once annually at Jamestown.

In 1619, a Dutch man-of-war entered the James River and landed on Virginia soil with twenty Africans for sale. Africans were used as indentured servants, serving a master for sevens years, then freed. They would now have to apply to become "denizens" (persons admitted to residence in a foreign country, through documented registration accepted by the Acts of the Royal Governor or Proprietor of the colony, with limited rights as compared to subjects), this practice was in use up to 1740. Colonial denizen (naturalization) prior to 1740 was strictly local in nature and the rights obtained did not extend to other colonies nor to the British Isles. If you moved to another colony, you would have to also become naturalized there. If an immigrant obtained his naturalization in England, however, the naturalization extended to all of the colonies and British Isles. Many became farmers themselves acquiring African servants for their own use. Though as greed came into play over the next few decades, there developed a worldwide desire for slavery, and planters in the New World who wanted a steady labor force could see the major benefits of slave labor. To accommodate the demand for slavery, Virginia adopted new laws in 1650, establishing that Africans arriving in new cargoes would be servants for life, as would their children and their children's children.

After 1618, the death of the Powhatan Chief and escalating hostilities between the confederacy of native tribes of Eastern Virginia and the colonists, the new Powhatan chief Opechancanough sought in vain to drive off the encroaching English. His large-scale attacks in 1622 and 1644 met strong reprisals by the English, resulting in the near elimination of the tribe. By 1646 the Powhatan Confederacy was largely destroyed, in part due to infectious diseases to which they had no immunity. By this time, the leaders of the colony were desperate for labor to develop the land.

The “Pilgrims” of 1620 and their landing at Plymouth Rock are probably the most noteworthy as taught in History classes in the USA. Most in this group were “Separatists ” because they demanded a complete separation from the State Church of England. They wanted to worship in a very simple manner without all of the ritual and symbols which were used in the Anglican Church. In their study of the Bible they had decided the original church in New Testament times had been a simple church and they wished to follow that example in their own worship. They believed there were so many changes needed to be made in the Anglican Church that it could not be accomplished to their satisfaction. Therefore, the only possibility for them was to "separate" completely from the state church. Their pastor, Richard Clyfton, had guided this religious community into a form of democratic self-governance. Various points of view were tolerated, but the will of the majority ruled in decision-making. They first went to Holland in 1608 after failed attempts to leave England in 1607 and settled in Leiden, Holland. They asked King James for a Royal Charter to allow them to establish a colony in the New World which was denied, but King James told them he would not try to stop them from settling abroad. The group finally succeeded in getting a Patent from the Virginia Company and was forced to agree to terms which indentured them for seven years before they would be free to own land or take profits for themselves.

Upon arriving off the coast of Cape Cod, even before the Mayflower anchored, there was a near mutiny. Some of the Leiden Separatists thought they could do as they pleased since they were, as they believed outside the bounds of English Law, thus they came up with what is known as The Mayflower Compact. The Compact was an agreement signed by all the men on board-including the indentured servants-promising to abide by laws that would be drawn up and agreed upon by all male members of the community. The women were not allowed to participate in the governing process. The Compact states that they would choose their own leaders and make their own laws. It also stated there was to be equal justice for all. This Compact became the constitution of the Plymouth Colony. It was the first document of American democracy to establish "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

From 1620 through 1732 other colonies were formed and settled by recruiters for financial backers of corporations in Britain and by other countries looking to make their claim here. The other Nations colonies eventually became acquired as the English colonies grew. As these other Nations colonies were acquired, those colonizers who refused to swear loyalty to the British crown were expelled from the territory or forced deeper into the western wilderness beyond the territory as claimed by England.

In June 1624, King James I assumed responsibility for the colony of Virginia after he dissolved the Virginia Company of London, thus the Virginia Colony became a Crown Colony. He ordered Virginia's leaders to make a record of the colony's inhabitants and their provisions. This census-known as the 1624/5 Muster-is the first comprehensive account of households in British North America. In addition, it is the only extant census for seventeenth-century Virginia. The 1624/5 Muster is a house-to-house survey that contains information about the location of households in Virginia, the individuals in each household and the ties that connected the colony's early residents to one another.

In 1634, the first counties were laid out to replace the old system of corporations and private plantations.

In 1639, the first law passed, was "an act to compel physicians and surgeons to declare on oath the value of their medicines."

In 1640, as the present Massachusetts Act goes back, with no substantial change to the origin of the system, it must be sought before that date, which narrows our enquiry (sic)to the few colonies settled before that time; and we must first examine the system of Virginia, the colony first settled.

In 1641, at the formation of The Massachusetts Body of Liberties, Virginia raised her protest against the continuance of slave traffic, but New England raised a voice of objection, and uniting her influence with that of South Carolina and Georgia secured the continuance of the slave trade for twenty years more, by Constitutional provision.

As you can see (bold above), many of our laws have been incorporated into the USA since its first English colonies were established by British Royal Charter to Corporations investing in the New World. This is but a small portion of how our Constitution and Laws came about. You may also note that the USA was formed by way of colonizers from Britain (Colonists are, as defined during the time, people who were to inhabit or populate an area based on the claims made by an exploring country, to somehow give credibility to the sending countries claimed territories and were nothing more than sharecroppers meant to benefit the Empire), as "subjects" of the British Empire. Even the Pilgrims of 1620 came over on a granted Patent as colonizers from the Virginia Company. It wouldn’t be until the Declaration of Independence and the separation claimed from Great Britain that the 13 Colonies become truly free independent and Sovereign States.

SB1070 and those who are benevolent

2010-05-25T16:10:00.000-07:00

Why is it that Lawyers always think they know everything? Why is it that they fail to actually understand and/or read what they opine about? In a CNN opinion article written by Chandra Bhatnagar, he claims that the Arizona law is in some way violating the ICERD based on an underscore of UN experts writing a letter of discontent.

Mr. Bhatnagar states:

The law flies in the face of Arizona's human rights obligations, particularly the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which the United States ratified in 1994 and which is binding on all levels of federal, state and local governments, including Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill.

The problem with his meager claim is two fold; first the Arizona Law is not an immigration law it is a criminal law which is pretty much what is already a law in California, and second the ICERD that Mr. Bhatnagar refers to allows in Article 1.2: Distinctions made on the basis of citizenship (that is, between citizens and non-citizens) are specifically excluded from the definition, as are affirmative action policies and other measures taken to redress imbalances and promote equality.

So then why all the "boycott" of Arizona? Where is the "boycott" of California?

The Significance of Domicile in Interprating Birth Right Citizenship

2010-05-17T16:51:00.000-07:00

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes citizenship as a birthright for all children born in the United States, so long as they are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Territorial birth, “subject to the jurisdiction” requires a mutual consensual relationship between individuals and the U.S. political community; children of undocumented immigrants, lacking such a relationship, are thus putatively precluded from constitutional birthright citizenship.

The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause draws heavily on the text of a similar citizenship provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, written by Senator Lyman Trumbull. In a letter to President Andrew Johnson summarizing the draft Act, Trumbull said that birthright citizenship depended on whether the parents of children born in the United States were living permanently, “domiciled,” here.

Domicile had an unambiguous definition in 1866: one acquired domicile in a nation or a particular place by moving there with the intention of making it one’s permanent residence. Only two prerequisites must be satisfied for domicile to exist: “residence; and . . . intention of making it the home of the [person]”.

A person could change domicile by leaving one jurisdiction and settling in another, regardless of whether those jurisdictions were states within a country or separate nations. In certain international contexts (such as neutrality agreements), acquiring domicile resulted in “a national character [being] impressed upon a person, different from that which permanent allegiance gives him”; such a person, though, could easily choose to cast off that “national character” by returning to his or her native country. Domicile and citizenship were thus distinct from one another, and acquiring the former in a new country did not alter the latter.

Now let's discuss allegiance, the “complete, political jurisdiction” over an individual that flows from the individual’s “allegiance to the sovereign.” Allegiance involves renouncing their previous allegiance, or at least formally demonstrating “commitment” to the United States by obtaining permanent resident status and assuming the “contributive responsibilities” of citizens. Further, affiliation must be met with the “reciprocal consent . . . of the nation to [the individual’s] membership.”

Taking domicile to be the birthright citizenship standard may just limit bestowed citizenship upon birth much better than the allegiance argument as used today to interpret the 14th Amendment. First, children born within the territorial boundaries of the United States are U.S. citizens (or not) based on their parents’ domicile, not citizenship or political status. Using domicile as the benchmark also contradicts today's argument that “subject to the jurisdiction” refers not to universally applicable territorial jurisdiction, but a narrower, “political” type. To gain domicile in 1868, one had only to have lived within the territory and planned to permanently remain; one did not need to first transfer one’s sovereign allegiance. Any new “national character” that one took on through acquiring domicile in a new country was merely “adventitious,” and could “be thrown off at pleasure” by leaving the country without intent to return. This is not exactly lasting political affiliation or allegiance.

If domicile is the appropriate standard, individuals born here and subject to our laws would not be “subject to the jurisdiction” for citizenship purposes if their parents were here only temporarily. Using domicile in this way is thus more restrictive than the pure territorial approach: it requires parents to have some meaningful ties to the country in which they are living for children born there to be citizens.

Domicile requires individuals to integrate themselves into a nation’s social fabric through residence such that they consider it their home and have no plans to leave. Beyond residence, it requires that an individual seek, and the country accept, affiliation between the individual and the government of the country. Thus, those here on non-immigrant visas should not have bestowed upon their children born within the boundaries of the United States of America, birthright citizenship, as they themselves are not intending to permanently reside or be domiciled within the USA, and they do not intend to give their "allegiance" to the US Constitution. This should also deny children born to illegal immigration entry violators, birthright citizenship.

The case for Arizona's SB1070

2010-05-17T15:40:00.000-07:00

The argument over States Rights and immigration is a fairly new ordeal. The CLEAR Act of 2003 and the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2003 has prompted many to question what role state and local law enforcement agencies should have in the enforcement of immigration law. Directly from the CRS Report for Congress; Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement, March 2004.

Congress defined our nation’s immigration laws in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq.), which contains both criminal and civil enforcement measures. Historically, the authority for state and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration law has been construed to be limited to the criminal provisions of the INA; by contrast, the enforcement of the civil provisions, which includes apprehension and removal of deportable aliens, has strictly been viewed as a federal responsibility, with states playing an incidental supporting role.

Congress, through various amendments to the INA, has gradually broadened the authority for state and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration law, and some recent statutes have begun to carve out possible state roles in the enforcement of civil matters. The legislative proposals that have been introduced, however, would appear to expand the role of state and local law enforcement agencies in the civil regulatory aspects of immigration law (i.e., identifying and detaining deportable aliens for purposes of removal).

Alien Criminal Apprehension Program
The Alien Criminal Apprehension Program (ACAP) was established in 1991 by the former INS. Through ACAP, criminal aliens are identified by immigration officials after they have been notified by state and local law enforcement officials. Upon an encounter with an immigrant whose immigration status may be in question, state and local law enforcement officials notify immigration officials, who determine the immigrant’s status and, if applicable, take the immigrant into federal custody.

Although there is quite a bit of debate with respect to state and local law enforcement officers’ authority to enforce immigration law as a matter of practice, it is permissible for state and local law enforcement officers to inquire into the status of an immigrant during the course of their normal duties in enforcing state and local law. This practice allows state and local law enforcement officers to play an indirect role that is incidental to their general criminal enforcement authority.

For example, when state or local officers question the immigration status of someone they have detained for a state or local violation, they may contact an ICE agent at the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC). The federal agent may then place a detainer on the suspect, requesting the state official to keep the suspect in custody until a determination can be made as to the suspect’s immigration status. However, the continued detention of such a suspect beyond the needs of local law enforcement, and solely designed to aid in enforcement of federal immigration laws, may be unlawful.

The power to prescribe rules as to which aliens may enter the U.S. and which aliens may be removed solely resides with the federal government. It has generally been assumed that state and local officers may enforce the criminal provisions of the INA if state law permits them to do so but are assumed to be precluded from directly enforcing the INA’s civil provisions. State enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA is seen as being consistent with the state’s police power to make arrests for criminal acts and the expectation that states are expected to cooperate in the enforcement of federal criminal laws.

To the degree that it is not preempted, the authority of state and local law enforcement officers to investigate and arrest for violations of federal law is determined by reference to state law. This may be done through express authorization in state law. However, this may not be necessary according to some recent decisions from the Tenth Circuit that appear to suggest that state and local law enforcement officers may possess “inherent authority” within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests for criminal immigration matters.

However, civil violations of the INA are also found to be within the jurisdictional authority of the state and local law enforcement. In the Tenth Circuit case of United States v. Salinas-Calderon, a state trooper pulled over the defendant for driving erratically but soon found six individuals in the back of the defendant’s truck. The court determined that the trooper had "probable cause" to detain and arrest all the individuals. In United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, an Oklahoma police officer arrested a Hispanic male suspected of drug dealing because he was an “illegal alien.”

The defendant argued that the state police could only arrest him in accordance with the restrictions detailed in 8 U.S.C. §1252c and since his arrest did not meet the requirements of that provision, it was unauthorized. The Tenth Circuit, however, ultimately concluded that §1252c “does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration law. Instead, §1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law.”

Clearly preemption does not bar state and local immigration enforcement where Congress has evidenced intent to authorize such enforcement. In exercising its power to regulate immigration, Congress is free to delegate to the states, among other things, the activities of arresting, holding, and transporting aliens. Indeed, Congress already has created avenues for the participation of state and local officers in the enforcement of the federal immigration laws.

Their own Racism is OK

2009-10-20T15:27:00.000-07:00

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!!

Sensationalized Headline? or Actual Stupidity?

2009-05-27T07:13:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2009-05-17T19:26:00.000-07:00

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.

If You Can't Refute, Change the Argument.

2009-05-14T13:33:00.000-07:00

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."

PRO Ethnic Advocates and their own Hypocricy and Racism

2009-05-13T14:03:00.000-07:00

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.

Dee and the Eileen Burke Video

2009-05-11T19:19:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2009-05-09T16:32:00.000-07:00

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)."

Illegal Immigrant Advocates are their own Worst Nightmare

2009-03-24T20:43:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2009-03-05T14:01:00.000-08:00

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?

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

2009-03-01T08:29:00.000-08:00

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.

The confusion of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

2009-02-21T16:10:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-21T15:02:00.000-08:00

“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.

Apples to Apples

2009-02-18T21:39:00.000-08:00

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.

Illegal Immigrants "Civil Liberties" - DENIED!!

2009-02-17T15:43:00.000-08:00

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.

Arapio vs the US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary

2009-02-13T16:53:00.000-08:00

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'?

The Happy Meal Metaphore

2009-02-11T10:29:00.000-08:00

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.

The Constitution of the United States, a Living Document?

2009-02-03T08:23:00.000-08:00

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.

Why?

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.

Summary:
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.

Hypocrisy and the 14th Amendment - twofer.

2009-02-01T08:02:00.000-08:00

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.

Anon,
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.

ITS IN THE CONSTITUTION. HAS BEEN RULED UPON BY THE SUPREME COURT. AND IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

GET OVER IT ANON.

THE CONSTITUTION WILL NOT BE CHANGED!!!

IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE CONSTITUION, YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE OUR GREAT USA!!
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.

Pro-illegals eagerly anticipate white minority

2009-01-30T10:48:00.000-08:00

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?

Inspirational Young Man, Doing Things the Right Way!!

2009-01-26T19:51:00.001-08:00

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.

The "Stolen Land" Argument

2009-01-25T20:21:00.000-08:00

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.

UN Documents on Human Rights and Rights of the Indigenous.

2009-01-22T17:50:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-01-22T11:32:00.000-08:00

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.

The Chicano Self Resistance Stratagy, Self Segregation!!!

2009-01-16T08:25:00.000-08:00

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."

Immigration Law: An Overview - Follow-up

2009-01-12T17:49:00.000-08:00

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.

Truly Understanding the Debate

2009-01-10T19:10:00.000-08:00

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.

Texas Stolen??

2009-01-09T14:36:00.000-08:00

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??

Dee, the "Ignorant Mexican-American"

2009-01-08T16:31:00.000-08:00

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!!

2009-01-08T09:10:00.000-08:00

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."

The First Bills of the 'New Congress'

2009-01-06T21:10:00.000-08:00

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."

The people of Conscience

2009-01-05T14:43:00.000-08:00

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.

Deportable Violations of Illegal Immigrants

2009-01-03T19:39:00.000-08:00

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.

The belief of wanting 'Citizenship'.

2008-12-22T18:35:00.000-08:00

I have come across this argument on many PRO CIR web sites, it follows:

What part of 'Legal Immigration' don't you understand?

There answer is:

There is no legal way provided for the typical undocumented worker to undertake our jobs in construction, yard work, agriculture, housekeeping, etc. legally. Impoverished and illiterate laborers have about as much chance of winning the lottery as they would gaining the "green card" needed to legally do our work.

The fault in their argument, if you didn't catch the 'key' word is..... "green card". In order for the "undocumented worker", other wise known as the "Illegal Alien", to legally work in the USA all one needs is a valid 'work visa', not a 'green card', unless the desire is to become an LPR or eventually a Citizen.

The work visa allows for the foreign worker to work in limited occupations and attain employee authorized benefits at a wage determined by the agreement made between the worker and the employer, or in some cases a minimum wage per hour as dictated by the Department of Labor. It also gives the worker more legal options if the employer fails to live up to its agreement. It may also burden the employer with being responsible for the worker by providing health care, housing and transportation as the H-2A visa does. The requirements of each visa type is there to protect the worker. However, this does not guarantee the employer follows the rules and in many instances have exploited the worker due to the worker not fully knowing and/or understanding their rights as workers.

The 'green card' is what one gets to become an LPR (Legal Permanent Resident) on their way to eventually becoming citizens. An alien with a green card application can obtain two important permits while the case is pending. The first is a temporary work permit known as the Employment Authorization Document (EAD), which allows the alien to take employment in the United States. The second is a temporary travel document, advance parole, which allows the alien to re-enter the United States. Keep in mind also that the status of LPR can be rescinded at any time and/or Citizenship can be denied if the LPR commits any number of revocable crimes.

Certain countries are also granted special privilege visas. The TN visa for Canada and Mexico are very under utilized and to date have never met there quotas. TN (Trade NAFTA) status is a special non-immigration status unique to citizens of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. TN status was created by virtue of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It allows American, Canadian and Mexican citizens the opportunity to work in each others countries in certain professional occupations. It bears a similarity, in some ways, to the H-1B visa, but also has many unique features. Within the TN set of occupations, an American, Canadian or Mexican can work for up to three years (until October 16, 2008, one year) at a time. However, the TN status may be renewed indefinitely in three-year increments, although it is not a 'permanent' visa and if US immigration officials suspect it is being used as a de facto substitute for a green card, they may elect to deny further renewals. The set of occupations permitted to petition for TN status is also quite a bit more limited than for the H-1B visa.

Spouse and dependent children of a TN professional can be admitted into the United States in the TD status.

As you can see, there are numerous ways for "Immigrants" to come here to work and/or become Citizens. It is the 'Right' of the USA to allow the type of 'Immigrant' it wants to become a legal worker or LPR/Citizen. "Impoverished and Illiterate workers" also have the possibility to obtain various visas through the H-2A, the H-2B, or family based visas. The argument then becomes, do "Illegal Aliens" desire becoming Citizens, as assumed by the PRO CIR crowd, or do they just have the desire to come here to work to better there economic status back in their countries of origin and eventually return home?