Posts Tagged ‘ANCHOR BABIES’
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ANCHOR BABIES, AP, BARACK OBAMA, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, HISPANICS, illegal immigration, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE), Kamala Harris, KATHRYN STEINLE, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RACIAL PROFILING, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SAN FRANCISCO, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on December 1, 2017 at 12:32 am
Political Correctness kills.
If you doubt it, ask the family of Kathryn Steinle.
Kathryn Steinle
Steinle was shot on July 2, 2015, while out for an evening stroll with her father along the San Francisco waterfront. They were walking near Pier 14—one of the city’s busiest tourist areas—when a pistol shot rang out.
Steinle, hit in the aorta, collapsed, crying, “Dad, help me, help me.”
Her father immediately gave her CPR before paramedics arrived and rushed Steinle to a hospital, where she died.
Steinle, 32, had worked for a medical technology company.
And her accused killer?
Francisco Sanchez, 45, had a history of seven felony convictions. He had been deported to his native Mexico five times, most recently in 2009.
Francisco Sanchez
On March 26, 2015, agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) turned Sanchez over to San Francisco police on an outstanding warrant.
On March 27, a San Francisco Superior Court judge dismissed charges of possession and distribution of marijuana against Sanchez.
Sanchez was released on April 15.
ICE had issued a detainer for Sanchez in March, requesting to be notified if he would be released. But the detainer was not honored.
San Francisco has been a “sanctuary city” since 1989. Its officials—acting as though they govern a city-state instead of a small, tourism-dependent city—openly defy Federal immigration laws.
Thus, city and local money cannot be spent on cooperating with Federal immigration authorities.
According to Freya Horne, counsel for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, Federal detention orders were not a “legal basis” for holding someone.
So Sanchez was released on April 15—without anyone notifying ICE.
Seventy-eight days later, illegal alien Francisco Sanchez crossed paths with American citizen Kathryn Steinle—and Steinle died.
San Francisco does not turn over illegal aliens to ICE unless there’s an active warrant for their arrest.
It’s a policy shared by cities openly defying Federal immigration laws and their enforcers.
San Francisco is just one of 31 “sanctuary cities”: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles, Chicago; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
But the Steinle case is is not the first time San Francisco officials have defied Federal immigration authorities—with brutal consequences for American-born citizens.
One of those officials—Kamala Harris—is now California’s Attorney General.
Kamala Harris
From 2004 to 2011, Harris served as San Francisco District Attorney. In total defiance of Federal immigration law, she set up a secret unit to keep even convicted illegal aliens out of prison—and in the United States.
Click here: San Francisco D.A.’s program trained illegal immigrants for jobs they couldn’t legally hold – Los Angeles Times
Her program, Back on Track, trained them for jobs they could not legally hold.
One such alumnus was Alexander Izaguirre, an illegal alien who had pleaded guilty to selling cocaine. Four months later, in July, 2008, he assaulted Amanda Kiefer, a legal San Francisco resident.
Snatching her purse, he jumped into an SUV, then tried to run Kiefer down. Terrified, she leaped onto the hood and saw Izaguirre and the driver laughing.
The driver slammed on the brakes, sending Kiefer flying onto the pavement and fracturing her skull.
The program, Back on Track, became a centerpiece of Harris’ successful 2010 campaign for State Attorney General.
Until she was questioned by the Los Angeles Times about the Izaguirre case, Harris had never publicly admitted that the program included illegal aliens.
According to Harris:
- She first learned that illegal aliens were training for jobs only after Izaguirre was arrested for the Kiefer assault.
- It was “a flaw in the design” of the program to include illegal aliens.
- “I believe we fixed it,” she told the Times.
- After Izaguirre’s arrest, she never asked—or learned—how many illegal aliens were in Back on Track.
- When Harris learned that illegal aliens were enrolled, she allowed those who were following the rules to finish the program and have their criminal records expunged.
- Harris said it is not the duty of local law enforcement to enforce Federal immigration laws.
From 2005 to 2009, 113 admitted drug dealers graduated from Back on Track. Another 99 were kicked off the program for failing to meet its requirements. They were sentenced under their guilty pleas, the District Attorney’s office claimed.
Meanwhile, Amanda Kiefer left California.
Interviewed by the Times, she said she could not understand why San Francisco police and prosecutors would allow convicted illegal aliens back onto the street.
“If they’re committing crimes,” she said, “I think there’s something wrong that they’re not being deported.”
On November 30, 2017, more than two years after Steinle’s death, a San Francisco jury acquitted Sanchez of second-degree murder. He was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Sanchez claimed that he found the gun wrapped in a piece of cloth under a swivel chair at the pier. He said he picked it up and it accidentally fired, hitting Steinle in the back.
Thus, the lives of illegal aliens—even those with a criminal background—are deemed more valuable than those of law-abiding American citizens.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ALVARO OBREGON, ANCHOR BABIES, AP, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, EMILIANO ZAPATA, FACEBOOK, FRANCISCO MADERO, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, MEXICAN REVOLUTION, MEXICO, MICHELLE OBAMA, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PANCHO VILLA, POLITICO, RACIAL PROFILING, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, VENUSTIANO CARRANZA
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on November 24, 2017 at 1:40 am
Alone among major world powers, the United States feels it must apologize for the right to control its own borders.
A flagrant example of this occurred in May, 2010.
First Lady Michelle Obama—accompanied by Margarita Zavala, the wife of then-Mexican President Felipe Calderón—visited a second-grade class in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Michelle Obama (right) talks with students
During a question-and-answer session, a Hispanic girl said to the First Lady: “My mom said, I think, she says that Barack Obama’s taking everybody away that doesn’t has papers.”
Michelle Obama replied, “Yeah, well, that’s something we have to work on, right, to make sure that people can be here with the right kind of papers, right?”
To which the girl replied, “But my mom doesn’t have [papers].”
“Well, we have to work on that,” said Obama. “We have to fix that. Everybody’s got to work together on that in Congress to make sure that happens.”
But many Americans believe the United States has no right to control its own borders. Among these is Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change.
“The truth is that more mothers and fathers were deported in Obama’s first year as president than were deported in the last year under Bush.
“Mr. Obama, who so eloquently spoke of the pain and anguish caused by tearing families apart as a candidate, as president has only ramped up that pain and anguish,” said Bhargava.
Michelle Obama’s husband, Barack, was then the nation’s chief law enforcement officer—the President of the United States.
Yet on the day following the girl’s public admission, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security announced that its immigration agents would not be pursuing the family:
“ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is a federal law enforcement a gency that focuses on smart, effective immigration enforcement that prioritizes criminal aliens who pose a threat to our communities.
“Our investigations are based on solid law enforcement work and not classroom Q and As.”
This was echoed by Brian Edwards, chief of staff for the Montgomery County public schools:
“The girl is in school and we’re doing everything we can to keep her safe.”
So the fact that this girl admitted that her mother was in violation of American immigration laws counted for nothing.
The estimated number of illegal aliens within the United States ranges between seven and 20 million or more.
Among other equally disturbing statistics:
- Between 1992 and 2012, the number of offenders sentenced in federal courts more than doubled, driven largely by a 28-fold increase in the number of unlawful reentry convictions.
- As unlawful reentry convictions increased, the demographics of sentenced offenders changed.
- In 1992, Latinos made up 23% of sentenced offenders; by 2012, they made up 48%.
- The share of offenders who did not hold U.S. citizenship increased over the same period—from 22% to 46%.
Now, contrast this with the way Mexico insists on controlling its own borders.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
- In the country legally;
- Have the means to sustain themselves economically;
- Not destined to be burdens on society;
- Of economic and social benefit to society;
- Of good character and have no criminal records; and
- Contribute to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
- Immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
- Foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
- Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
- Foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
- Foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
- Those who aid in illegal immigration are sent to prison.
Mexico uses its American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
The Mexican Government still remembers the bloody upheaval known as the Mexican Revolution. This lasted ten years (1910-1920) and wiped out an estimated one to two million men, women and children.
Massacres were common on all sides, with men shot by the hundreds in bullrings or hung by the dozen on trees.
A Mexican Revolution firing squad
All of the major leaders of the Revolution—Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Venustiano Carranza, Francisco “Pancho” Villa, Alvaro Obregon—died in a hail of bullets.
Francisco “Pancho” Villa
Emiliano Zapata
As a result, every successive Mexican Government has lived in the shadow of another such wholesale bloodletting. These officials have thus quietly decided to turn the United States border into a safety valve.
If potential revolutionaries leave Mexico to find a better life in the United States, the Government doesn’t have to fear the rise of another “Pancho” Villa.
If somehow the United States managed to seal its southern border, all those teeming millions of “undocumented workers” who just happened to lack any documents would have to stay in “Mexico lindo.”
They would be forced to live with the rampant corruption and poverty that have forever characterized this failed nation-state. Or they would have to demand substantial reforms.
There is no guarantee that such demands would not lead to a second—and equally bloody—Mexican revolution.
So successive Mexican governments find it easier—and safer—to turn the United States into a dumping ground for the Mexican citizens that the Mexican Government itself doesn’t want.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ALVARO OBREGON, ANCHOR BABIES, AP, BUZZFEED, CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DREAM ACT, EMILIANO ZAPATA, FACEBOOK, FELIPE CALDERON, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, LA RAZA, MEXICAN REVOLUTION, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PANCHO VILLA, POLITICO, RACIAL PROFILING, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SERGIO GARCIA, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UP, UPI, USA TODAY, VENUSTIANO CARRANZA
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on September 1, 2017 at 12:08 am
On January 2, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted a law license to a man illegally living in the United States.
The decision allowed Sergio Garcia to begin practicing law even though his mere presence was a blatant violation of American immigration laws.
Garcia arrived in the U.S. illegally in 1994 to pick almonds with his father and worked at a grocery store and in the fields while attending school.
He graduated from Cal Northern School of Law in 2009 and passed the bar exam.
Garcia was not a citizen, nor even a legal resident.
But that didn’t stop him from challenging a 1996 Federal law that forbids state agencies to extend public benefits—including professional licenses—to those who are illegally in the country.
The headline for this story in the liberal Huffington Post read: “California Supreme Court Grants Law License to Undocumented Immigrant Sergio Garcia.”
California Supreme Court
The headline could just have accurately read: “California Supreme Court Allows Illegal Alien to Legally Practice Law.”
But “illegal alien” is—for all its accuracy—Politically Incorrect. Instead, those who defend the wanton violating of American immigration laws prefer the term “undocumented immigrant.”
As though at one time these lawbreakers had valid citizenship documents but somehow lost them during their swim across the Rio Grande.
Of course, Mexican politicians are quick to accuse Americans of racism if they dare to enforce their own immigration laws.
Consider the lecture that then-Mexican President Felipe Calderon gave a joint session of Congress on May 20, 2010.
Calderon attacked the Arizona law that allowed law enforcement officials to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.
Felipe Calderon
According to Calderon, the law “introduces a terrible idea: using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.”
Racial profiling? Consider the popular Latino phrase, “La Raza.”
This literally means “the race” or “the people.” In the United States, it’s sometimes used to describe people of Chicano and Mexican descent as well as other Latin American mestizos who share Native American heritage.
It rarely includes entirely European or African descended Hispanic peoples.
So when Latinos say, “The Race,” they’re not talking about “the human race.” They’re talking strictly about their own.
In his lecture, Calderon condemned the United States for doing what Mexico itself has long done: Strictly enforcing control of its borders.
The hypocrisy of Calderon’s words was staggering.
From a purely political viewpoint, it’s makes sense that Calderon didn’t say anything about this. From a viewpoint of fairness and common sense, his refusal to do so smacked of the vilest hypocrisy.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
- in the country legally;
- have the means to sustain themselves economically;
- not destined to be burdens on society;
- of economic and social benefit to society;
- of good character and have no criminal records; and
- contribute to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
- immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
- foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
- foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
- foreign visitors who enter under ralse pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
- foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned are deported;
- those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Calderon also ignored a second, well-understood but equally unacknowledged truth: Mexico uses its American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
The Mexican Government still remembers the bloody upheaval known as the Mexican Revolution. This lasted ten years (1910-1920) and wiped out an estimated one to two million men, women and children.
Massacres were common on all sides, with men shot by the hundreds in bullrings or hung by the dozen on trees.
A Mexican Revolution firing squad
All of the major leaders of the Revolution—Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Venustiano Carranza, Francisco “Pancho” Villa, Alvaro Obregon—died in a hail of bullets.
Francisco “Pancho” Villa
Emiliano Zapata
As a result, every successive Mexican Government has lived in the shadow of another such wholesale bloodletting. These officials have thus quietly decided to turn the United States border into a safety valve.
If potential revolutionaries leave Mexico to find a better life in the United States, the Government doesn’t have to fear the rise of another “Pancho” Villa.
If somehow the United States managed to seal its southern border, all those teeming millions of “undocumented workers” who just happened to lack any documents would have to stay in “Mexico lindo.”
They would be forced to live with the rampant corruption and poverty that have forever characterized this failed nation-state. Or they would have to demand substantial reforms.
There is no guarantee that such demands would not lead to a second–and equally bloody–Mexican revolution.
So Felipe Calderon and his successors in power find it easier–and safer—to turn the United States into a dumping ground for the Mexican citizens that the Mexican Government itself doesn’t want.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, ANCHOR BABIES, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BILL DE BLASIO, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HISPANICS, HUFFINGTON POST, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, MEDIA MATTERS, MEXICAN WALL, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 28, 2017 at 12:55 am
Donald Trump has promised to build a wall separating the United States from Mexico.
Its purpose: To stop the oncoming waves of illegal immigration from that country–and other poor, strife-torn nations in Central and Latin America.
Illegal aliens crossing into the United States
“Building a wall is easy, and it can be done inexpensively,” Trump said in an interview. “It’s not even a difficult project if you know what you’re doing.”
Skeptics have derided the sheer difficulties of building such a wall. Among these:
- The United States/Mexican border stretches for 1,954 miles–and encompasses rivers, deserts and mountains.
- Environmental and engineering problems.
- Squabbles with ranchers who don’t want to give up any of their land.
- Building such a wall would cost untold billions of dollars.
- Drug traffickers and smugglers could easily tunnel under it into the United States–as they are now doing.
But there is another way that, as President, Trump can attack illegal immigration: By attacking the “sanctuary cities” across the nation that illegally shield violators of Federal immigration laws from arrest.
This would prove far cheaper and more effective than building a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexican border.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that forbid municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
All Trump has to do is cut off Federal funding to those cities which systematically defy the immigration laws of the United States.
And on March 27, his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, threatened to do just that.
“The Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for DOJ grants to certify compliance with [U.S. Code 1373] as a condition of receiving those awards,” said Sessions in a surprise appearance at the White House Briefing Room.
His reference was to a Federal law which says cities cannot prevent federal authorities from enforcing immigration laws.
“Block funding for sanctuary cities. We block the funding. No more funding,” Trump said in August, 2016, when he laid out his immigration plans at a rally in Phoenix. “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.”
New York City, for example, could lose up to $10.4 billion in Federal funding. Its agencies that receive the biggest share of these monies: The Housing Authority, the Administration for Children’s Services and the Department of Social Services.
Mayors from “sanctuary cities” such as New York, Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco have threatened to resist Trump’s threat.
Trump has never held public office, and there is much he has to learn about the difficulties of carrying out his programs. But his experience as a businessman has given him a solid feel for the power of greed and selfishness. And he knows well how to exploit both.
Donald Trump takes the oath of office
By blocking monies to “sanctuary cities,” Trump will quickly drive a wedge between ardent liberals such as Bill de Blazio and their constituents who depend on those infusions of Federal monies.
In New York, for example, once Federal monies are cut off:
- Legal American citizens won’t be able to obtain assistance for low- and moderate-income families to rent housing in the private market.
- American children needing care for their emotional or medical needs will be denied it.
- Americans wanting to adopt a foster care child will be unable to do so–because there won’t be monies to pay the officials who now staff these agencies.
In short: The beautiful “every-man-is-my-brother” theories of liberal politicians are about to slam head-on into the ugliness of real-world needs and wants.
And when legal citizens can’t obtain the government services they have been used to getting, they will quickly become enraged.
At first, many–perhaps most–of the people living in “sanctuary cities” will rush to support their elected officials in refusing to knuckle under.
But as time passes, public needs will go unmet while Federal monies continue to be blocked.
First they will aim their rage at the local–and elected–officials of these cities responsible for “sanctuary” policies. And then they will focus their anger on the illegal aliens being protected by civic officials.
This will be followed by increasing demands by legal–and law-abiding–American citizens for their elected officials to cooperate with Federal immigration agents.
As tensions rise, so will demands for the election of new mayors and supervisors. And the chief demand of those voters will be: “Turn over the illegal aliens and restore our public services!”
Some citizens will almost certainly take out their anger on anyone who even looks Hispanic, let alone speaks only Spanish.
And those citizens who feel conscience-torn by demanding an end to “sanctuary cities” will console themselves with this literal truth: Illegal immigration is against the law–and local officials have a sworn duty to obey the law at all levels–including those laws they don’t agree with.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ALVARO OBREGON, ANCHOR BABIES, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHARLES BOWDEN, CIUDAD JUAREZ, CNN, CORRUPTION, DAILY KOS, DREAM ACT, DRUG LORDS, DRUG TRAFFICKING, EMILIANO ZAPATA, FACEBOOK, FELIPE CALDERON, illegal immigration, LA RAZA, MEXICAN REVOLUTION, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, MURDER CITY, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PANCHO VILLA, POLITICO, RACIAL PROFILING, RAW STORY, SALON, SLATE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY, VENUSTIANO CARRANZA
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on February 17, 2017 at 11:00 am
On May 20, 2010, Mexico’s then-President Felipe Calderon addressed a joint session of the United States Congress–and attacked the Arizona law that allows law enforcement officials to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.
Felipe Calderon
According to Calderon, the law “introduces a terrible idea: using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.”
And to make certain his audience got the point, he offered: “I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.”
The hypocrisy of Calderon’s words was staggering.
Racial profiling? Consider the popular Latino phrase, “La Raza.”
This literally means “the race” or “the people.” Its meaning varies among Spanish-speaking peoples. In the United States, it’s sometimes used to describe people of Chicano and Mexican descent as well as other Latin American mestizos who share Native American heritage.
It rarely includes entirely European or African descended Hispanic peoples.
So when Latinos say, “The Race,” they’re not talking about “the human race.” They’re talking strictly about their own.
Other races need not apply.
In his lecture, Calderon condemned the United States for doing what Mexico itself has long done: Strictly enforcing control of its own borders.
From a purely political viewpoint, it’s makes sense that Calderon didn’t say anything about this.
From a viewpoint of fairness and common sense, his refusal to do so smacks of the vilest hypocrisy.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
- in the country legally;
- have the means to sustain themselves economically;
- not destined to be burdens on society;
- of economic and social benefit to society;
- of good character and have no criminal records; and
- contribute to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
- immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
- foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
- foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
- foreign visitors who enter under ralse pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
- foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned are deported;
- those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Calderon also ignored a second well-understood but equally unacknowledged truth: Mexico uses the American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Anyone who doubts the overwhelming need for such reforms need only read Murder City: Ciudad Juarez and the Global Economy’s New Killing Fields.
Written by Investigative Reporter Charles Bowden and published in 2010, Murder City offers a terrifying, almost lethally depressing portrait of what happens when a city–and a country–disintegrates.
Among the casualties of Mexico’s drug-trafficking cartels:
- Mexican police pay big bribes to be assigned to narcotics enforcement squads. The reason: Not to suppress the rampant drug trafficking but to enrich themselves by seizing and selling those narcotics.
- Residents awaken at dawn to find bodies of the drug cartels’ latest victims dumped on streets–their hands, feet and mouths bound with silver and gray duct tape.
- Mexican policewomen are often snatched off the streets and raped–by members of the Mexican Army. Honest policemen–and even police chiefs–are routinely gunned down by cartel members.
- Members of drug cartels live like kings–until violence catches up with them.
- Their bribes and violence have corrupted all branches of the Mexican government, military and police forces.
- Ordinary Mexicans live in grinding poverty, thanks to American factories paying starvation wages
Meanwhile, the Mexican Government still remembers the bloody upheaval known as the Mexican Revolution. This lasted ten years (1910-1920) and wiped out an estimated one to two million men, women and children.
Massacres were common on all sides, with men shot by the hundreds in bullrings or hung by the dozen on trees.
A Mexican Revolution firing squad
All of the major leaders of the Revolution–Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Venustiano Carranza, Francisco “Pancho” Villa, Alvaro Obregon–died in a hail of bullets.
Francisco “Pancho” Villa
Emiliano Zapata
As a result, every successive Mexican Government has lived in the shadow of another such wholesale bloodletting. These officials have thus quietly decided to turn the United States border into a safety valve.
If potential revolutionaries leave Mexico to find a better life in the United States, the Government doesn’t have to fear the rise of another “Pancho” Villa.
If somehow the United States managed to seal its southern border, all those teeming millions of “undocumented workers” who just happened to lack any documents would have to stay in “Mexico lindo.”
They would be forced to live with the rampant corruption and poverty that have forever characterized this failed nation-state. Or they would have to demand substantial reforms.
There is no guarantee that such demands would not lead to a second–and equally bloody–Mexican revolution.
So Felipe Calderon and his successors in power have found it easier–and safer–to turn the United States into a dumping ground for the Mexican citizens that the Mexican Government itself doesn’t want.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ANCHOR BABIES, BILL DE BLASIO, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, DAILY KOS, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, HISPANICS, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, MEXICAN WALL, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, SALON, SLATE, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on January 26, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Donald Trump has promised–or threatened, depending on your viewpoint–to build a wall separating the United States from Mexico.
Its purpose: To stop the oncoming waves of illegal immigration from that country–and other poor, strife-torn nations in Central and Latin America.
Illegal aliens crossing the border
Skeptics have derided the sheer difficulties of building such a wall. Among these:
- The United States/Mexican border stretches for 1,954 miles–and encompasses rivers, deserts and mountains.
- Environmental and engineering problems.
- Squabbles with ranchers who don’t want to give up any of their land.
- Building such a wall would cost untold billions of dollars.
- Drug traffickers and smugglers could easily tunnel under it into the United States–as they are now doing.
But there is another way that, as President, Trump can attack illegal immigration: By attacking the “sanctuary cities” across the nation that illegally shield violators of Federal immigration laws from arrest.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that forbid municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
All Trump has to do is cut off Federal funding to those cities which systematically defy the immigration laws of the United States.
This would prove far cheaper and more effective than building a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexican border.
And that is precisely what he has threatened to do.
“Block funding for sanctuary cities. We block the funding. No more funding,” Trump said in August when he laid out his immigration plans at a rally in Phoenix. “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.”
One such city is New York, which could lose up to $10.4 billion in Federal funding. Among the city agencies that receive the biggest share of these monies: The New York City Housing Authority, the Administration for Children’s Services and the Department of Social Services.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has openly rejected Trump’s threat: “We’re not going to tear families apart. So we will do everything we know how to do to resist that.”
Mayors from other “sanctuary cities”–such as Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco–have similarly echoed de Blasio’s sentiments.
Trump has never held public office, and there is much he has to learn about the difficulties of carrying out his programs. But his experience as a businessman has given him a solid feel for the power of greed and selfishness. And he knows well how to exploit both.
Donald Trump takes the oath of office
By blocking monies to “sanctuary cities,” Trump will quickly drive a wedge between ardent liberals such as Bill de Blazio and their constituents who depend on those infusions of Federal monies.
In New York, for example, once Federal monies are cut off:
- Legal United States citizens won’t be able to obtain assistance allowing low- and moderate-income families to rent housing in the private market.
- American children needing care for their mental, emotional or medical needs will be denied it.
- Americans wanting to adopt a child in foster care will be unable to do so, because the monies won’t be there to pay the officials who now staff these agencies.
In short: The beautiful “every-man-is-my-brother” theories of liberal politicians are about to slam head-on into the ugliness of real-world needs and wants.
And when legal citizens can’t obtain the government services they have been used to getting, they will quickly become enraged.
At first, many–perhaps most–of the people living in “sanctuary cities” will rush to support their elected officials in refusing to knuckle under.
But as time passes, public needs will go unmet while Federal monies continue to be blocked.
First they will aim their rage at the local–and elected–officials of these cities responsible for “sanctuary” policies. And then they will focus their anger on the illegal aliens being protected by civic officials.
This will be followed by increasing demands by legal–and law-abiding–American citizens for their elected officials to cooperate with Federal immigration agents.
As tensions rise, so will demands for the election of new mayors and supervisors. And the chief demand of those voters will be: “Turn over the illegal aliens and restore our public services!”
Some citizens will almost certainly take out their anger on anyone who even looks Hispanic, let alone speaks only Spanish.
Those citizens who feel conscience-torn by demanding an end to “sanctuary cities” will console themselves with this literal truth:
Illegal immigration is against the law. And local officials have a sworn duty to obey the law at all levels–including those laws they don’t agree with.
In the end, Trump will almost certainly win his battle on this. And his victory will give him confidence to press on with the rest of his agenda.
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ANCHOR BABIES, BILL DE BLASIO, CBS NEWS, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, HISPANICS, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, MEXICAN WALL, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NPR, POLITICO, SALON, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on December 30, 2016 at 1:08 am
Donald Trump has promised–or threatened, depending on your viewpoint–to build a wall separating the United States from Mexico.
Its purpose: To stop the oncoming waves of illegal immigration from that country–and other poor, strife-torn nations in Central and Latin America.
Illegal aliens crossing into the United States
“Building a wall is easy, and it can be done inexpensively,” Trump said in an interview. “It’s not even a difficult project if you know what you’re doing.”
Skeptics have derided the sheer difficulties of building such a wall. Among these:
- The United States/Mexican border stretches for 1,954 miles–and encompasses rivers, deserts and mountains.
- Environmental and engineering problems.
- Squabbles with ranchers who don’t want to give up any of their land.
- Building such a wall would cost untold billions of dollars.
- Drug traffickers and smugglers could easily tunnel under it into the United States–as they are now doing.
But there is another way that, as President, Trump can attack illegal immigration: By attacking the “sanctuary cities” across the nation that illegally shield violators of Federal immigration laws from arrest.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that forbid municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
All Trump has to do is cut off Federal funding to those cities which systematically defy the immigration laws of the United States.
This would prove far cheaper and more effective than building a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexican border.
And that is precisely what he has threatened to do.
“Block funding for sanctuary cities. We block the funding. No more funding,” Trump said in August when he laid out his immigration plans at a rally in Phoenix. “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.”
One such city is New York, which could lose up to $10.4 billion in Federal funding. Among the city agencies that receive the biggest share of these monies: The New York City Housing Authority, the Administration for Children’s Services and the Department of Social Services.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has openly rejected Trump’s threat: “We’re not going to tear families apart. So we will do everything we know how to do to resist that.”
Mayors from other “sanctuary cities”–such as Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco–have similarly echoed de Blasio’s sentiments.
Trump has never held public office, and there is much he has to learn about the difficulties of carrying out his programs. But his experience as a businessman has given him a solid feel for the power of greed and selfishness. And he knows well how to exploit both.
Donald Trump takes the oath of office
By blocking monies to “sanctuary cities,” Trump will quickly drive a wedge between ardent liberals such as Bill de Blazio and their constituents who depend on those infusions of Federal monies.
In New York, for example, once Federal monies are cut off:
- Legal United States citizens won’t be able to obtain assistance allowing low- and moderate-income families to rent housing in the private market.
- American children needing care for their mental, emotional or medical needs will be denied it.
- Americans wanting to adopt a child in foster care will be unable to do so, because the monies won’t be there to pay the officials who now staff these agencies.
In short: The beautiful “every-man-is-my-brother” theories of liberal politicians are about to slam head-on into the ugliness of real-world needs and wants.
And when legal citizens can’t obtain the government services they have been used to getting, they will quickly become enraged.
At first, many–perhaps most–of the people living in “sanctuary cities” will rush to support their elected officials in refusing to knuckle under.
But as time passes, public needs will go unmet while Federal monies continue to be blocked.
First they will aim their rage at the local–and elected–officials of these cities responsible for “sanctuary” policies. And then they will focus their anger on the illegal aliens being protected by civic officials.
This will be followed by increasing demands by legal–and law-abiding–American citizens for their elected officials to cooperate with Federal immigration agents.
As tensions rise, so will demands for the election of new mayors and supervisors. And the chief demand of those voters will be: “Turn over the illegal aliens and restore our public services!”
Some citizens will almost certainly take out their anger on anyone who even looks Hispanic, let alone speaks only Spanish.
Those citizens who feel conscience-torn by demanding an end to “sanctuary cities” will console themselves with this literal truth:
Illegal immigration is against the law. And local officials have a sworn duty to obey the law at all levels–including those laws they don’t agree with.
In the end, Trump will almost certainly win his battle on this. And his victory will give him confidence to press on with the rest of his agenda.
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, CHINA, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, DREAM ACT, DRUG SMUGGLERS, ENGLISH-ONLY VOTING MATERIALS, FACEBOOK, HISPANICS, HUMAN SMUGGLERS, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, Kamala Harris, MAFIA, MEXICAN WALL, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, RACIAL PROFILING, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, sanctuary cities, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S.-MEXICAN BORDER, U.S.-MEXICO WALL, USA TODAY, VOTING, WAL-MART
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on November 11, 2016 at 12:38 pm
According to Donald Trump, stopping illegal immigration is easy.
Just build a massive, impenetrable wall along the U.S./Mexican border to keep out Mexican immigrants.
“Building a wall is easy, and it can be done inexpensively,” Trump said in an interview. “It’s not even a difficult project if you know what you’re doing.”
Really?
Among the obstacles to erecting such a barrier:
- The United States/Mexican border stretches for 1,954 miles–and encompasses rivers, deserts and mountains.
- Environmental and engineering problems.
- Squabbles with ranchers who don’t want to give up any of their land.
- Building such a wall would cost untold billions of dollars.
- Drug traffickers and human smugglers could easily tunnel under it into the United States–as they are now doing.
Click here: Trump says building a U.S.-Mexico wall is ‘easy.’ But is it really? – The Washington Post
There are, in fact, cheaper and more effective remedies for combating illegal immigration.
Illegal aliens crossing into the United States
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities who have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
As District Attorney for San Francisco (2004-2011 Kamala Harris created a secret program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony. It is not the duty of local law enforcement, she said, to enforce Federal immigration laws.
Harris is now California’s Attorney General and will soon be its U.S. Senator.
(3) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(4) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least 20 years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S.-Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers’ luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.
(5) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of their birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(6) The United States Government–from the President on down–should scrap its apologetic tone on the right to control its national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should Americans.
(7) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language–English.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish. There is no reason to cater to their hypocrisy.
(8) The United States should vigorously counter the argument that deporting illegal aliens “separates families.” There is absolutely no reason why this should happen. Those American citizens who wish to do so are perfectly free to accompany their illegal relatives to their home countries.
(9) The United States should impose severe economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CHINA, CNN, DONALD TRUMP, DREAM ACT, FACEBOOK, HISPANICS, ILLEGAL ALIENS, illegal immigration, MEXICAN WALL, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, RACIAL PROFILING, sanctuary cities, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 30, 2016 at 10:46 pm
According to Donald Trump, stopping illegal immigration is easy.
Just build a massive, impenetrable wall along the U.S./Mexican border to keep out Mexican immigrants.
“Building a wall is easy, and it can be done inexpensively,” Trump said in an interview. “It’s not even a difficult project if you know what you’re doing.”
Really?
Among the obstacles to erecting such a barrier:
- The United States/Mexican border stretches for 1,954 miles–and emcompasses rivers, deserts and mountains.
- Environmental and engineering problems.
- Squabbles with ranchers who don’t want to give up any of their land.
- Building such a wall would cost untold billions of dollars.
- Drug traffickers and human smugglers could easily tunnel under it into the United States–as they are now doing.
Click here: Trump says building a U.S.-Mexico wall is ‘easy.’ But is it really? – The Washington Post
There are, in fact, cheaper and more effective remedies for combating illegal immigration.
Illegal aliens crossing into the United States
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities who have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former District Attorney Kamala Harris—who is now California’s Attorney General—created a secret program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony.
(3) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(4) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least 20 years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S.-Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers’ luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.
(5) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of their birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(6) The United States Government–from the President on down–should scrap its apologetic tone on the right to control its national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should Americans.
(7) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language–English.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish. There is no reason to cater to their hypocrisy.
(8) The United States should vigorously counter the argument that deporting illegal aliens “separates families.” There is absolutely no reason why this should happen. Those American citizens who wish to do so are perfectly free to accompany their illegal relatives to their home countries.
(9) The United States should impose severe economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, BARBARA LEE, CBS NEWS, CNN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DONALD TRUMP, DREAM ACT, FACEBOOK, HILLARY CLINTON, HISPANICS, illegal immigration, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, PAUL RYAN, RACIAL PROFILING, REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. SUPREME COURT, WAL-MART
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on June 27, 2016 at 12:19 am
If Americans decide they truly want to control access to their own borders, there is a realistic way to accomplish this.
And it doesn’t involve building a wall along the Mexican border–which would prove ridiculously expensive and easily circumvented.
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities which have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former District Attorney Kamala Harris—who is now California’s Attorney General—created a secret program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony.
(3) Indicting such officials would be comparable to the way that President Andres Jackson dealt with the threat South Carolinians once made to “nullify”–or ignore–any Federal laws they didn’t like.
Jackson quashed that threat by making one of his own: To lead an army into that State and purge all who dared defy the laws of the Federal Government.
(4) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(5) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least twenty years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.
(6) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(7) The United States Government–from the President on down–should stop apologizing for the right to control the country’s national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should we.
(8) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language–English.
In Mexico, voting materials are published in one language–Spanish.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish.
(9) Those who are not legal citizens of the United States should not be allowed to vote in its elections.
In Mexico, those who are not Mexican citizens are not allowed to participate in the country’s elections.
The Mexican Government doesn’t consider itself racist for strictly enforcing its immigration laws.
The United States Government should not consider itself racist for insisting on the right to do the same.
(10) The United States should impose economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, ANCHOR BABIES, AP, BARACK OBAMA, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, HISPANICS, illegal immigration, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE), Kamala Harris, KATHRYN STEINLE, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, POLITICO, RACIAL PROFILING, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SAN FRANCISCO, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY
LEGAL CITIZENS NO MATCH FOR ILLEGAL CRIMINALS
In History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on December 1, 2017 at 12:32 amPolitical Correctness kills.
If you doubt it, ask the family of Kathryn Steinle.
Kathryn Steinle
Steinle was shot on July 2, 2015, while out for an evening stroll with her father along the San Francisco waterfront. They were walking near Pier 14—one of the city’s busiest tourist areas—when a pistol shot rang out.
Steinle, hit in the aorta, collapsed, crying, “Dad, help me, help me.”
Her father immediately gave her CPR before paramedics arrived and rushed Steinle to a hospital, where she died.
Steinle, 32, had worked for a medical technology company.
And her accused killer?
Francisco Sanchez, 45, had a history of seven felony convictions. He had been deported to his native Mexico five times, most recently in 2009.
Francisco Sanchez
On March 26, 2015, agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) turned Sanchez over to San Francisco police on an outstanding warrant.
On March 27, a San Francisco Superior Court judge dismissed charges of possession and distribution of marijuana against Sanchez.
Sanchez was released on April 15.
ICE had issued a detainer for Sanchez in March, requesting to be notified if he would be released. But the detainer was not honored.
San Francisco has been a “sanctuary city” since 1989. Its officials—acting as though they govern a city-state instead of a small, tourism-dependent city—openly defy Federal immigration laws.
Thus, city and local money cannot be spent on cooperating with Federal immigration authorities.
According to Freya Horne, counsel for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, Federal detention orders were not a “legal basis” for holding someone.
So Sanchez was released on April 15—without anyone notifying ICE.
Seventy-eight days later, illegal alien Francisco Sanchez crossed paths with American citizen Kathryn Steinle—and Steinle died.
San Francisco does not turn over illegal aliens to ICE unless there’s an active warrant for their arrest.
It’s a policy shared by cities openly defying Federal immigration laws and their enforcers.
San Francisco is just one of 31 “sanctuary cities”: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles, Chicago; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
But the Steinle case is is not the first time San Francisco officials have defied Federal immigration authorities—with brutal consequences for American-born citizens.
One of those officials—Kamala Harris—is now California’s Attorney General.
Kamala Harris
From 2004 to 2011, Harris served as San Francisco District Attorney. In total defiance of Federal immigration law, she set up a secret unit to keep even convicted illegal aliens out of prison—and in the United States.
Click here: San Francisco D.A.’s program trained illegal immigrants for jobs they couldn’t legally hold – Los Angeles Times
Her program, Back on Track, trained them for jobs they could not legally hold.
One such alumnus was Alexander Izaguirre, an illegal alien who had pleaded guilty to selling cocaine. Four months later, in July, 2008, he assaulted Amanda Kiefer, a legal San Francisco resident.
Snatching her purse, he jumped into an SUV, then tried to run Kiefer down. Terrified, she leaped onto the hood and saw Izaguirre and the driver laughing.
The driver slammed on the brakes, sending Kiefer flying onto the pavement and fracturing her skull.
The program, Back on Track, became a centerpiece of Harris’ successful 2010 campaign for State Attorney General.
Until she was questioned by the Los Angeles Times about the Izaguirre case, Harris had never publicly admitted that the program included illegal aliens.
According to Harris:
From 2005 to 2009, 113 admitted drug dealers graduated from Back on Track. Another 99 were kicked off the program for failing to meet its requirements. They were sentenced under their guilty pleas, the District Attorney’s office claimed.
Meanwhile, Amanda Kiefer left California.
Interviewed by the Times, she said she could not understand why San Francisco police and prosecutors would allow convicted illegal aliens back onto the street.
“If they’re committing crimes,” she said, “I think there’s something wrong that they’re not being deported.”
On November 30, 2017, more than two years after Steinle’s death, a San Francisco jury acquitted Sanchez of second-degree murder. He was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Sanchez claimed that he found the gun wrapped in a piece of cloth under a swivel chair at the pier. He said he picked it up and it accidentally fired, hitting Steinle in the back.
Thus, the lives of illegal aliens—even those with a criminal background—are deemed more valuable than those of law-abiding American citizens.
Share this: