1984: Doublespeak. Up is down, Yes is No.

So much is made of Donald Trump's unchecked facts.  And to be fair and honest, and transparent, I agree for the most part.  Yet what I have noticed over the last two months is lies, slander, and innuendo by academics, media, and liberals against anything and everything related to Donald Trump.  It is obsessive, hate-filled, and blind.  It is intolerant hate, and this is not news, real or fake to anyone.  It is very clear.  It is also not limited to liberals, for their are some conservatives in the Republican party who so loathe Trump, they now find themselves siding with the most loathe some of humans - people who preach intolerance, hate, violence, and an end to free speech - liberals.

You lost.  Get over it.  With illegal voting, although not millions probably, but still with that help, the help of people who said 'never trump', and the apathy of others all helping the vote count for Her, he still won.  He said he was going to do X, Y, Z, and surprise surprise, he is doing X Y and Z along with A, B, C, D, E, and F, with plans for G, H,I,J,K later.  I suspect L, M, N, O will be reserved until his next term if he were to run again.  This is what voters want.  Someone who says and does, not someone who blames and doesn't do.  And surprise, when he blames the media he isn't exaggerating - enemy of the people?  No, but certainly not working toward the sovereignty and independence of the American people.

The people who voted for Trump will do so again, and after he has demonstrated he is not the evil-doer the liberals say he is, some from the left side will vote for him/support him next time.  You can't win, because your message is one of division.  His message isn't one of division, his is one of unification.  Your message is divisive.  He says America is for Americans, for those people who want to be American, who come here to be part of this great experiment in human history.  For those who come legally, and follow our laws and seek to be Americans - all of this is for them.  That is NOT divisive.  Since when is supporting ones nation and the sovereignty and independence of ones nation and people divisive? 

Your message - which is entirely about division and hate, is exactly that - destructive and divisive.  Sad.

And voters see this.  They really do.  You think because 10,000 protest here and 1000 scream there, and 5,000 cry over there - that the nation is waking up.  You made that mistake in November.  The 40+ million who support him are not having fits, committing crimes en masse, or threatening an end to order by their intolerant attitudes toward government and policy.  They will vote.  AND others will also.  The only way you could pull off a coup is by getting illegals to vote, and I suspect in the next 4 years we will see voter reform to prevent much of that!  I know it hurts, but winning by fraud, by deception, by division, isn't winning - it's cheating!  And it kills truth. 

Oh, the Russians, I know.  But according to every poll/study done, NOTHING the Russians never did, helped Her.  And if it did, why hasn't SHE said it has.  Instead she has blamed everyone else BUT the Russians.  Simpletons who still believe the Russians hacked an email account are idiots, in the truest sense of the word.

What I have noticed in the last 3-4 weeks is that our country really does have a serious, serious, serious, very serious illegal immigration issue.  Throughout the country cities and states say they will 'protect' illegals.  But what about law.  They came here illegally, violating state and federal laws in doing so.  They are not fleeing (most) anything worse than what those miserably impoverished states they flee from have always been.  You don't protest the conditions in Mexico that force people to flee.  You instead fly the Mexican flag.  You offer sanctuary and protection flouting laws our government established long before Trump.  You want to hire illegals, and several companies have said they want to, to protect them.  OMG.

Honestly.  Spend your bloody energy saving their wretched countries from the inhuman conditions the people live in so they don't come here. Stop hurting the American taxpayer.

Americans haven't quite figured out all this tax stuff yet, but I promise.  That will come.

In the meantime, I will post some deets about that topic ignored by media in favor of depicting Trump as Satan or his aide.

However, not at this time.  I have things to do.  Later.

Obama and the Millenial

She doesn't like the word illegal because anyone in the US is working hard and that makes them a citizen.

But when it comes to voting ... I am a little at a loss.

Is he encouraging or supporting illegal voting?

Watch and decide!

US to reduce troop levels on Mexico border

Dec 20 12:54 PM US/Eastern

Agence France Presse

The United States will cut the number of national guard troops patrolling the border with Mexico as it steps up other surveillance on the porous southern border, officials said Tuesday.

The effort reflects "a new strategic approach," that includes "a number of new multi-purpose aerial assets equipped with the latest surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities," according to a statement from the departments of Homeland Security and Defense.

Homeland Security will have additional civilian personnel on the border enabling the Defense Department "to reduce the number of national guard troops at the southwest border while enhancing border security," the statement said.

President Barack Obama's administration had deployed around 1,200 troops, having been pressed by governors of border states who fear an influx of crime and a spillover of drug-related violence from Mexico.

But the statement said security would be boosted by more air surveillance, leaving fewer personnel on the ground.

The change in strategy will begin in January, with aircraft in place by March 1, the statement said.

"The air assets will reduce enforcement response time, enabling Border Patrol officers to quickly move from one location to another on short notice to meet emerging threats of illegal activity or incursion," said the statement.

In the fiscal year ended September 30, the number of border apprehensions was 340,252, down 53 percent from three years earlier and one-fifth of what they were at their peak a decade ago.

mexico

Obama on Immigration

Vacations.  Wars that no one understands.  Hundreds of millions on an unknown curious war.  Billions for Europe.  Unemployment roaring along.  Green jobs - never materialized (actually they did, just not in the US).  A debt that has risen by nearly 4.5 trillion in 2.5 years - a Congress of Democrats in control - and they have controlled the money since 2006 - not Bush and not the Republicans.  Trillions.  Almost as much as Bush in 8 years, and we are worse off.  A president who golfs while soldiers die.  A president who golfs more than Buwsh ever did or could have.  In fact, Bush and Clinton combined is what Obama is working toward breaking the record.  A president who can spend $20,000 going to a show in New York, a president who can fly on separate planes, with a motorcade larger than any Bush ever had ... a president who pontificates, but does so in a language no one understands, for America is not the clay Obama would like us to be - not to be molded into something gentler ... after all, it was the Obama administartion that for nearly a year reminded everyone, often daily, to get over it, they won.  Bush never once said such a comment.  We heard it from the Obama administration daily.

A president who is detached, playing golf, on vacation, while Rome burns.  Not upholding the laws of the United States, governing by fiat - like Rome. 

Obama to deport illegals by ‘priority’

Case-by-case plan will curb numbers

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times

Thursday, August 18, 2011



Bowing to pressure from immigrant rights activists, the Obama administration said Thursday that it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria, such as attending school, having family in the military or having primary responsible for other family members’ care.

The move marks a major step for President Obama, who for months has said he does not have broad categorical authority to halt deportations and said he must follow the laws as Congress has written them.

But in letters to Congress on Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she does have discretion to focus on “priorities” and that her department and the Justice Department will review all ongoing cases to see who meets the new criteria.

“This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high-priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.”

The move won immediate praise from Hispanic activists and Democrats who had strenuously argued with the administration that it did have authority to take these actions, and said as long as Congress is deadlocked on the issue, it was up to Mr. Obama to act.

“Today’s announcement shows that this president is willing to put muscle behind his words and to use his power to intervene when the lives of good people are being ruined by bad laws,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat, who has taken a leadership role on the issue since the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in 2009.

The new rules apply to those who have been apprehended and are in deportation proceedings, but have not been officially ordered out of the country by a judge.

Ms. Napolitano said a working group will try to come up with “guidance on how to provide for appropriate discretionary consideration” for “compelling cases” in instances where someone already has been ordered deported.

Administration officials made the announcement just before Mr. Obama left for a long vacation out of Washington, and as members of Congress are back in their home districts.

The top House Republican on the Judiciary Committee said the move is part of a White House plan “to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants.”

“The Obama administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The Obama administration should not pick and choose which laws to enforce. Administration officials should remember the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.”

Immigration legislation has been stalled in Congress for years as the two parties have sparred over what to include.

Republicans generally favor stricter enforcement and a temporary program that would allow workers in the country for some time, but eventually return to their home countries. Democrats want the legislation to include legalization of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the country, and want the future guest-worker program to also include a path to citizenship so those workers can stay permanently.

Since 2007, when the issue stalled in the Senate, more than 1 million illegal immigrants have been deported.

Democrats said those deportations are breaking up families and that it’s an unfair punishment for a broken system.

Hispanic voters are a key voter bloc as Mr. Obama seeks re-election next year, but many of them felt he broke his promise to them to work on legislation once he took office. Thursday’s move already was paying dividends as Hispanic advocacy groups praised the steps.

“After more than two years of struggle, demonstrations, direct actions and other activities, the administration has signaled that they are capable of delivering direct relief for immigrant families,” said Casa de Maryland, a pro-immigrant group. “We eagerly await confirmation from community members that their families can now expect to remain together.”

Two years ago, some staffers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had prepared a draft memo arguing that the administration retained broad powers that could serve “as a non-legislative version of ‘amnesty.’ “

But agency leaders and others in the administration had argued that the memo was inaccurate.

It was unclear Thursday how many people might be affected by the new rules. Pressure groups said up to 300,000 people could be eligible. In fiscal year 2010 alone, the government deported nearly 200,000 illegal immigrants who it said did not have criminal records.

Given the case-by-case basis of Thursday’s announcement, though, the groups said the actual number of people allowed to stay could be far lower.

In June, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that handles interior immigration law enforcement, issued guidance expanding authority to decline to prosecute illegal immigrants. The goal, ICE leaders said, was to focus on catching illegal immigrants who have committed other crimes or are part of gangs.

The chief beneficiaries of the guidance are likely to be immigrant students who would have been eligible for legal status under the Dream Act, which stalled in Congress last year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who asked Homeland Security this year to exempt illegal-immigrant students from deportation, said the move will free up immigration courts to handle cases involving serious criminals.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

Obama and Immigration

Someone says the President said water was bad for you.  The someone was a bartender who has a serious drug problem and sold the story to a newspaper owned by Coca-Cola ... make sense.  Follow the interests / money.  However, if the source claims something that is not far off from what is standard officialese ... one should consider the possibility of accuracy.


EXCLUSIVE: Federal Agents Told to Reduce Border Arrests, Arizona Sheriff Says



By Jana Winter
AP
Published April 01, 2011
FoxNews.com

Nov. 1, 2010: Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, left, speaks about illegal immigration at an event in Arizona also attended by Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu.

An Arizona sheriff says U.S. Border Patrol officials have repeatedly told him they have been ordered to reduce -- at times even stop -- arrests of illegal immigrants caught trying to cross the U.S. border.

Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever told FoxNews.com that a supervisor with the U.S. Border Patrol told him as recently as this month that the federal agency’s office on Arizona's southern border was under orders to keep apprehension numbers down during specific reporting time periods.

“The senior supervisor agent is telling me about how their mission is now to scare people back,” Dever said in an interview with FoxNews.com. “He said, ‘I had to go back to my guys and tell them not to catch anybody, that their job is to chase people away. … They were not to catch anyone, arrest anyone. Their job was to set up posture, to intimidate people, to get them to go back.”

Dever said his recent conversation with the Border Patrol supervisor was the latest in a series of communications on the subject that he has had with various federal agents over the last two years. Dever said he plans to relay the substance of these conversations when he testifies under oath next month before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

“I will raise my hand to tell the truth and swear to God, and nothing is more serious or important than that,” he said. “I’m going to tell them that, here’s what I hear and see every day: I had conversation with agent A, B, C, D and this is what they told me.”

Dever’s charges were vigorously denied by a commander with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

“The claim that Border Patrol supervisors have been instructed to underreport or manipulate our statistics is unequivocally false,” Jeffery Self, commander of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Joint Field Command in Arizona, said in a written statement.

“I took an oath that I take very seriously, and I find it insulting that anyone, especially a fellow law enforcement officer, would imply that we would put the protection of the American public and security of our nation’s borders in danger just for a numbers game," he said. "Our mission does not waiver based on political climate, and it never will. To suggest that we are ambiguous in enforcing our laws belittles the work of more than 6,000 CBP employees in Arizona who dedicate their lives to protect our borders every day.”

In recent days, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said the U.S.-Mexican border is more secure than ever, and Homeland Security officials have used recent statistics to support those claims.

"There is a perception that the border is worse now than it ever has been," Napolitano said at the El Paso border crossing last week. "That is wrong. The border is better now than it ever has been."

Dever doesn’t agree.

“Janet Napolitano says the border is more secure than it’s ever been. I’ve been here for 60 years, and I’m telling you that’s not true,” he said.

The sheriff of Santa Cruz County, which borders Dever’s Cochise County to the west, said, “This is news to me,” when asked about reports that border agents were being told to turn illegal immigrants back to Mexico rather than arrest them.

“It comes as a complete surprise that that would be something that’s going around,” Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said. “I meet with Dever all the time and I have great respect for him, so I expect he’d come forward and say what he knows and give the source.

“Not knowing who the source is, how reliable that source is, I really don’t have much of a position,” Estrada said. “I’ve been around a real long time and haven’t heard anything like this. By the same token, you learn new things every day.”

Both sheriffs are elected officials. Dever is a Republican, Estrada, a Democrat.

Others have questioned the methodology and conclusions of the Homeland Security numbers showing the border is more secure.

Mark Hanna, CEO of Real Life Enterprises, a Phoenix-based technology integration and security company, has testified before the Arizona Senate about what he called Homeland Security’s flawed methodology used to compile border security statistics. Hanna maintains the numbers are dangerously misleading.

Hanna, who is currently working on a private/public partnership pilot program along the Arizona border, said he attended a February conference at which Michael Fisher, chief of the United States Border Patrol, and Mark S. Borkowski, assistant commissioner for technology and innovation acquisition, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, showed off charts indicating arrests were decreasing and argued the border was more secure. The charts also showed an increase in marijuana seizures along the border and an increase in Border Patrol agents.

But those charts left out crucial data, Hanna said.

“Since we don't know how many illegal crossings are occurring, then a decrease in apprehensions might mean that there are fewer illegal crossings, and the border is more secure. But it could also just as easily mean that more illegal border crossings are occurring, and we're just not catching as many. In order to know how secure the border is, you need to know how many are crossing and the threat level of those who are crossing illegally," he said.

“It is a very dangerous condition for the secretary of Homeland Security to be using incomplete data to form such a conclusion, and then repeatedly announce these conclusions as fact,” he said.

The Department of Homeland Security did not return repeated requests for comment on Hanna’s specific challenges to the agency’s methodology.

Whatever the methodology, Dever said the numbers don’t accurately describe what’s happening on the ground.

“We do not know who’s crossing that border, but that anyone who wants to can. That’s the message our nation needs to hear, that anyone who wants to can, and is. And our own Department of Homeland Security does not have clear definition of what securing the border even means," Dever said.

“People are disgusted, the smiles are gone off their face, their general sense of welfare been taken away from them and until that’s returned you can throw all the numbers on the board. … I’ll tell Napolitano, in spite of all of your declarations and efforts to the contrary, things are not safe. No, they are not secure.

“You can use your numbers to say it’s more secure, but it does not define a sense of safety or well-being. You can say it’s more secure, but it’s more dangerous than ever.”

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
immigration

Illegal Votes: Let's count them again and again. Every election we should demand a recount, regardless of who wins, and we should have to vote twice and bring passport or birth certificate / citizenship papers when we do vote!

5,000 in Colorado they caught.  How man y they didn't ... maybe another 200 or 300.  How about California?



GOP says 5,000 non-citizens voting in Colorado a 'wake-up call' for states



By Debbie Siegelbaum - 03/31/11 01:23 PM ET
The Hill


Republicans on the House Administration Committee want to shore up voter registration rules in the wake of a Colorado study that found as many as 5,000 non-citizens in the state took part in last year’s election.

Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), the panel’s chairman, called the study “a disturbing wake-up call” that should cause every state to review its safeguards to prevent illegal voting.

“We simply cannot have an electoral system that allows thousands of non-citizens to violate the law and vote in our elections. We must do more to protect the integrity of our electoral processes,” Harper added.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a Republican, told the panel that his department’s study identified nearly 12,000 people who were not citizens but were still registered to vote in Colorado.

Of those non-citizen registered voters, nearly 5,000 took part in the 2010 general election in which Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet narrowly defeated Republican John Buck.

Colorado conducted the study by comparing the state’s voter registration database with driver’s license records.

“We know we have a problem here. We don’t know the size of it,” Gessler said in testimony to Administration’s Elections subcommittee.

He told Harper that Colorado would look to create a registration system that would allow his department to ask that some people provide proof of their citizenship in writing.

If individuals did not respond to the request, their registration as voters would be suspended.

Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) raised doubts about the reporting, noting that the study itself said it was based on inconclusive data and that it was “impossible to provide precise numbers” on how many people who were registered to vote in the state were not citizens.

Gonzalez asked Gessler, a former prosecutor, if he would have pursued a court case on such evidence.

Gessler responded that the goal of the study was to expose voter registration issues and pursue administrative avenues to resolve them.

“We don’t have a screen for citizenship on the front end when people register to vote,” he said.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
im migration

US Immigration: Who is kept out and who is allowed in

This boy, quite obviously is a threat and must be kept out of the US or he may stay illegally.





Boy, 9, has Disney World trip ruined after US immigration rules him a threat



A nine-year-old boy's dream trip to Disney World was ruined when US immigration officials ruled he was a threat.


14 Jan 2011
The Telegraph



Civil servants Kathy and Edward Francis planned to surprise their grandson Micah Strachan with the holiday of a lifetime to Florida in February.

They were only going to tell Micah about it when they took him to the airport on February 19 for the flight to the US.

They had already spent more than £1,500 on plane tickets and had been organising the trip for months.

But this week US Embassy officials denied the schoolboy a visa to enter the US.

They said there was a risk he would not leave the US at the end of his holiday and refused his application under Section 214 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Micah was born in Britain and has lived in Middlesex all his life with his mum Claudia Lewis.

He holds a South African passport because his grandparents Kathy and Edward, who have lived and worked in Britain since 1990, only got him a South African passport.

They are originally from South Africa.

A letter from Micah's primary school was included in his visa application confirming he attended the school.

But the US Embassy's rejection letter to Micah said: "Because you either did not demonstrate strong ties outside the United States or were not able to demonstrate that your intended activities in the US would be consistent with the visa status, you are ineligible."

His grandmother Kathy, from Brixton, South London, said: "It was going to be a total surprise. He would have loved it.

"We feel so deflated by the whole experience.

"I want to know why he would be deprived of the holiday of a lifetime.

"It's crazy to think that he wouldn't leave the country. This is causing severe stress on the family. I am going to fight this."

Tessa Jowell, Labour MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, said: "I was very concerned to learn about the situation facing my constituents and of course understand the distress the decision has caused.

"I have asked the American authorities to look again at this and very much hope they will feel able to reconsider their decision."

Meanwhile, the family have written to US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ask for an explanation of the decision.

A US Embassy spokesman said it was "not policy" to comment on individual immigration cases.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
immigration

Mexico in Meltdown

AP IMPACT: Mexico says its troops killed US man


(AP) – Dec 25, 2010



MEXICO CITY (AP) — Joseph Proctor told his girlfriend he was popping out to the convenience store in the quiet Mexican beach town where the couple had just moved, intending to start a new life.

The next morning, the 32-year-old New York native was dead inside his crashed van on a road outside Acapulco. He had multiple bullet wounds. An AR-15 rifle lay in his hands.

His distraught girlfriend, Liliana Gil Vargas, was summoned to police headquarters, where she was told Proctor had died in a gunbattle with an army patrol. They claimed Proctor — whose green van had a for-sale sign and his cell phone number spray-painted on the windows — had attacked the troops. They showed her the gun.

His mother, Donna Proctor, devastated and incredulous, has been fighting through Mexico's secretive military justice system ever since to learn what really happened on the night of Aug. 22.

It took weeks of pressuring U.S. diplomats and congressmen for help, but she finally got an answer, which she shared with The Associated Press.

Three soldiers have been charged with killing her son. Two have been charged with planting the assault rifle in his hands and claiming falsely that he fired first, according to a Mexican Defense Department document sent to her through the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City.

It is at least the third case this year in which soldiers, locked in a brutal battle with drug cartels, have been accused of killing innocent civilians and faking evidence in cover-ups.

Such scandals are driving calls for civilian investigators to take over cases that are almost exclusively handled by military prosecutors and judges who rarely convict one of their own.

"I hate the fact that he died alone and in pain an in such an unjust way," Donna Proctor, a Queens court bailiff, said in a telephone interview with the AP. "I want him to be remembered as a hardworking person. He would never pick up a gun and shoot someone."

President Felipe Calderon has proposed a bill that would require civilian investigations in all torture, disappearance and rape cases against the military. But other abuses, including homicides committed by on-duty soldiers, would mostly remain under military jurisdiction. That would include the Proctor case and two others this year in which soldiers were accused of even more elaborate cover-ups.

The first involved two university students killed in March during a gunbattle between soldiers and cartel suspects that spilled into their campus in the northern city of Monterrey. Mexico's National Human Rights Commission said soldiers destroyed surveillance cameras, planted guns on the two young men and took away their backpacks in an attempt to claim they were gang members. The military admitted the two were students after university officials spoke out.

In that case, military and civilian federal prosecutors are conducting a joint investigation into the killings. The military, however, is in charge of the investigation into the allegation of crime-scene tampering.

In the second case, two brothers aged 5 and 9 were killed in April in their family's car in the northern state of Tamaulipas. The rights commission said in a report that there was no gunbattle and that soldiers fired additional rounds into the family car and planted two vehicles at the scene to make it look like a crossfire incident. The Defense Department stands by its explanation and denies there was a cover-up.

The rights commission, an autonomous government institution, has received more than 4,000 abuse complaints, including torture, rape, killings and forced disappearances, since Calderon deployed tens of thousands of soldiers in December 2006 to destroy drug cartels in their strongholds.

The commission has recommended action in 69 of those cases, and the Defense Department says it is investigating 67.

So far military courts have passed down only one conviction for an abuse committed since Calderon intensified the drug war four years ago: an officer who forced a new subordinate in his unit to drink so much alcohol in a hazing ritual that he died. He was sentenced to four months in prison.

Another officer was convicted, then cleared on appeal, in the Aug. 3, 2007 death of Fausto Murillo Flores. Soldiers arrested Murillo and two other men in the northern state of Sonora, accusing them of arms possession. However, they only presented the two other men to the media and did not immediately acknowledge ever having had Murillo in custody.

Murillo's body was later found by the side of a road and the military acknowledged having detained him.

The Defense Department has not explained why the officer was acquitted.

The military justice system operates in near total secrecy, choosing what to publicly reveal and when.

While privately informing Proctor's family about his case, Defense Department officials have publicly refused to discuss it at all. The day after his death, Guerrero state prosecutors announced to reporters that Proctor was killed after attacking a military convoy.

His mother, angry that she kept reading news reports with that version of the events, has asked Defense Department officials to reveal publicly that soldiers were charged with planting the gun on her son. The department replied, in writing, that it would only do so after the soldiers had been sentenced.

Defense Department spokesman Col. Ricardo Trevilla told the AP to file a freedom of information petition. IT DID but was rebuffed with the explanation that information on the ongoing investigation was "classified as reserved for a period of 12 years."

Proctor's family, meanwhile, still doesn't understand why he was killed.

Donna Proctor said her son hated guns so much that he rejected her suggestion that he follow in her footsteps and become a court bailiff, a job that requires carrying a sidearm.

Instead, he become a construction worker and eventually started his own business in Atlanta, Georgia. Last year, he moved to Mexico's central state of Puebla with his Mexican-born wife and their young son, Giuseppe. The marriage foundered and his wife returned to Georgia.

Proctor stayed behind with his son and eventually met and fell in love with Liliana Gil Vargas, a waitress and mother of four. After a vacation in Barra de Coyuca, the beach town outside of Acapulco, the couple decided to move there. Proctor was saving up top to open a restaurant.

According to the document sent to his mother, the soldiers tried to stop Proctor and inspect his vehicle. They claim he fled, prompting one of the soldiers to shoot at him, hitting his car. The soldiers chased down the car and fired again, "wounding the driver who nonetheless continued to drive away, fleeing, crashing the car three kilometers down that road," the document said.

A superior officer in the patrol told the battalion commander what happened. The battalion commander sent another officer to the scene with the AR-15 rifle "in order to be placed in the vehicle, using the hands of the deceased to try to simulate an attack against military personnel," the document says.

For the family, there are many unanswered questions. Did Proctor really flee? Why would he have refused to stop?

Donna Proctor said he complained about being shaken down by Mexican police and soldiers but also spoke of being friendly with soldiers on the base near the home he was building in Barra de Coyuca.

"He was 32. He loved life. He loved his son and he wanted to work hard to give him something," she said.

Donna Proctor said Mexican Defense Department officials visited her recently in Long Island and compensated her for the cost of flying her son back to the U.S. and the funeral. She said she told them she wanted justice — and for the world to know what really happened.

"I told them I had no intention of this being the end of it," she said.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
mexico

Education: Claim Illegal Status and Pay In-State Rates

NOVEMBER 15, 2010


California Court Upholds In-State Tuition for Some Illegal Immigrants



Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO—The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that some illegal immigrants are entitled to the same tuition breaks offered to in-state high school students to attend public colleges and universities.

While the ruling applies only to California, the case was closely watched nationally because nine other states including New York and Texas have similar laws.

Republican congressmen Lamar S. Smith of Texas and Steve King of Iowa filed a so-called friends of the court brief urging that illegal immigrants be denied the reduced rate.

The lawsuit considered by the court was part of a broader legal assault led by the immigration legal scholar Kris Kobach, who has filed numerous cases across the country seeking to restrict the rights of illegal immigrants.

He represented a group of U.S. students who filed the lawsuit seeking to invalidated the California law.

Mr. Kobach didn't return a phone call seeking comment about the ruling in California.

A unanimous state Supreme Court, led by politically conservative Justice Ming Chin, said the California provision was constitutional because U.S. residents also had access to the reduce rates.

The California Legislature passed the controversial measure in 2001 that allowed any student regardless of immigration status who attended a California high school for at least three years and graduated to qualify for in-state tuition at the state's colleges universities. In-state tuition saves each state college student about $11,000 a year and each University of California student about $23,000 a year.

A state appellate court in 2008 ruled the law was unconstitutional after a group of out-of-state students who are U.S. citizens filed a lawsuit alleging the measure violated federal prohibitions barring illegal immigrants from receiving post-secondary benefits not available to U.S. citizens based on state residency.

But the state Supreme Court noted that the California law says nothing about state residency,

The state law also requires the illegal immigrants applying for the in-state tuition to swear they will attempt to become U.S. citizens. The applicants are still barred from receiving federal financial aid.

"Through their hard work and perseverance, these students have earned the opportunity to attend UC," said University of California President Mark G. Yudof. "Their accomplishments should not be disregarded or their futures jeopardized."

Mr. Kobach also failed to invalidate a similar law in Kansas. His lawsuit in Nebraska is pending.

The law professor was the chief drafter of Arizona's tough new laws against illegal immigrants, which is pending before a federal appeals court.

He was elected earlier this month to serve as secretary of state in Kansas.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
illegals

Mexico: More Bombs and Attacks

President Calderon -

Please take care of your country.  Seize control of the 2/3 of your country you do not control.  Find jobs for the Mexicans who try to flee your country for a better life in the US, provide a better life for your citizens so they do not need to flee or sell drugs, throw grenades at people, or cut their heads off.

End the police force - close it down, terminate their employment, and bring in the army, transition from a civilian police force to one run by the army, and in the meantime, use the resources of the US, to run a hiring service for new police - including background checks.  Require all police officers to submit to random questioning every few months, including travel and financial reviews. 

Require all government ministers to submit to questioning about the cartels and their influence.

Show the world you can end the corruption that is rampant in Mexico, in the government and in every nook and cranny from the north through to the south.  Clean up your country.  If you don't, more will flee to escape death and despair.




Northern Mexico was shaken by a weekend of violence, with 34 deaths blamed on drug cartels and a series of grenade attacks that injured a dozen people, officials said Sunday.



Twelve people were hurt in a late night grenade attack at a busy plaza outside Monterrey, according to officials who said it was one of four bombings to rock the industrial border city over the weekend.


Authorities said Sunday that the grenade was thrown by unidentified assailants at about 11 pm Saturday (0400 GMT Sunday) near the town hall in Guadalupe, a suburb of the bustling city near the border with the United States.


October 3, 2010














Mexico

Death in Mexico: The Numbers are Staggering

Dear Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund,

For years you have worked to aid those who had no voice, who were rejected and oppressed by the system, who sought freedom and hope, and instead were faced with uncivil and unjust actions.

You are in large part response for the murder of these 72.

You will be held responsible for their deaths when you meet your Creator.

Those voiceless and rejected many you aided, you did so for your own benefit and to pepetuate a steady stream of clients who would flood into the US despite Mexican laws and US laws and international laws ... and as a result of your work, you contributed to the deaths of these 72 human beings.

The number of deaths each year is reaching upwards of about 200 - the number who die trying to enter the US illegally.

In one night, nearly half that number are murdered in Mexico.

All the paper, all the publicity, all the speeches and all the crying - at the very least 1/2 that should be devoted to those murdered who never even get to the starting line - yet the usual suspects are quiet.  Perhaps reserving their energy for those who die in the desert.  Easier to blame Americans than to look in the mirror.

In both cases, groups like the Mexican Defense League bear some responsibility for the needless deaths.

The country of Mexico is not controlled by a government, it is run by cartels.  Mexico could very well lose its legitimacy as a republic - the entire country is controlled by various factions, with the government controlling strips of land in between.

Wave your flags, but becareful - you have no idea what it is you are waving at.






Mexican Military Finds 72 Bodies Near Border



By DAVID LUHNOW and JOSE DE CORDOBA
AUGUST 26, 2010
Wall Street Journal


MEXICO CITY—Gunmen from a drug cartel appear to have massacred 72 migrants from Central and South America who were on their way to the U.S., a grisly event that marks the single biggest killing in Mexico's war on organized crime.

Mexican marines discovered the 72 bodies—58 men and 14 women —on Tuesday after the lone survivor of the massacre, a wounded migrant from Ecuador, stumbled into a Navy checkpoint the previous day and told of being shot on Monday at a nearby ranch, Mexican officials said on Wednesday.

When the marines went to investigate, they were met with a hail of gunfire from cartel gunmen holed up at the ranch, which sits 90 miles from the U.S. border. One marine and three alleged gunmen died during a two-hour battle, which ended when the gunmen fled in a fleet of SUVs, leaving behind a cache of weapons.

The Ecuadorean migrant told investigators that his captors identified themselves as members of the Zetas drug gang, said Vice Adm. Jose Luis Vergara, a spokesman for the Mexican navy.

An Ecuadorean citizen escaped from a remote ranch in eastern Mexico and stumbled wounded to a highway checkpoint, where he alerted Mexican Navy marines. One marine was killed in a firefight after marines went to investigate the ranch.

"This illustrates that organized crime has no limits or moral qualms about what they are prepared to do," Alejandro Poire, head of the government's national-security council, told a news conference.

The incident highlights the extent to which Mexican drug gangs, which used to focus exclusively on ferrying narcotics such as cocaine to the U.S., have diversified into other lucrative criminal activities such as human smuggling and extortion.

At the going rate of $5,000 to $7,000 charged by smugglers to cross the U.S. border, the 72 people represented about $500,000 to the drug gang, said Alberto Islas, a Mexico City-based security consultant. The gang may have simply killed the migrants after they refused to give them more money than they had already given them, he said.

Mexican officials said they didn't know why the migrants—believed to be from El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador and Brazil—were killed. Mexican newspapers, citing an unnamed federal official, speculated that the migrants were killed for either refusing to give the drug gang more money to cross the border, or for declining to join the gang's criminal activities as drug couriers, gunmen or prostitutes.

Nearly 23,000 people have died in drug-related violence since 2006, according to the government, with northern border states experiencing the worst of the violence.

A study by Mexico's National Human Rights Commission published last year found that 9,758 migrants from Central and South America had been kidnapped by presumed drug gangs between September, 2008 and February, 2009. The commission found that in many cases, government officials and police worked with criminal gangs in carrying out the abductions.

The commission said that the number of migrant kidnappings could be as high as 18,000 a year. It estimated the average ransom at $2,500—making the business worth an estimated $50 million a year..

Some 28,000 people have died in Mexico's war on organized crime since President Felipe Calderón took power in December 2006 and declared an all-out battle against powerful drug-trafficking gangs that were gaining immense power and challenging the Mexican state.

The death toll is rising fast, including more frequent discoveries of mass graves. In May, authorities discovered 55 bodies in an abandoned mine near Taxco, a colonial-era city south of Mexico City known for its silver. Last month, another 51 bodies were found near a trash dump outside the northern city of Monterrey.

Both of those mass graves were sites where drug gangs disposed of rivals killed during a period of weeks or months. This latest incident could be the single biggest instance of bloodshed from a Mexican cartel to date, experts said.

Tamaulipas has become one of Mexico's bloodiest states since the dominant local cartel, the Gulf cartel, split with its former enforcers, the Zetas. Mexican officials say that they believe the Zetas, initially formed by Mexican army forces who defected to the other side, are responsible both for the June assassination of a leading gubernatorial candidate in Tamaulipas and the recent killing of a local mayor in neighboring Nuevo Leon state.

The Zetas thrive on the publicity from their killings, said George Grayson, a Mexico expert at the College of William and Mary. "This kind of thing helps them burnish their image as the meanest, most sadistic, cruelest organization—not only in Mexico but in the whole of the Americas. That helps them raise money from targets of extortion, who are terrified of them," he said.

Despite the dangers faced by migrants, desperate people from poor countries will continue to try to cross into the U.S., providing more opportunities for exploitation by gangs such as the Zetas, according to Williams Murillo, Ecuador's former minister for migrant affairs.

Mr. Murillo, who now gives legal advice to Ecuadorean migrants, said he recently came across an Ecuadorean woman who crossed into Mexico with her young child. The child was taken by the Zetas who are now demanding a ransom, according to Mr. Murillo.

"Sadly, stories like this don't stop people from risking their lives to try to get to the U.S. They just don't see enough opportunity here in Ecuador," Mr. Murillo said.

At least four of the bodies discovered were those of Brazilians, according to a spokeswoman at Brazil's foreign ministry in Brasilia.

Brazilian consular officials in Mexico, she said, would soon travel to the site where the bodies were found to help try to identify the victims and determine whether any more of the bodies were those of Brazilians.

- picture taken from Stratfor.com


















Mexico

Of illegal immigration, laws, and lawsuits

There are so many problems with this story and I would like to highlight a few.



16 illegals sue Arizona rancher


By Jerry Seper
Washington Times
Monday, February 9, 2009

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.


Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.


[Destruction of property - something the Founding Fathers Frowned Upon More than Almost Anything Else - for it is nothing less than theft, stealing someone elses property when it is destroyed.  Stealing trucks - in the 19th century you would be hung for stealing a horse or taking someones property.  If you snuck into Barnett's home at night and he shot you, he would be justified under all the laws of the US (at present).  Yet thousands of illegals, who are violating federal laws, state laws, county laws - they get to do these deeds without fear of punishment, for if they are found, they are deported, not tried for the destruction of property.]


Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.

He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.

A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.


His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.


"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."


[From this article, and it is only this article I can go by - he saw a group of 16 individuals who had just broken federal, state, and county laws - he stopped them, showed them a badge of some sort, which they didn't understand because they didn't understand English, brandished a shotgun/rifle and a handgun, he told them his dog was hungry for buttocks (in English and Spanish) which they understood and feared he would unleash the dog, cowering on the ground in fear, and he kicked a woman, and held them at gunpoint so they could not run away into the US (which would, I would think be a violation of federal, state, and county law if he did) by threatening to shoot them if they fled.

They went on his property in violation of county and state laws, violated federal law by entering the US illegally, violated several county laws during the crossing of the property, threatened the safety of Barnett and his family by their continued crossing, threatened the well-being of his business with their continued crossing, fully aware that Mexican drug cartels aided illegals in crossing, and occasionally used armed coyotes or armed soldiers to get them across the border, aware that many stories have circulated, some taken seriously by the Department of Homeland Security of males of Middle Eastern background crossing into the US from Mexico, with the 2001 attack on the US always on his mind, never sure who may be part of the group he stops on any given day - he did what he did.]


So, what was the conclusion of this case ....




Mixed verdict for Roger Barnett Trial


Immigration Clearinghouse

The website owners have the following to say about who and what they are:
Immigration Clearinghouse is a Pro-Reform Action Group working for logical immigration reform and pushing back and countering the hateful rhetoric of the radical right



Roger Barnett of Arizona, the border vigilante, must pay $78,000 to four immigrants after holding them at gunpoint, a jury found, but he was cleared of violating their civil rights.

This is about right coming from a state where a small majority of the population, think they speak for the majority, and any crime against a hispanic is viewed as perfectly acceptable by juries in this State.

[The article was written by someone who, unlikely an American, doesn't write well at all, nor do they think logically - which is a problem given their mission statement.  

A small majority of the population think they speak for the majority - is a confusing statement, but a better way to express this is, a MAJORITY of the state does not support illegal Mexicans or anyone illegal crossing into Arizona nor does the MAJORITY support the federal government on legalizing the illegals.  You cannot count all the illegals in Arizona as a component of the population when considering electoral issues.  If you have 2 million illegals in Arizona and 3 million legals, of which 40% of the 3 million are Mexican by birth or heritage and 80% of those side with the 2 million, which would take the number to at least 800,000 plus 2 million = A MAJORITY.  Except this majority does not get to dictate to the LEGAL majority what the laws should be nor what should be allowed.  You do not get to overwhelm a population by sheer number and then claim a majority.  That is not how this country has worked, NOR is it how Mexico has ever worked (not that Mexico works but)].

This is one example. Roger Barnett has a long history of confronting trespassers on his ranch property in Southern Arizona, something he is perfectly within his rights to do.

However, those rights do not include kicking defenseless women cowering on the ground in front of him while being forced to listen to the tirade of racist filth spewing from his lips.

[No, no law permits kicking women.  The law however does not prohibit anyone from saying anything to anyone else - so he can sit there all day and spew out hateful slogans and the law does not have any say in whether it is legal or not.  You were not paying attention to the decision.  You were paying attention to the defense argument, but that again is irrelevant once the decision is reach and then what is important is not all the exaggerated claims, but how they reached the decision.  Given that they had consorted with coyotes, paid upwards of $7,000 US to cross into the US illegally, crossed a hot and desolate land where they could easily have died with their diapers on - a man cussing at them doesn't seem so serious.  When you look at everything objectively.]


Nor do he have the right to threaten to turn lose trained attack surs on those he apprehends.

[No, the law does not give you the right to threaten that either.  Bad, and he should be punished for that.  Scaring people.  Versus violations of county, state, and federal laws going UNPUNISHED.]

Arizona law does not give him the rights to flash a phony badge at those detained, a badge that looks suspiciously like an official Arizona law enforcement badge, especially at those who are ignorant of it’s value.

[Again, true - if he implied or otherwise held himself out to be a law enforcement officer, he should be held for this and be punished to the fullest extent possible - a criminal offense, not civil.  However, if these 16 people are ignorant of the badge and its value, and they didn't know what it looked like, yet they saw it close enough to notice it looked like an Arizona law enforcement badge ... you just have to say this really smells.  if you saw a badge from a distance of 15-20 feet, could you identify it - a large dog foaming at the mouth, tired, a gun pointed at you by a man cussing and kicking women, you would take the time to notice in that brief moment some indication it was an Arizona badge - and  yet you had no problem breaking the laws of the US and Arizona. There are 16 of you and 1 of him and he should not have pointed his weapon at you, nor should he have brought his large dog with him.  YOU just paid a coyote upwards of $7000 to cross, a coyote who works for a drug cartel that has kidnapped thousands of illegals each year, murdered hundreds more, crossed a desert and beat the elements of nature and you are afraid of a dog.  You should not be too surprised I simply do not believe you.]
In interviews after the verdict, Barnett claims he was merely “discussing calmly” the breach of the law by those caught trespassing, and seeing a woman who appeared non responsive, he touched her with his toe.

However, testimony in Court suggested, Barnett kicked this woman hard enough to break a religious figurine she had in her rucksack.

[He was informing the 16 individuals who had violated County, State, and Federal laws what they had done and what he was about to do, when one of the women, unable to understand him speaking English found something else to stare at (other than the terrifying dog they were all fearful of - I know when I see a terrifying dog I turn my back to it), he kicked her, not like you'd kick a door in, but probably like you'd boot or kick or push a rock over to see what was under it.  As for that broken figurine of the Holy Mother, she paid a coyote $7000, traversed land controlled by a drug cartel that randomly murders people, crossed a desert through gullies, ditches, hills ... and in that process she broke her figurine.  But hey, why not blame Barnett.]


Barnett claims he “holstered his weapon” upon seeing the group was unarmed. Again, testimony suggested that contrary to this, Barnett continued to wave his weapons, pointing them randomly at the group while calmly ranting about “Fucking Mexicans” and “how he was going to sic his dogs on their ass if they moved”.

[His dogs?  or his dog.  We have already been told he had a handgun and a rifle/shotgun.  He would not - a reasonable person would  not, keep a handgun and a rifle in each hand - it simply does not work well.  Perhaps in Mexico they do this when they are executing large numbers of people so hey can shoot the ones who are running away, but typically this doesn't work well.  He noticed they were unarmed, and shouldered his rifle while holding the handgun.  As for waving it about ... if your safety is on and your finger is not on the trigger - waving it or painting with it wouldn't make much difference.]

Sheriff’s deputies confirmed the latter version of events.

So once again, in Arizona, crimes against Hispanics flourish and rights are routinely violated under color of law.

[And once again Mexicans routinly violate state and federal laws placing private homeowners in jeopardy for their lives.]

We all remember the case of Border Patrol Agent Nicholas Corbett who murdered in cold blood, a migrant who was on his knees before the agent surrendering, when Corbett shot him in the side, killing him instantly, in front of three witnesses.

Despite eyewitness testimony, forensic and ballistic evidence proving the prosecutions case, Corbett walked not once, but twice, due to mistrials. The result of Arizona jurors not doing their sworn duty, as was the case in this trial.

[The problems began with the Mexicans paying a drug cartel thousands of dollars.  Fortunately they were not slaughtered as was the case for 72 illegals who were discovered in a mass grave - killed by a coyotes or the drug cartel or one and the same.]


I would suggest your indignation be focused where it should be or you forfeit teh right to be indignant and become an accomplice to the murder ot the 72 and so many more.]
























Mexicao

Illegals: Penis Pumps. May as well give them sex changes ...

Penis Pumps for Illegals?


by Todd Starnes



A Minnesota town is outraged over reports that an illegal immigrant was implanted with a penis pump – paid for by taxpayers.

Shakopee Police Chief Jeff Tate said the expense to taxpayers was more than $50,000.

“It’s shocking,” he told FOX News Radio. “It’s certainly disturbing as well. You know it’s not going to set well with the public at large.”

Scott County Attorney Pat Ciliberto wants to know how an illegal immigrant was able to obtain tens of thousands of dollars in medical assistance.

“There’s no logical argument for why that should have been approved,” Ciliberto told the Shakopee News. “I don’t know how many illegal aliens are getting emergency medical assistance for such a procedure.”

Ciliberto told county commissioners the cost of taking care of illegal immigrants in their community is skyrocketing.

“It should be obvious when Scott County goes from seven bookings in 2006 to 90 bookings in 2009 – that Arizona’s problem is Minnesota’s problem, too,” he told the newspaper.

According to published numbers, the county spent more than $800,000 housing inmates with immigration holds – and that doesn’t include medical coverage.

“We have no control over the southern border,” he said. “We don’t know who is coming in and what country they’re coming from.”

Regardless, local officials said they are required by federal and state laws to provide welfare to illegals – from court costs to health care – including a penis pump.

At least one local said they sympathize with the plight of Arizonans.

“My hats off to Arizona, to people who’ve said, ‘We’ve had enough,’” Commissioner Barbara Marschall told the newspaper. “We’re thousands (of) miles away from the southern border. It’s here and it’s going to get worse.”












 
 
 
 
illegal aliens

Illegal Immigration - Costs and Benefits

Not only the $100 billion or so each year in costs, but the mon ey they do make, they send back - in 2010, it is estimated they will send back over $20 billion.

So what is the cost?  Some defenders will say - they pay sales tax.  And that amounts to at most, about 1/8 the amount that is spent by the state on their child, for 1 year of public schooling, or a couple bricks on the freeway.  In other words, don't use sales tax as a method of arguing they pay.  It is simply not true.

Does that mean anyone who accepts these figures and opposes illegal immigration opposes anyone from outside, from anywhere but the US?  No.  When they come the way everyone is supposed to come - legally.  When they embrace America and its values, not attack and mock America.  When they are willing to learn English, accept America as their home after standing in line to become legal - fine, everyone who wants to come can come within the limits of our laws.







Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds


By Ed Barnes

Published July 06, 2010
FoxNews.com






The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The study, a copy of which was provided to FoxNews.com, “is the first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications at FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S.

FAIR's opponents in the bitter immigration debate describe the organization as "extremist," though it is regularly called upon to testify before Congress.

Groups that support immigration reform immediately attacked FAIR's report and pointed out that it is the polar opposite of the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration was actually a boon to the American economy. It estimated that illegal immigrants add $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product to the economy and account for 2.8 million jobs.

The FAIR report comes as President Obama moves immigration reform to the top of his agenda, and it is likely to be a rallying point for those who oppose the president. At a speech Thursday at American University in Washington, D.C., Obama argued that the entire immigration system is broken and needs sweeping reforms. Among the changes he said are needed is "a path for [farm] workers to earn legal status," which the president's critics called an opening for a new amnesty program.

FAIR's report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: “One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice,” it says, “would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.”

The report states that an amnesty program wouldn’t appreciably increase tax revenue and would cost massive amounts in Social Security and public assistance expenses. An amnesty “would therefore be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden,” the report concludes.

The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals. “Nearly all those costs are absorbed by state and local governments,’ the report states.

Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.

“The most important finding of the study is the enormous cost to state and local governments due to lack of enforcement of our immigration laws,” Martin wrote.

The report found that the federal government paid $28.6 billion in illegal related costs, and state and local governments paid $84.2 billion on an estimated 13 million undocumented residents. In his speech, Obama estimated that there are 11 million.

But FAIR's critics said the report wrongly included American-born children of undocumented workers in its study.

“The single biggest 'expense' it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be taxpaying adults," said Walter Ewing, a senior researcher at the American Immigration Council. "It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents."

He added that “the report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs” and that it “ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.”

Martin said FAIR expected that criticism, but that because the children are a direct result of illegal immigration, their inclusion was both fair and reasonable.









 









immigration

Being an American is not a matter of blood or birth, in which case he would be supporting the case for deportation of the chidlren, born here, of illegal aliens.  Further, what is an American - he tells us what it is not, so what is it - clearly being an American means we are entitled to free health care - and since being an American is not defined by birth or blood, I would assume illegals should be entitled to the same healthcare.





Obama: Being American is 'not a matter of blood or birth'

July 1, 2010
New York Post



President Barack Obama said Thursday that being American “is not a matter of blood or birth,” but said that “no matter how decent” the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. are, they should be held accountable for breaking the law.

Speaking at the American University School of International Service in Washington D.C., Obama expressed an understanding for why states would pass individual anti-illegal immigration laws, but said taking such action is “ill conceived.”

The president said laws, such as the one signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in April, are “divisive,” put pressure on local law enforcement, burden state and local budgets and could potentially violate the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents.

The Obama administration has come out against Arizona’s immigration law, which requires police officers to question a person’s immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. The law takes effect July 29.

Obama said Thursday that while America has always defined itself as a nation of immigrants, and while the “overwhelming majority” of illegal immigrants come to the U.S. in search of a better life, “The presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigration legally.”

“Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship,” he said. “And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.”

The president called for a “pathway to legal status that is fair, reflective of our values and works,” a process he said has been “held hostage by political posturing and special interest wrangling.”

“I’m ready to move forward. The majority of Democrats are ready to move forward, and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward,” Obama said.

“But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes.”




















immigration

Mexican Immigration: Handing out ID cards in California

Mexican consulate moves illegal immigant ID card handout

By: Sara A. Carter
National Security Correspondent
06/03/10 12:37 PM EDT

Mexican government officials have moved their satellite consular office from the Catalina Island Country Club to a Catholic Church – citing protection under the Vienna Convention - after it was discovered that they did not have the appropriate paperwork to issue the island’s illegal immigrants identification cards.

Since The Washington Examiner reported that the management of the club, on the island of Catalina, discovered that the event was not a multi-cultural celebration as they had been told and refused to allow the Mexican government to set up shop.

The Mexican officials will provide "matricular" card services to Mexican nationals at St. Catherine’s Church, on the island.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican whose district includes Catalina Island, is heading to the island by helicopter today to confront the officials.

“If the Catholic Church insists on preventing immigration law from being enforced, then they should step up and pay the bill. Let the Catholic Church open up its schools for free and use their vast resources to pay for the benefits of illegals if they feel it’s such a moral issue,” Rep. Rohrabacher told The Examiner. “I don’t exactly see Cardinal Mahoney announcing the sale of catholic church property to pay the bills for illegal immigration. This holier than thou hypocrisy has got to stop.”




**************************************


Mexico opens California office to provide ID for illegals


By: Sara A. Carter
National Security Correspondent
June 3, 2010

The Mexican government is opening a satellite consular office on Catalina Island -- a small resort off the California coast with a history of drug smuggling and human trafficking -- to provide the island's illegal Mexican immigrants with identification cards, The Washington Examiner has learned.

The Mexican consular office in Los Angeles issued a flier, a copy of which was obtained by The Examiner, listing the Catalina Island Country Club as the location of its satellite office. It invites Mexicans to visit the office to obtain the identification, called matricular cards, by appointment.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican whose district includes Catalina Island, said handing out matricular cards will exacerbate an already dangerous situation.

"Handing out matricular cards to Mexicans who are not in this country legally is wrong no matter where it's done," he said. "But on Catalina it will do more damage. It's a small island but there's evidence it's being used as a portal for illegals to access mainland California."

Rohrabacher added, "If there were a large number of Americans illegally in Mexico and the U.S. consulate was making it easier for them to stay, Mexico would never permit it."

Mexican officials with the consular office in Los Angeles could not be reached immediately for comment. The matricular consular identification card, is issued by the Mexican government to Mexican nationals residing outside the country, regardless of immigration status. The purpose is to provide identification for opening bank accounts and obtaining other services. But the cards are usually used to skirt U.S. immigration laws, since Mexicans in the country legally have documents proving that status, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said.

In 2004 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI officials called the card an unreliable form of identification. The agency said that Mexico lacks a centralized database for them, which could lead to forgery, duplication, and other forms of abuse.

Officers with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said their agency was asked by Mexican officials not to enforce U.S. immigration laws on the island while the cards were being issued.

"It amazes me every time that the Mexican government has the gall to tell us what to do," said an ICE official, who asked not to be named. "More surprisingly is how many times we stand by and let them. This is just an example of one of hundreds of requests we've had to deal with."

In April, Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies seized a boat carrying large quantities of marijuana and detained three Mexican nationals who said they were being smuggled into the United States.

The island has a sizable Mexican migrant population. Most are undocumented low-income workers.

1:15pm UPDATE:

Mexican government officials have moved their satellite consular office from the Catalina Island Country Club to a Catholic Church – citing protection under the Geneva Convention.



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
immigration

Arizona and Illegal Immigration

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal immigrant law defense


May 28, 2010
11:22 pm
The Los Angeles Times

A sudden new twist in the ongoing rhetorical and legal struggle over Arizona's tough new law to round up illegal immigrants.


Late Friday night as the Memorial Day weekend began, Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in effect, suspended the state's Democratic attorney general from defending the new law in upcoming legal challenges. The measure, known as S.B. 1070, is due to take effect this summer and, among other things, allows local police under federal guidelines to check the immigration status of people they stop.

The governor's abrupt action against Terry Goddard, her likely Democratic opponent in this fall's gubernatorial election, came after months of disputes between the two and at the end of a long day of legal maneuvering in both Arizona and the nation's capital.

As the state's chief lawyer, Goddard would be expected to take the lead in defending Arizona against....

...challenges to the Legislature's action, which erupted after years of state frustration with the federal government's inability to secure the state border with Mexico against illegal immigrants, drugs and criminals.

However, Goddard has vocally opposed the measure, so much so that the Legislature gave the governor advance authority to hire outside legal counsel.

On Friday, Goddard met with the Obama administration's Atty. Gen. Eric Holder in Washington, then held a news conference just hours before Brewer's handpicked attorneys were to meet with Holder, an outspoken critic of the law.

Brewer said, "I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the State of Arizona."

Seeing apparent collusion between the two Democrat lawyers, Brewer pulled the plug Friday night.

Her statement (full text below) said:

Due to Attorney General Goddard’s curious coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice today and his consistent opposition to Arizona’s new immigration laws, I will direct my legal team to defend me and the State of Arizona rather than the Attorney General in the lawsuits challenging Arizona’s immigration laws.

Despite widespread criticism in the media and the Obama administration, whose officials including Holder admitted they had not actually read the legislation, numerous polls have shown deep support for the measure nationally and within Arizona.

And that approval has transferred over to Brewer, who was trailing Goddard early this year in polls of a hypothetical matchup come Nov. 2. Brewer inherited the governor's office last year when Janet Napolitano resigned to accept the man-caused nomination of Homeland Security secretary from President Obama.


[To read the full text, or related articles, click on the title link]

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
arizona