Sunday, March 18, 2012

ALIPAC FIGHTS FOR AMERICANS (legals) TO PUSH BACK MEXICAN FASCISM OF LA RAZA "THE RACE"

Friends of ALIPAC,

Last week we had to go into emergency mode to raise funds. We had to choose between the survival of the organization or fighting illegal immigration.

Please help us get back in the fight against illegal immigration strong Monday. We only have $2,000 left to raise to be able to fund ALIPAC for the next two months and allow us to focus on the enemy. We must launch our candidate support operations and we can do that tomorrow if you will respond well to this email.

Please send in a donation of any amount, even if it is only $5 or $10. If you will all try to do something we can make our goal and deploy the organization the illegal alien invasion supporters fear the most!

"Yes, I want ALIPAC to leave emergency mode and launch illegal immigration fighting operations tomorrow and I am donating to help that happen via this link...."
http://www.alipac.us/donations/

Letters will not be able to reach us by our March 20 deadline, but I will be available to speak with you and take your donations by phone if you prefer at (866) 703-0864

Yours in the cause,


William Gheen and The ALIPAC Team
www.alipac.us


PS: Only 48 hours left before our deadline expires! We are still 2k short of what we need to be able to continue! Please donate now at....
http://www.alipac.us/donations/

52% Support Arizona-Like Immigration Law in Their State - Rasmussen Reports™ - OBAMA'S CONTEMPT FOR OUR BORDERS, LAWS, AND LEGALS:

52% Support Arizona-Like Immigration Law in Their State - Rasmussen Reports™


Obama Administration Challenges Arizona E-Verify Law

The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to strike down a 2007 Arizona law that punishes employers who hire illegal aliens, a law enacted by then-Governor Janet Napolitano.  (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief).  Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law requires all employers in Arizona to use E-Verify and provides that the business licenses of those who hire illegal workers shall be repealed.  From the date of enactment, the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest groups have been trying to undo it, attacking it through a failed ballot initiative and also through a lawsuit. Now the Chamber is asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case (Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria), and the Obama Administration is weighing in against the law.

To date, Arizona’s E-Verify law has been upheld by all lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, viewed it as an exercise of a state’s traditional power to regulate businesses.  (San Francisco Chronicle, June 2, 2010).  Obama’s Justice Department, however, disagrees. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in his filing with the Supreme Court that the lower courts were wrong to uphold the statute because federal immigration law expressly preempts any state law imposing sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants.  Mr. Katyal argues that this is not a licensing law, but “a statute that prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens and uses suspension and revocation of all state-issued licenses as its ultimate sanction.”  (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief, p. 10).  This is the administration’s first court challenge to a state’s authority to act against illegal immigration, and could be a preview of the battle brewing over Arizona’s recent illegal immigration crackdown through SB 1070. 

Napolitano has made no comment on the Department of Justice’s decision to challenge the 2007 law, but federal officials said that she has taken an active part in the debate over whether to do so. (Politico, May 28, 2010).   As Governor of Arizona, Napolitano said she believed the state law was valid and became a defendant in the many lawsuits against it. (Id.).

OBAMA’S AMERICA: Open & Undefended Borders!

“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”






* Obama soft on illegals enforcement




Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold.

*

Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)






*

OBAMA AND THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA







*


*


*


*


*












Supreme Court Update - Rasmussen Reports™ SOTOMAYER & the RISE OF LA RAZA FASCISM

Supreme Court Update - Rasmussen Reports™

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2012/03/sonia-sotomayer-obamas-la-raza.html

FROM HIS VERY FIRST DAY IN OFFICE, OBAMA HAS LIED TO THIS NATION AS HE SERVICED HIS BANKSTER DONORS, AND BUILT HIS LA RAZA “THE RACE” PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS!
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS INFESTED WITH CRIMINAL BANKSTERS, LIKE TIM GEITHNER, AND LA RAZA SUPREMACIST, LIKE OBAMA’S SEC. of LABOR HILDA SOLIS, OR LA RAZA V.P. CECELIA MUNOZ.
OBAMA’S CANDIDATE FOR THE SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE TO BE A PANDERER TO THE SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND LA RAZA PARTY MEMBER! HE FOUND SUCH A CANDIDATE IN THE SELF-STYLED “WISE LATINA” SOTOMAYER, A MEMBER of THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA! ON THE BENCH, SOTOMAYER REFERS TO ILLEGALS NOT AS LAWBREAKERS, BUT AS “UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS”. OBAMA REFERS TO ILLEGALS AS HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE OF “UNREGISTERED VOTERS”!
*
BARACK OBAMA FROM THE FLOOR of the SENATE – STATE of the UNION MESSAGE:
“I’m not here to punish banks!” ONE OF THE FEW TRUTHS THIS MAN HAS EVER TOLD!                                                                                                                                              
“Illegals are not including in Obamacare” A LIE
*
OBAMA’S DEPT. of LA RAZA JUSTICE HAS CAUTIOUSLY DANCED AROUND THE PROSECUTION OF ANY OF OBAMA’S CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS, BUT HAS RABIDLY FOUGHT AGAINST AMERICAN INTERESTS, OUR LAWS, BORDERS AND VOTING LIMITED TO AMERICAN CITIZENS!
OBAMA HAS SUED FOUR AMERICAN STATES ON BEHALF OF HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE.
OBAMA HAS SUE ARIZONA, AN AMERICAN STATE THAT HAS ATTEMPTED TO PUSH BACK THE MEX INVASION, CRIME STATE, WELFARE STATE, AND NARCOMEX INVASION!
OBAMA HAS SUED TO STOP E-VERIFY TO ASSURE HIS PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS A QUICK PATHWAY TO OUR JOBS, AND VOTING BOOTHS.
OBAMA HAS SUED AMERICAN STATES TO STOP THESE STATES FROM REQUIRING I.D.S TO HALT THE LA RAZA GET OUT THE VOTE!
OBAMA HAS TURNED OVER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA TO HELP THEM ORGANIZE ILLEGALS INTO VOTING!
VIVA LA RAZA?
WHILE OBAMA HAS DONE FUCKING NOTHING FOR BLACK AMERICA, HE’S GROVELED AT THE FEET OF HIS BANKSTERS AND LA RAZA FROM DAY ONE!!!

VOTERS). SOTOMAYER VOTED AGAINST MAKING E-VERIFY MANDATORY NATION WIDE!
*
The fundamental social division is class, not race or gender
28 May 2009
The introduction of Sonia Sotomayor as President Obama’s first selection for the US Supreme Court took place at a White House media event of a completely choreographed and stereotyped character. Such ceremonies have become an essential part of how America is governed. The less the political system is capable of actually responding to the needs and aspirations of working people, the more it must put on the pretense of concern, using biography as a substitute for policy.
As always on such occasions, the nomination’s “roll-out” was an unrestrained exercise in public tear-jerking. Led by President Obama, who based his own campaign on the marketing of a compelling personal “narrative,” Sotomayor’s elevation was presented as a triumph over all manner of adversity. There were tributes to the humble origins of the future Supreme Court justice, noting her hard-working immigrant parents, her poverty-stricken childhood in a South Bronx housing project, the death of her father when she was nine years old, and even her struggle with juvenile diabetes.
No doubt, it has not been an easy personal journey for Judge Sotomayor, and there can be little doubt that she is as tough as nails. However, amidst all the tributes to Judge Sotomayor’s triumph, one cannot help but think about the conditions that confront the hundreds of thousands of South Bronx residents whom she left behind.
There is another element of Sotomayor’s nomination that deserves analysis. Media coverage of the nomination, and the bulk of the political commentary, liberal and conservative, approving and hostile, focused on the fact that she would become the first Hispanic and third woman to take a seat on the highest US court. The premise of both supporters and detractors was that Sotomayor’s gender and ethnic origins were of decisive importance in evaluating her nomination and determining her likely course on the court.
Totally obliterated in this flood of commentary is the most fundamental social category in American society: class. Sotomayor will go to the Supreme Court, not as the representative or advocate of Hispanics, women or the socially disadvantaged more generally, but as the representative of a definite social class at the top of American society—the financial aristocracy whose interests she and every other federal judge, and the entire capitalist state machine, loyally serve and defend.
Only one “mainstream” bourgeois publication focused on this critical question. That was the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page serves as a major voice of the ultra-right—denouncing the Sotomayor nomination in strident tones—but whose news pages explored her record as a well-paid commercial litigator and federal judge, on issues of direct interest to big business, including contract law, employment and property rights.
The newspaper quoted several Wall Street lawyers describing Sotomayor as a safe choice for corporate America. “There is no reason for the business community to be concerned,” said one attorney. Barry Ostrager, a partner at Simpson Thacher LLP who defended a unit of J.P. Morgan Chase in a lawsuit over fraudulent pricing of initial public offerings, cited Sotomayor’s role in an appeals court ruling barring the class-action suit. “That ruling demonstrated that in securities litigation, she is in the judicial mainstream,” he told the Journal.
Barack Obama is the culmination of this process. Celebrated as the first African-American president, he has overseen the greatest handover of resources to the billionaires and Wall Street speculators in history. In the restructuring of the auto industry, with ever-escalating demands for cuts in jobs, pay and benefits for auto workers, he has set the stage for the greatest assault on the working class since the Reagan administration smashed the PATCO air traffic controllers strike in 1981 and gave the signal for a nationwide campaign of wage-cutting and union-busting. In this, Obama demonstrates that the class he serves, not the color of his skin or his social origins, is the decisive political factor.
The political development of the American working class requires, first and foremost, the direct and open discussion of the class realities of American society. No country in the world is as deeply and intractably divided along economic lines as the United States, where the top 1 percent of the population owns 40 percent of the wealth and monopolizes 20 percent of the income. Any analysis of the political issues facing working people that does not take these class divisions as the fundamental reality is an exercise in deception and political stultification.
Patrick Martin
*
“The stimulus plan purports to address the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression without examining its underlying causes or the social interests that underlie the crisis. This is no accident, since the fundamental premise of all of the measures taken in response to the crisis, by Obama no less than Bush, is the defense of the interests of the financial elite.”
*
Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).
*
OBAMA SELECTED LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILDA SOLIS TO ADVANCE THE OBAMA AGENDA OF KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED, AND BUY THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES BY MAKING SURE ILLEGALS GET OUR JOBS! THE EASIEST WAY TO DO THIS IS TO SABOTAGE LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS. OBAMA, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE OBAMA DEPT. of LA RAZA JUSTICE, AND THE LA RAZA DEMS ARE SABOTAGING E-VERIFY ALL OVER THE NATION!
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Friday, June 5, 2009

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor faces new questions about her views on group and identity politics... after it became clear she has a long history of making race-and-gender based remarks. We’ll have a special report. Sotomayor’s views on our Second Amendment rights are the
subject of our face off debate tonight.

*

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Sotomayor Evasive, Disingenuous During Confirmation Hearings
The eagerly anticipated confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor got underway this week. And how did she do?
Let’s start with Sotomayor’s rambling and constantly shifting explanation for one of her most controversial statements – that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” This racist remark was made during a speech Sotomayor delivered to students at Cal Berkeley in 2001. The reason it is getting so much attention is that it calls into question Judge Sotomayor’s impartiality – and she made the remark repeatedly through the years. (Judicial Watch addressed this comment and many other troublesome statements and activities by Sotomayor in a letter to Senators Patrick Leahy, D-VT, and Jeff Sessions, R-AL, last week. You can read it by clicking here.)
During the hearing, at first, Sotomayor dismissed the statement as a “rhetorical flourish” that “fell flat.” However, under subsequent questioning Sotomayor attempted to defend her remarks, indicating that it was an attempt to “inspire” her audience. Of course Sotomayor quickly added that the comment has nothing to do with her attitude towards dispensing justice, which she claims is firmly rooted in the rule of law. (Action by the Supreme Court might argue this point, given that the High Court just overturned the decision she helped make in the Ricci racial discrimination matter. Click here for more.)
Sotomayor also tried to justify the comment by comparing it to allegedly similar ones made by Justice Alito and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. And in another explanation she said her words shouldn’t be taken literally.
“I think she just made it more muddled,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In sum, Judge Sotomayor tried to deny the plain meaning of her “wise Latina” statements. This disingenuous approach may pass muster in Washington, but most people would be troubled by her lawyerly evasions.
Can you recall a Supreme Court nominee in recent years that has had to spend so much time defending their impartiality as a judge? I can’t.
On the issue of abortion Sotomayor said that she feels Roe v Wade is “settled law.” According to The Associated Press: “Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday that she considers the question of abortion rights is settled precedent and says there is a constitutional right to privacy...Answering a question later from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sotomayor said that “all precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law…” This doesn’t mean much, as the Supreme Court regularly overturns its precedents.
Judge Sotomayor said she had no idea why one of her former colleagues at the New York law firm Pavia & Harcourt would say, "I can guarantee she'll be for abortion rights." Maybe he knew of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund’s radical pro-abortion agenda when she helped run the organization? But Judge Sotomayor professed to have no clue about the legal positions of her former group, despite the fact that she set the group’s litigation agenda.
Senator Lindsey Graham also initiated a tough, dramatic line of questioning with respect to Sotomayor’s temperament. In fact, Senator Graham flat out asked her: “Do you have a temperament problem?” (Sotomayor has been described as a “bully” on the bench.) Sotomayor attempted to defend herself against the charge but the issue was still left hanging in the hearing room.
Sotomayor’s problem for this hearing was a big one. She has had to defend the indefensible. She did this by reversing course, professing fidelity to the law, disavowing her radical judicial philosophy as described in her many speeches and writings, and by misleading the committee on one some of her more controversial decisions.
The judge went so far as to disavow President Obama’s lawless “empathy” standard for picking judges. Judge Sotomayor said that she would apply the law to the facts. She said, “Judges can’t rely on what is in their heart.”
In the end, she sounded like the most conservative nominee to the Supreme Court by a Democratic president in thirty years. (It is interesting that, even in the age of Obama, liberal jurists must pretend to be conservatives to gain Senate approval. It confirms the victory of conservatives in framing the public policy debate over liberal judicial activism. Even Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court must pretend to reject judicial activism.)
There is no question, given all of her “wise Latina” and other radical statements and her long-term connection to groups such as the far-left Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, that Judge Sotomayor is the wrong judge for a seat on the Supreme Court. I don’t believe her confirmation conversion to “fidelity to the law.”
Unfortunately, Republicans seem resigned to the fact that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed with little debate, but it’s not too late to change the situation. You must make your voices heard! Even liberal Senator Feinstein (D-CA) admitted this week that she had received calls of concern on the Sotomayor nomination. These calls matter. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard today at 202-224-3121, and let your senators know your thoughts.
Some in the press have characterized the Sotomayor hearings as “grueling.” I attended them for a bit and I found them interesting – in how a nominee can evade questions, deny her record, and largely control the room in the face of questioning by hapless senators. A well-prepared lawyer like Judge Sotomayor can do these types of hearings in their sleep.
There have been some tough questions for sure, but without an underlying commitment to carefully making the case against this nomination too many of the questions amounted to nothing more than “rhetorical flourishes” that “fall flat.” As a result, Americans may end up with a biased, activist justice on the Supreme Court.
*
VIVA LA RAZA?

Sonia Sotomayor opposes E-Verify requirement
True to form, she said it was illegal to make employers e-verify citizen status of new hires.

Interesting, she says a state cannot force employers to check if employees they are hiring are illegal. Thankfully the court ruled 5-3 supporting law. But now we know for sure just how extreme far left Obama's choice was. We cannot afford Obama to get another term, or you can bet this country will be overrun by illegals. I don't want this country to be poor and corrupt like Mexico, which it will if illegals overrun the country.
*
Obama Administration Challenges Arizona E-Verify Law
The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to strike down a 2007 Arizona law that punishes employers who hire illegal aliens, a law enacted by then-Governor Janet Napolitano.  (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief).  Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law requires all employers in Arizona to use E-Verify and provides that the business licenses of those who hire illegal workers shall be repealed.  From the date of enactment, the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest groups have been trying to undo it, attacking it through a failed ballot initiative and also through a lawsuit. Now the Chamber is asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case (Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria), and the Obama Administration is weighing in against the law.
To date, Arizona’s E-Verify law has been upheld by all lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, viewed it as an exercise of a state’s traditional power to regulate businesses.  (San Francisco Chronicle, June 2, 2010).  Obama’s Justice Department, however, disagrees. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in his filing with the Supreme Court that the lower courts were wrong to uphold the statute because federal immigration law expressly preempts any state law imposing sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants.  Mr. Katyal argues that this is not a licensing law, but “a statute that prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens and uses suspension and revocation of all state-issued licenses as its ultimate sanction.”  (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief, p. 10).  This is the administration’s first court challenge to a state’s authority to act against illegal immigration, and could be a preview of the battle brewing over Arizona’s recent illegal immigration crackdown through SB 1070. 
Napolitano has made no comment on the Department of Justice’s decision to challenge the 2007 law, but federal officials said that she has taken an active part in the debate over whether to do so. (Politico, May 28, 2010).   As Governor of Arizona, Napolitano said she believed the state law was valid and became a defendant in the many lawsuits against it. (Id.).

*
Sotomayor’s record: A judicial pragmatist and defender of corporate interests
By Don Knowland
17 July 2009
As a nominee to the US Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor is reliable defender of corporate interests, siding with big business, government authority and the police far more than with the poor, the arrested or the oppressed. With 17 years on the federal courts, the most of any Supreme Court nominee in more than half a century, she is anything but an unknown quantity.
In her five years as a federal district court trial judge, Sotomayor issued hundreds of written decisions. In 12 years on the appellate court, she has been the principal author of over 150 opinions. She joined in the majority opinion in over 350 cases.
A survey of her written decisions reveals a jurist firmly wedded to the bourgeois mainstream, particularly when business interests are at stake, and not given to sweeping formulations. The New York Times legal correspondent assigned to cover the Supreme Court wrote that Sotomayor’s opinions “reveal no larger vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language.”
A Congressional Research Service analysis found that Sotomayor’s rulings could not be easily categorized in ideological terms, and “showed an adherence to precedent, an emphasis on the facts of a case, and an avoidance of overstepping the court’s judicial role.”
According to one of Sotomayor’s former law clerks, “She is a rule-bound pragmatist-very geared toward determining what the right answer is and what the law dictates...” Sotomayor herself has professed to follow a narrow “just the facts” approach to judicial decision-making, a style described by some as judicial minimalism.
However, when important issues arise that affect more fundamental interests of the ruling elite, such as national security matters or big economic questions, Sotomayor comes down invariably on the side of the establishment, at the expense of the majority of society.
A law-and-order judge
As with most former prosecutors, Sotomayor has a negative if not hostile view of the rights of those accused of crimes. Encomiums from her former associates at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and various New York and national police organizations were read into the record of her confirmation hearing.
According to Leroy Frazer Jr., first assistant district attorney in Manhattan and a former colleague of Sotomayor, she “has contributed greatly to law enforcement in New York” as a judge. John Siffert, an attorney who taught appellate advocacy with Sotomayor at New York University School of Law for ten years, confirms that she is loath to overturn criminal convictions. “She was not viewed as a pro-defense judge” while she sat as a trial judge, Siffert told the press.
One decision Sotomayor authored as an appellate judge upheld the use of evidence police seized mistakenly, thinking they had a warrant. The Supreme Court’s five-justice conservative bloc came to the same conclusion this year, over the dissent of the court’s four moderate justices. Jeffrey Fisher, a Stanford Law School professor who was on the losing side of the January Supreme Court decision, said Judge Sotomayor’s ruling displayed her “willingness to give police the benefit of the doubt.”
One case decided by Sotomayor as an appellate judge involved the timeliness of the habeas corpus petition filed by a prisoner convicted of murder and rape. Congress had only recently passed President Bill Clinton’s Anti-Terrorism-Effective Death Penalty Act, which imposed a one-year time limit on such petitions. Confusion existed in the federal courts regarding how the new law would be applied to pending cases. Following the advice of a court clerk, the defendant’s attorney mailed in rather than filed the appeal the day it was due.
Sotomayor and her colleagues on the case refused to consider the petition, ruling that it was untimely and that its lateness was not excusable. They also summarily brushed off the defendant’s claim to innocence, even though guilt was based on a confession the police coerced when the defendant was 17. The defendant then spent six more years in jail before DNA testing conclusively established his innocence.
Capital and labor
While frequently dissenting against reactionary rulings on issues involving democratic rights, the four-justice moderate bloc on the Supreme Court has increasingly tended to join the court’s right wing in favoring big business over workers and consumers where their economic interests are explicitly counterposed, as in cases involving punitive damage awards against giant corporations.
Sotomayor is unlikely to buck that trend. She currently sits in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears the most important appeals affecting Wall Street and the financial industry. That court’s 2006 decision strongly favored Wall Street in a group of cases involving thousands of investors suing dozens of the largest banks and investment houses, including Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and the now defunct Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. The plaintiffs charged massive fraud involving manipulation of the market for initial public offerings of company shares. Such schemes played a major role in inflating the dot.com and telecom bubbles.
As a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case could proceed only if they could band together for class actions. The appellate ruling dismissed the cases on the basis that questions as to what information and assurances individual plaintiffs relied on in purchasing shares precluded finding sufficient commonality to permit the cases to proceed on a class action basis. This amounted to an extremely strained reading of the rules regarding class action suits and reduced the value of the plaintiffs’ recovery by many billions of dollars.
Sotomayor’s most well known decision as a district court judge involved her issuing an injunction in 1995 against baseball team owners during the longest strike in baseball history, which followed an owner lock-out of players. Sotomayor ruled that the National Relations Labor Board had cause to believe that baseball owners committed unfair labor practices by eliminating free agency and salary arbitration provisions of the expired collective bargaining agreement. She ordered the owners to bargain in good faith on those issues. The strike then ended.
As an appellate judge, Sotomayor has favored working class plaintiffs mainly in disability cases. In one case, Sotomayor ruled that New York did not sufficiently accommodate a dyslexic applicant taking the bar examination.
Sotomayor dissented in a 2003 case brought by the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission against a major trucking company relating to discrimination against drivers who took medication that the company believed impaired driving. Federal regulations provide that discrimination occurs if a company perceives that a worker or workers have an impairment as to a “class of jobs” compared to average persons of comparable skill, as opposed to single jobs. The majority dismissed the case, saying that the evidence showed only that the employer perceived the drivers as incapable of long-distance, stressful driving jobs. Sotomayor argued that there was sufficient evidence that the employer perceived the impairment to extend to any truck driving jobs, an entire “class of jobs,” such that the case should proceed to trial.
Constitutional rights
Outside of the criminal case context, Sotomayor has shown some favor toward suits challenging violation of the Fourth Amendment probable cause and warrant requirements and due process rights.
In a 2002 case, Sotomayor wrote that New York City’s policy of seizing and then keeping for an extended period of time, sometimes for years, vehicles used by alleged drunk drivers or in other misdemeanor crimes violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The City’s ordinance permitted it to file a civil case seeking the forfeiture of vehicles of those found guilty. But the forfeiture cases were often deferred for many months or even years, while the underlying criminal cases were resolved. Sotomayor’s ruling required a meaningful hearing at a meaningful time as to whether the vehicle’s owner could recover it. Her decision reversed the trial court ruling of then-District Judge Michael Mukasey, who later became George Bush’s last attorney general.
In a case seeking damages for a house search based on a flawed warrant, Sotomayor dissented in order to challenge the formulation used by the majority to define when a police officer is entitled to “qualified immunity” from suit for such a violation. The Supreme Court excuses an officer from such constitutional violations unless the law is so clear that an objectively reasonable officer could not believe his conduct is lawful. Sotomayor objected to her circuit’s formulation of this defense that gave police officers extra latitude in meeting that standard.
Sotomayor wrote a 2006 opinion approving suspicionless searches of passenger carry-on luggage and car trunks before boarding a ferry, based on the government’s purported interest in deterring terrorist attacks on large vessels engaged in mass transportation. She joined another decision that struck down a portion of the Patriot Act relating to disclosure of National Security Letters on First Amendment grounds.
In a 2002 case, Sotomayor authored an opinion that gave prison officials wide latitude to infringe prisoner First Amendment rights by withholding incoming mail if they could articulate some security justification for such action. In other cases, Sotomayor has granted latitude to prisoners in exercising religious rights.
Wsws.org… get on their free daily emails for updates on corporate rape and pillage
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Thursday, July 9, 2009

And Harvard economics professor JEFFREY MIRON will weigh in on the state of the U.S. economy—and why the only plausible argument for bailing out banks crumbles on close examination.
*

HECTOR TOBAR IS THE L.A. TIMES LA RAZA SUPREMACIST
From the Los Angeles Times
Latina lawyer learned law at Harvard, gains wisdom in Compton ( COMPTON, MEX GANGLAND!)
Attorney Luz Herrera hopes that Sonia Sotomayor, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, can get across the message that the Latino experience is already 'a part of the fabric of U.S. society.'
Hector Tobar

June 2, 2009

I made a pilgrimage to Compton last week in search of wisdom, to a little storefront with bars over the windows and a liquor-grocer next door.

Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court nominee, set me off on this quest with her oft-repeated observation that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male . . . "

Southern California is home, arguably, to more wise Latinas than any other place in the United States. The only Latina in Obama's cabinet (Labor Secretary Hilda Solis) is from here. And I personally know dozens more, starting with my mother, my wife, my mother-in-law and assorted professors, activists and sharp-minded stay-at-home moms.

But Judge Sotomayor was referring, specifically, to the law. So I thought I should go find a smart Latina attorney and ask her if she thought that was true. Does American jurisprudence look different from a Latina woman's eyes, and if so, what does she see in the United States that a wise "white male" does not?

Until recently, Luz Herrera, 36, ran a solo law practice in Compton. She was born in Tijuana to Mexican parents and raised in heavily Latino neighborhoods of unincorporated West Whittier. But she'll be the first to tell you that her background alone didn't make her wise. Neither, she says, did Harvard Law School, from which she graduated in 1999.

"I learned to think like a lawyer there," she said of Harvard. "I learned how to be a lawyer here. That's what Compton gave me."

What Sotomayor can bring to American justice, Herrera told me, is something that Herrera longs for every day: the understanding that the Latino experience is already "a part of the fabric of U.S. society" and that this truth should be reflected in our legal system. PART OF THE FABRIC WE NEED TO RID OURSELVES OF!!!!

From the Los Angeles Times

Speeches reveal more about Sotomayor's thoughts on race

The Senate Judiciary Committee receives a file on the Supreme Court nominee's life from Princeton onward. She has spoken on other occasions of ethnic identity and her hopes about 'wise Latina' judges.
By David G. Savage

June 5, 2009
Reporting from Washington — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, already facing controversy for a 2001 speech on the virtue of having "a wise Latina" as a judge, made similar comments in a series of speeches released Thursday.
She said the nation is "deeply confused" about the proper role of race and ethnic identity, and she maintained that her identity as a Latina shaped her life and her work in court. She hoped "a wise Latina" would reach a "better conclusion" than a white male, she said on several occasions.
Since her nomination, conservative activists have cited the comment as evidence that she would rule based on her ethnic identity.
President Obama sought to defuse the criticism last week. "I'm sure she would have restated it," he said, adding that she was "simply saying that her life experience will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through."
The speeches were among a thick file, including court opinions and financial documents, that the White House sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. They cover 35 years of Sotomayor's life, from her days as a Princeton student through her time as a prosecutor, corporate lawyer, trial judge and appeals court judge.
She reported a net worth of $740,000, consisting mostly of her $1.1-million condominium in New York City. She has a $381,000 mortgage and about $31,000 in the bank. She reported owning no stocks, bonds or mutual funds.
She said that White House Counsel Gregory Craig first contacted her about the Supreme Court vacancy on April 27 -- five days before Justice David H. Souter publicly announced he was retiring.
In a speech at Princeton in 1996, she said: "I began a lifelong commitment to identifying myself as a Latina" while at Princeton, "taking pride in being Hispanic, and in recognizing my obligation to help my community reach its fullest potential in this society."
She added: "I underscore that in saying this I am not promoting ethnic segregation. I am promoting just the opposite: an ethnic identity and pride which impels us to work with others in the larger society to achieve advancement for the people of our cultures."
"America has a deeply confused image of itself that is a perpetual source of tension," she said at a 2006 gathering of Latino students at Yale Law School. "We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race- and colorblind way that ignores those very differences that in other contexts we laud." VIVA LA RAZA SUPREMACY?
She said that the Supreme Court was "just as fractured" as society over the role of race in public decisions, such as college affirmative action.
"This tension leads many of us to struggle with maintaining and promoting our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about to how to deal with its differences," she said.
Sotomayor repeated that she disagreed with a comment attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that "a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion" in deciding cases. "I'm not so sure that I agree with the statement," she said at Seton Hall Law in 2003. "I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
Two years earlier, at the UC Berkeley law school, she said she hoped the "wise Latina" would reach "a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
*

THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) STATES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, WHERE HALF OF ALL JOBS ARE HELD BY ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. TO BLOCK THE USE OF E-VERIFY, THE LA RAZA CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW SIGNED BY LA RAZA DEM JERRY BROWN MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY!!! THIS SAME COUNTY PAYS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, AND HAS A TAX-FREE MEXICAN ECONOMY CALCULATED TO BE MORE THAN $2 BILLION PER YEAR!

VIVA LA RAZA?

OBAMA’S AMERICA: Open & Undefended Borders!

“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”


Obama soft on illegals enforcement

Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold.

*
Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)

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

*

OBAMA AND THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA



*


*


*


*


*










Rep. Gutierrez uses South Carolina case to criticize Obama on immigration - TheHill.com

Rep. Gutierrez uses South Carolina case to criticize Obama on immigration - TheHill.com


GUTIERREZ IS A LA RAZA SUPREMACIST PARTY MEMBER.

ILLEGALS ABOVE THE LAW!






ASK YOURSELF IF YOU REALLY WANT OBAMA’S OPEN & UNDEFENDED BORDERS EVEN AS HE CONTINUES TO SQUANDER BILLIONS EVERY MONTH IN WARS TO PROTECT THE BUSH FAMILY’S FRIENDS, THE 9-11 INVADING SAUDIS FROM THEIR ENEMIES, THE IRAQIS AND IRANIANS???

JUDICIAL WATCH

Illegal Immigrant Rapist Had Been Deported 9 Times

Last Updated: Tue, 05/25/2010 - 9:24am

In what appears to be a growing national trend, an illegal immigrant with an extensive criminal record and multiple deportation orders remained in the U.S. long enough to commit yet another atrocious crime.

The tragic case in Washington State marks the latest of many examples illustrating the government’s inefficiency in keeping dangerous illegal aliens out of the United States, even when they have well-documented criminal histories and federal orders to leave the country.

In this case a Mexican national with an extensive criminal record and nine deportation orders raped a woman in Edmonds, a picturesque waterfront town famous for its views of the Olympic Mountains rising above Puget Sound. The illegal immigrant (Jose Lopez Madrigal) was first deported in California more than two decades ago and has since been convicted of a multitude of violent crimes, including armed theft, sexual assault and drug-related offenses.

The crimes were committed in different states—California and Colorado among them—and Madrigal had a staggering number of encounters with law enforcement in the last two decades, according to the local news report that broke the story of his multiple deportations. When he got arrested this last time, it took authorities longer than usual to learn his real identity because he had well over two dozen aliases.

The level of incompetence among federal immigration authorities in this case would be comical if Madrigal’s crimes weren’t so heinous. After the first deportation in 1989 for using a firearm to commit theft, Madrigal got deported several more times in the next few years. In 1999 he was deported three times in a four-month period after drug-related arrests. After a similar offense in 2000 he got deported yet again and in 2002 he got deported after pleading guilty to sexual assault in Denver. In 2003 Madrigal got deported three more times.

It would seem like a huge joke if the illegal immigrant didn’t brutally rape a woman last week. Evidently ashamed, officials at the Homeland Security agency (Immigration and Customs Enforcement—ICE) responsible for removing such thugs refuse to comment on the case. One criminal justice source quoted in the news report says Madrigal is a “poster boy” for the federal government’s ineffectiveness at keeping the most serious criminal aliens out of the United States.

It’s not like this is an isolated incident. In the last few years alone similar cases have rocked the nation. On Mothers’ Day last year a 17-year-old girl was murdered in Nevada by an admitted illegal alien gang member who had been convicted of a felony years earlier and deported.

A year earlier authorities in Arizona discovered that a serial rapist who targeted young girls was a twice deported Mexican who lived and worked in the U.S. despite his documented history of drug charges. He was caught only because the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s largest county (Maricopa) bothered to confirm his immigration status.


*




FOURTEEN YEAR OLD MEXICAN BOY BEHEADS FOUR NARCOMEX RIVALS -

Youth sought in Mexico killings arrested


Edgar Jimenez Lugo, who authorities said was born in San Diego, was wanted on suspicion of killing rivals — allegedly beheading some — as part of his work for a violent drug-trafficking cartel.
*

MEXICAN RAPIST HAD BEEN DEPORTED 9 TIMES - OBAMA'S OPEN & UNDEFENDED BORDERS AT WORK!


ASK YOURSELF IF YOU REALLY WANT OBAMA’S OPEN & UNDEFENDED BORDERS EVEN AS HE CONTINUES TO SQUANDER BILLIONS EVERY MONTH IN WARS TO PROTECT THE BUSH FAMILY’S FRIENDS, THE 9-11 INVADING SAUDIS FROM THEIR ENEMIES, THE IRAQIS AND IRANIANS???

JUDICIAL WATCH

Illegal Immigrant Rapist Had Been Deported 9 Times

Last Updated: Tue, 05/25/2010 - 9:24am

In what appears to be a growing national trend, an illegal immigrant with an extensive criminal record and multiple deportation orders remained in the U.S. long enough to commit yet another atrocious crime.

The tragic case in Washington State marks the latest of many examples illustrating the government’s inefficiency in keeping dangerous illegal aliens out of the United States, even when they have well-documented criminal histories and federal orders to leave the country.

In this case a Mexican national with an extensive criminal record and nine deportation orders raped a woman in Edmonds, a picturesque waterfront town famous for its views of the Olympic Mountains rising above Puget Sound. The illegal immigrant (Jose Lopez Madrigal) was first deported in California more than two decades ago and has since been convicted of a multitude of violent crimes, including armed theft, sexual assault and drug-related offenses.

The crimes were committed in different states—California and Colorado among them—and Madrigal had a staggering number of encounters with law enforcement in the last two decades, according to the local news report that broke the story of his multiple deportations. When he got arrested this last time, it took authorities longer than usual to learn his real identity because he had well over two dozen aliases.

The level of incompetence among federal immigration authorities in this case would be comical if Madrigal’s crimes weren’t so heinous. After the first deportation in 1989 for using a firearm to commit theft, Madrigal got deported several more times in the next few years. In 1999 he was deported three times in a four-month period after drug-related arrests. After a similar offense in 2000 he got deported yet again and in 2002 he got deported after pleading guilty to sexual assault in Denver. In 2003 Madrigal got deported three more times.

It would seem like a huge joke if the illegal immigrant didn’t brutally rape a woman last week. Evidently ashamed, officials at the Homeland Security agency (Immigration and Customs Enforcement—ICE) responsible for removing such thugs refuse to comment on the case. One criminal justice source quoted in the news report says Madrigal is a “poster boy” for the federal government’s ineffectiveness at keeping the most serious criminal aliens out of the United States.

It’s not like this is an isolated incident. In the last few years alone similar cases have rocked the nation. On Mothers’ Day last year a 17-year-old girl was murdered in Nevada by an admitted illegal alien gang member who had been convicted of a felony years earlier and deported.

A year earlier authorities in Arizona discovered that a serial rapist who targeted young girls was a twice deported Mexican who lived and worked in the U.S. despite his documented history of drug charges. He was caught only because the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s largest county (Maricopa) bothered to confirm his immigration status.


*




FOURTEEN YEAR OLD MEXICAN BOY BEHEADS FOUR NARCOMEX RIVALS -

Youth sought in Mexico killings arrested


Edgar Jimenez Lugo, who authorities said was born in San Diego, was wanted on suspicion of killing rivals — allegedly beheading some — as part of his work for a violent drug-trafficking cartel.

*
December 03, 2010|By Tracy Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times


Reporting from Mexico City — A 14-year-old boy who says he's been killing or working for drug cartels since he was 11 has been captured by the Mexican army after a monthlong hunt, authorities said Friday.
Edgar Jimenez Lugo, who authorities said was born in San Diego, was wanted on suspicion of killing rivals — allegedly beheading some of them — as part of his work for an especially violent drug-trafficking cartel.

Jimenez was attempting to board a flight for Tijuana with two sisters Thursday night when authorities detained him in Morelos state south of Mexico City. They were apparently planning to flee the country after the boy's alleged exploits made headlines last month.
"I've killed four people by chopping off their heads," the boy reportedly said after his capture. "I just cut off their heads; I never went and hung the bodies from bridges or anything like that."
Jimenez, alias El Ponchis, was quoted in media reports as saying he had been forced to work for a faction of the Beltran Leyva drug cartel under pain of death ever since henchmen from the group kidnapped him three years ago. He said he was usually high on drugs as he killed.
Marco Antonio Adame, the governor of Morelos, said in a news conference that Jimenez was a U.S. citizen by virtue of his San Diego birth.
The story of the boy had become something of a cause celebre here when it first emerged several weeks ago. Rumors abounded that he was a ruthless decapitator and that some of his work had been videotaped. (Initial reports erroneously put his age at 12.) Mexican media immediately dubbed him "the boy killer" and "the hit boy."
Photographs from Morelos on Friday showed a skinny Jimenez, dressed in baggy cargo pants and a black sweatshirt, standing between two well-armed soldiers in camouflage. His hands are stuck in his pockets and his head barely clears their shoulders.
The drug gang he allegedly worked for, the so-called South Pacific Cartel, has been locked in deadly battle with another Beltran Leyva faction for control of the city of Cuernavaca and other parts of Morelos — a dispute that erupted following the killing of drug boss Arturo Beltran Leyva by Mexican forces a year ago. More than 300 people have been killed in the conflict.
Jimenez reportedly ran with a group of boys and men ages 12 to 23 and represents a trend of ever younger Mexicans working for the cartels as killers, mules and enforcers and in other capacities. If judged guilty, the boy would be the youngest cartel killer known to be in prison.
His age poses a legal dilemma for Mexican authorities, who on Friday were scrambling to figure out which laws and agencies would handle a minor suspected of such egregious crimes.
Also Friday, in another setback for Mexican attempts to put away drug traffickers, a judge acquitted the nicknamed "Queen of the Pacific" of numerous drug-related charges. Sandra Avila Beltran has been in jail since her capture in 2007, accused of serving as a key link between the Sinaloa cartel and its Colombian counterparts. A rare woman in the world of reputed drug lords, Avila remained in custody because of an outstanding extradition request from the United
*

*
Illegals Committing Heinous Acts Against Children & civilians in U.S.


PDThttp://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html

EXAMPLE #1 : • What sort of monster could murder three children in the most brutal manner — one child was beheaded and the two other were nearly decapitated. They also suffered a variety of injuries including blunt force trauma and asphyxiation. The victims, residents of Baltimore, (l. to r.) were siblings Alexis Quezada (10) and Lucero Quezada (9) and their cousin Ricardo Espinoza (9). The two men arrested for the crime were also relatives: Policarpio Espinoza, 22, brother of the father of the two siblings, and Espinoza's cousin Adan Espinoza Canela, 17. The accused are illegal aliens as are the parents of the murdered children. Apparently the arrests were based on DNA/blood evidence.

*

THERE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 2,000 CALIFORNIANS MURDERED BY ILLEGALS THAT FLED BACK OVER THE BORDER TO MEXICO TO AVOID PROSECUTION. HOW MANY SINCE 2004 HAVE BEEN MURDERED? HOW MANY MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS HAVE CLIMBED OUR BORDERS AND JOBS SINCE THEN?

*
Illegal Immigration and Crime
By James R. Edwards, Jr.

Posted November 22, 2004


Immigrant criminality represents perhaps the worst abuse of the liberty aliens enjoy in the United States. Increasingly, the government closest to the people either finds its hands tied or cravenly abrogates its responsibility to fellow Americans within its jurisdiction. Moreover, the illegal element exacerbates the economic and other burdens caused by legal immigration.
The current high rate of sustained, mass immigration—more than one million legal immigrants plus half a million illegal aliens every year—forces many states and localities into turmoil. The illegals certainly live outside the obligations that those who live under the "consent of the governed" owe to each other: While the principles of the Declaration of Independence guarantee all human beings certain natural and unalienable rights, only parties who have consented to our government deserve the full rights of citizenship. Illegal immigrants are not part of the social contract giving legitimacy to this government. American citizens have not given their consent to higher taxes, crowded schools, jammed emergency rooms, clogged roads, unlawful turning of single-family homes into hotels or apartments into tenements, forced multicultural amenities such as bilingual education and multilingual ballots, or welfare and other services subsidizing poverty-prone immigrants. Above all, they never consented to higher crime rates.

While anyone who decries illegal immigration is required to distinguish it from legal immigration, the effects of legal immigration should first be noted. Robert Samuelson recently wrote in his Washington Post column that "Hispanics account for most of the increase in poverty" since 1990. "Compared with 1990, there were actually 700,000 fewer non-Hispanic whites in poverty last year . . . . Meanwhile, the number of poor Hispanics is up by 3 million since 1990. The health insurance story is similar. Last year 13 million Hispanics lacked insurance. They're 60 percent of the rise since 1990." And of course a growing proportion of the Hispanic population is immigrants poorer than their predecessors. Samuelson remarks that the black poverty rate in this period has actually dropped, from 32 to 24 percent.
To add to Samuelson's observations, consider the reports from the Center for Immigration Studies by its Steven Camarota and Harvard's George Borjas detailing the negative economic impact of recent immigrants on native-born wages and employment. Illegal immigrants impose an even greater burden, because they pay few taxes and they drain public services such as health care, education, and other benefits of the welfare state. While many federal programs deny assistance to illegals, many state and local programs and privileges are open to them. The National Academy of Sciences found in a 1997 landmark study that immigrantheaded households in 1994-1995 placed a net annual fiscal burden on California native-born residents of $1,178 per native household.That is, each American family in California subsidized that state's immigrant population by nearly $1,200 a year.
The NAS report also said fiscal impacts tend to benefit the federal government and drain state and local government resources. "Much like anyone else in the population, immigrants use services that are costly to provide, or that others can use less freely—so-called congestion costs. Examples include services from roads, sewers, police and fire departments, libraries, airports, and foreign embassies." Therefore, having a much larger immigrant population (29 percent of the U.S. foreign-born, a fourth of the State's population) bloats California's budget significantly.
The national government has exclusive power over immigration, and it has mandated certain public benefits for immigrants, legal or illegal, such as public education (see the 1982 Supreme Court case, Plyler v. Doe). States and localities then bear the costs and consequences of all immigration.And they respond differently, with differing consequences for their people.
The Florida legislature rejected a bill issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Kansas state legislators voted to give illegal aliens instate college tuition. Alabama and Florida state police work closely with federal immigration enforcers. New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have "sanctuary" policies that keep city employees, even police, from asking about immigration status. An Idaho county commissioner billed Mexico for the $2 million illegal aliens owe for county services.
The impact is seen particularly in crime: Record-high auto thefts in Arizona, drug trafficking in Salt Lake City, human smuggling rings in Los Angeles, D.C. sniper Lee Malvo, money laundering, prostitution, gang murders, and even slavery. Immigration authorities estimate that 84,000 state inmates are aliens, though state and local figures on foreign-born prisoners are hard to come by. At least three quarters of these immigrant state inmates are in Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas—the top immigrant destinations.
Police officers at the local or state level are the law enforcement officials most likely to encounter illegal aliens. Local residents are the crime victims of these aliens. Local, county, or state jails house many of the foreign criminals. Local, county, or state criminal justice systems try these lawbreakers. And local, county, and state taxpayers pay the costs of law enforcement and criminal justice associated with the crimes that immigrants, legal and illegal, commit.
Figures for 1999 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program compensation show claims of $1.5 billion in documented costs incurred by state corrections and local jails for covered aliens. County governments face a special burden, a 2001 report by 24 Southwestern border counties calculated. They spent, from general funds, $894 million on law enforcement and criminal justice in fiscal year 1999. Many of the costs that criminal aliens impose on all state, county, and municipal jurisdictions are not represented in such figures. To cite just one California example, San Diego now spends $50 million a year to handle illegal criminal aliens.
The underworld network built up by millions of alien lawbreakers, who by and large have no fear of capture or of being held accountable, enabled the September 11 terrorists to operate undetected. Latino illegal aliens in Northern Virginia helpfully showed several of the terrorists the ropes on how to secure Virginia driver's licenses fraudulently.
The advancement of "political correctness" and multiculturalism has caused politicians to be less willing to challenge limitations on their authority over resources. Local and state politicians in heavy immigrant-receiving areas have instead expanded immigrant eligibility for public benefits, welfare, assistance programs, health care programs for those without private insurance, and driver's and other licenses. Some states and localities have begun to accept the Mexican matricula consular ID card, though it has been determined to pose a great risk to U.S. national security. Even before the recently reported crossing of 25 Chechens into Arizona, authorities knew that the illegal aliens pose a national security problem.
Dealing with current levels and quality of legal immigration is an immense problem by itself. But it is clear that until alien criminality of every kind is punished, swiftly and surely, Americans who must live with the consequences will continue to suffer higher taxes, lower quality of life, higher threat and fear levels, and less actual safety.



*


                  

*

Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)






*




VIDEO
Illegal Aliens Kill Americans Then Put Back on Our Streets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTlqmjxF5m4&feature=channel_video_title


ARTICLE
8 Out of 10 Illegals Apprehended in 2010 Never Prosecuted
http://www.alipac.us/article-6162-thread-1-0.html

*


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

*

*






*

206 Most wanted criminals in Los Angeles. Out of 206 criminals--183 are hispanic---171 of those are wanted for Murder.

Why do Americans still protect the illegals??

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_11255121?appSession=934140935651450&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

*

TEN MOST WANTED CRIMINALS IN CALIFORNIA ARE MEXICANS!


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103 Did you know illegals kill 12 Americans a day?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1738432/posts FBI Crime Statistics - Crimes committed by illegals.

*

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/mexi-f10.shtml

Pentagon official: US could send troops to fight Mexican “insurgency”

illegals vs crime



http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_property_crimes_and_operation_predator.html





206 Most wanted criminals in Los Angeles. Out of 206 criminals--183 are hispanic---171 of those are wanted for Murder.

Why do Americans still protect the illegals??

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_11255121?appSession=934140935651450&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

*

TEN MOST WANTED CRIMINALS IN CALIFORNIA ARE MEXICANS!


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103 Did you know illegals kill 12 Americans a day?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1738432/posts FBI Crime Statistics - Crimes committed by illegals.

*