Tuesday, March 29, 2011

OBAMA'S PROMISE TO ILLEGALS: anything for their votes INCLUDING OPEN & UNDEFENDED BORDERS!

EVERY DAY OBAMA PUSHES HARDER WARS OVER THERE WHILE TAKING MORE BORDER GUARDS OFF THE WALL HE STOPPED BUILDING WITH NARCOMEX.


WONDER WHY?

DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH HIS OPEN BORDERS AGENDA TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED, HIS CORPORATE PAYMASTERS HAPPY AND GENEROUS, AND HISPANDER FOR THE VOTES OF THE LA RAZA “THE RACE” MEX FASCIST PARTY???

YOU GET IT DOES! BOTH BARBARA BOXER OF CA, AND HARRY REID OF NEVADA, TWO OF THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN HISTORY, WERE REELECTED WITH THE VOTES OF ILLEGALS!

THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR NATION IS THE MEXICAN INVASION, OCCUPATION, EVER EXPANDING WELFARE STATE AND LA RAZA MEXICAN SUPREMACY!





MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

*

Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com and read articles and comments from other Americans on what they’ve witnessed in their communities around the country. While most of the population of California is now ILLEGAL, the problems, costs, assault to our culture by Mexico is EVERYWHERE. copy and pass it to your friends.



*





More Waivers For Illegals Are Not A Priority

By MICHELLE MALKIN Posted 12/03/2010 05:58 PM ET



Open-borders radicalism means never having to apologize for absurd self-contradiction.

The way illegal alien students on college campuses across the country tell it, America is a cruel, selfish and racist nation that has never given them or their families a break. Yet despite their bottomless grievances, they're not going anywhere.

And despite their gripes about being forced "into the shadows," they've been out in the open protesting at media-driven hunger strikes and flooding the airwaves demanding passage of the so-called Dream Act. This bailout plan would benefit an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens at an estimated cost of up to $20 billion.

While votes on various Dream Act proposals are imminent, the Congressional Budget Office has yet to release any official cost scoring. Viva transparency!

To sow more confusion, Democrats in the Senate have foisted four different versions of the bill on the legislative calendar, which all offer variations on the same amnesty theme: Because they arrived here through "no fault of their own," illegal alien children deserve federal education access and benefits, plus a conditional pass from deportation and a special path toward green cards and U.S. citizenship for themselves and unlimited relatives.

University of Texas-San Antonio student Lucy Martinez embodies the entitlement mentality of the Dream Act agitators: "We have done lobbying, legislative visits, marches, sit-ins. We are tired of it," she complained to the San Antonio Express-News. The illegal alien student hunger strike "is similar to what we go through in our everyday lives — starving without a future."

But neither she nor her peers have been denied their elementary, secondary or college educations. Neither she nor her peers face arrest for defiantly announcing their illegal status.

And for all the hysterical rhetoric about "starving," the federal government and the federal immigration courts have been overly generous in providing wave after wave of de facto and de jure amnesties allowing tens of millions of illegal border-crossers, visa overstayers and deportation evaders from around the world to live, work and prosper here in subversion of our laws.

Among the major acts of Congress providing mass pardons and citizenship benefits:

•1986: The Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens.

•1994: The Section 245(i) temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.

•1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty.

•1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly 1 million illegal aliens from Central America.

•1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.

•2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act.

•2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens.

This is in addition to hundreds of "private relief bills" sponsored every year. Most recently, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced legislation to stay the deportation of illegal alien Dream Act activist Steve Li — whose family's asylum claim was rejected and whom a federal immigration court judge ordered deported in 2004.

These illegal alien passes needn't be approved by Congress for the recipients to gain benefits. Mere introduction of the bills buys the deportable aliens time that ordinary, law-abiding citizens can't buy in our court system.

Dream Act schemers pretend this isn't a zero-sum game. But every time a private illegal alien relief bill passes, visas available for that year are reduced by the number of illegal alien/deportable immigrant recipients granted legal status/deportation relief through the special legislation.

In Austin, Texas, this week, one illegal alien Dream Act activist argued to me that "it's not like the government would be sending a message that breaking the law is OK." Reality check: The number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has tripled since President Reagan signed the first amnesty in 1986.

The total effect of the amnesties was even larger because relatives later joined amnesty recipients, and this number was multiplied by an unknown number of children born to amnesty recipients who then acquired automatic U.S. citizenship.

At a time of nearly double-digit unemployment and drastic higher-education cutbacks, a $20 billion special education preference package for up to 2.1 million illegal aliens is not and should not be a priority in Washington. It certainly isn't in the rest of America.

And it certainly shouldn't be a priority for federal immigration and homeland security officials, who have a 400,000-deportation-fugitives problem, a three-year naturalization application backlog and borders that remain in chaos.

*

*

Heather Mac Donald: White House doesn't want to enforce immigration

By: Heather Mac Donald

OpEd Contributor

August 4, 2010

The real motivation for the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration statute was the only one not mentioned in the department's brief: The Obama administration has no intention of enforcing the immigration laws against the majority of illegal aliens already in the country.

It is that policy alone which conflicts with SB 1070: Arizona wants to enforce the law; the Obama administration does not. Reasonable minds can differ on whether that conflict puts Arizona in violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

But what is indisputable is that the failure of the federal government to openly acknowledge the real ground for its opposition to SB 1070 has rendered incoherent not just its own public arguments against the law, but the judicial ruling which largely rubber stamps those arguments as well.

The Arizona statute affirms the power of a local police officer or sheriff's deputy to inquire into someone's immigration status, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally, and if doing so is practicable. Under SB 1070, such an inquiry may occur only during a lawful stop to investigate a non-immigration offense.

Both the Justice Department and U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, in striking down most of SB 1070, couched their opposition to the statute exclusively in terms of its effect on legal, as opposed to illegal, aliens. SB 1070, Judge Bolton wrote, would impermissibly burden legal immigrants already in the country by subjecting them to unwarranted immigration checks.

There are two problems with this line of argument: First, it ignores the fact that Congress has already anticipated and approved precisely the sort of local immigration inquiries that Judge Bolton now finds unconstitutional. Second, the argument would make all immigration enforcement impossible.

In 1996, Congress banned so-called sanctuary policies, by which cities and states prohibit their employees from working with federal immigration authorities regarding illegal aliens. It was in the federal interest, Congress declared, that local and federal authorities cooperate in the "apprehension, detention or removal of [illegal] aliens."

In pursuance of that mandate, the federal government operates an immigration clearinghouse, the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), to provide just the sort of immigration-status information to local and state law-enforcement officials that SB 1070 seeks.

It is therefore absurd to now claim, as Judge Bolton and the Obama Administration do, that such local inquiries conflict with the federal immigration scheme. It is even more absurd to argue that the risk that a legal alien will be questioned about his immigration status makes the alleged conflict unconstitutional.

Any immigration enforcement carries the possibility that a legal alien or U.S. citizen will be stopped and questioned. The only way to guarantee that legal aliens are never asked to present their immigration papers is to suspend immigration enforcement entirely. (The same possibility of stopping innocent people for questioning applies to law enforcement generally; that possibility has never been held to invalidate the police investigative power.)

If Congress intended to create such a blanket ban on asking legal aliens for proof of legal residency, it could have revoked the 1952 law requiring aliens to carry their certificate of alien registration. Such a requirement makes sense only on the assumption that legal aliens will upon occasion be asked to prove their legal status.

Such unpersuasive reasoning suggests that something else is going on. That something is the fact that SB 1070 would have put the Obama administration in the uncomfortable position of repeatedly telling Arizona's law enforcement officers that it is not interested in detaining or deporting the illegal aliens that they have encountered in the course of their duties; the law, in other words, would have exposed the administration's de facto amnesty policy.

And SB 1070 would have shown that immigration-law enforcement can work simply by creating a deterrent to illegal entry and presence. Even before it went into operation, the Arizona law was already inducing illegal aliens to leave the state, according to news reports.

Illegal aliens are virtually absent from the Justice Department's brief or from Judge Bolton's opinion. Despite this studied avoidance, it's time to have a public debate about how much immigration enforcement this country wants and which enforcement policies--the administration's or Arizona's -- best represent the public will.

Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and co-author of The





Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/White-House-doesn_t-want-to-enforce-immigration-1007060-99891419.html#ixzz0w8gI2nha



*

*

ARTICLE

8 Out of 10 Illegals Apprehended in 2010 Never Prosecuted

http://www.alipac.us/article-6162-thread-1-0.html





Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)





Article Link:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=240045



*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, September 28, 2009





And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is headed.



*



CONTACT THE HISPANDERING LA RAZA PARTY PRESIDENT HERE:



You can contact President Obama and let him know of your opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/



*



Wake up America!!! Illegal Immigration has to be stopped. Take a look at this website and see where all your tax dollars are going: http://immigrationcounters.com/



See: CFR’s Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20050816.htm The Great Alien Invasion - What's Happening Now http://www.rense.com/general69/inva.htm



No comments: