Illegal Aliens and Immigration:
The Focus is Protecting the Home--
The United States of America
by
Victor Edward Swanson,
publisher
The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan 49721
The United States of America
copyright c. 2011
June 26, 2012
(Version 4)
(Draft version)
For several decades, the people of the United States of America have been hearing about an ever-increasing number of "illegal aliens" entering the United States of America, and that is especially true for citizens of the United States of America who live in the southwestern region of the country, such as in California, Texas, and Arizona, and many of the "illegal aliens" are citizens of Mexico. "Illegal aliens" can be people not only from Mexico but also people from other countries of the world, and no matter from where those people come, "illegal aliens" are citizens of other countries who enter or stay in the United States of America illegally. Since the 1700s, the United States of America has had laws that set polices about who and who may not enter this country, such as to become naturalized citizens, and some of the federal acts about immigration that have been enacted over the years are the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Immigration Act of 1917, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, the Immigration Act of 1924, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and the Immigration Act of 1990. Indeed, the United States of America is like all other countries of the world--it has laws dealing with immigration--and the United States of America requires people from other countries to carry and to be able to show documents that report who the people are and from what country they have come from, such as as a vacationer or a student or an employee of some business (for example, if you go to France, Russia, Japan, or Canada, you will have to carry and be able to show documents that identify who you are and from what country you have come, such as a passport). This document shows what has been happening and is happening in the United States of America in relation to the topic of immigration.
Let me mention again some of the federal immigration laws of the past. The first rules for naturalization (to become a naturalized citizen) were set down in the Nationalization Act of 1790 (and the rules would be changed in the future, such as by the Naturalization Act of 1906, which made a person's having to know some English a requirement to becoming a naturalized citizen). Since the 1960s, there has been a big rise in the numbers of people coming into the country from Latin America, and some have been able to enter through the idea of "family reunification" of U.S. immigration law, and it is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (October 3, 1965) that has the feature of "family reunification" that has made it somewhat easy for people from other countries of the world, such as Mexico, to bring in other relatives--beyond very close relatives, as had been the rule--in to the United States of America for the purpose of becoming citizens, and, by the way, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was put into law during the time of U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson (a Democrat), and one man who had been a big supporter of the legislation while it was being worked on was U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy (who would die on April 25, 2009), and around the time the legislation was being worked on, U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy said: "...Contrary to charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated or deprived nations of Africa or Asia...." And the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal for people in the U.S.A. to hire persons who have no authorization to work in this country.
In a family that is not disfunctional--such as a family with a father and a mother and children--it is the father whose basic job is to protect the home or guard the home, though the mother and the children may also be involved in protecting the home. If an intruder were to break in to the home, the father would do what is necessary to protect the family and the home. For the health of the family, not anyone is allowed to come in to the home, and, in fact, the family would purposely block at least some people from gaining access to the home and the property associated with the home, and the family would be wary of some people's intentions, which might be to gain access to the home so that they could do harm to the family or steal from the family--the outside world does have criminals and killers and other evil individuals.
In essence, the United States of America is made up of a lot of homes, whose fathers have the job of protecting their homes, and, in expanding on that idea, I can say that the citizens of the United States of America live in one big home--the United States of America, which, like a home, has borders, and the people who are citizens of the United States of America are like one big family, and, in essence, the federal government, which is supposedly set up to be "by the people and for the people," is like the father of the citizens of the United States of America in that the federal government is supposed to protect the citizens of the United States of America from people who are citizens of other countries of the world, and the federal government is supposed to guard the borders of the country against all invaders.
All countries are set up to have borders, or each country has borders, and when the borders of a country are left unguarded, those boarders can over time, even a short time, dissolve, and when the borders of a country dissolve, the country dissolves, and what was the country can be taken over or acquired by another country or by other countries.Let me make a note about "adverse possession" in relation to real property--land-- in a town or city in the United States of America. Adverse possession is the idea in which a person has ownership to property--that ownership is shown through a deed that shows title to the property--and then another person begins to use the property, and if the other person uses the property for a certain amount of time, that other person could work to get legal ownership to the property, such as through court action. Adverse possession is a way in which one person can take ownership of another person's land or take ownership to a part of another person's land by using the land.
Now, let me extend or stretch the definition of "adverse possession." When a country sends its armies into a neighboring country with intentions of taking the other country over, as Germany did in the late 1930s around the start of World War II, the country taking over the other country is taking possession of the other country in a adversarial way or a forceful way. When people of one country steam into another country illegally, those people are sort of taking possession of the other country, and, in fact, those people might be purposely hoping to over time have enough of their people get into the other country so that they can, in essence, take over part of that other country, if not the entire country, or they can incorporate their defective values into the ways of that other country, as is hoped by people who wish to push Sharia Law (strict Islamic Law) upon countries in Western Europe, such as England, or the United States of America or as is hoped by some Spanish-type people who wish to take away parts of the southwestern United States of America and make those parts into a new Spanish-like country or a part of Mexico, which is wished for by people associated with what I will call the "La Raza" movement or associated with the National Council of La Raza, which can be found in the United States of America.
It is the job of the federal government of the United States of America to defend the defined borders of the country to keep the country as it is defined in the community of countries, and it is the job of the federal government of the United States of America to block citizens from other countries from entering the United States of America, unless the citizens of other countries meet requirements of entry set by laws of the United States of America.
Let us look at the home of a family. Generally speaking, the family has so much income a week, either because the father works or because the mother works or because the father and the mother work. The family has a certain expenses every week, such as food costs, car payments (such as monthly loan payments and gasoline costs), mortgage-loan payments, clothing expenses, and entertainment costs. The family is economically sound if the family has enough money to pay all expenses, and if the family can pay all expenses, it may have money left over to invest or to, for example, pay to take friends to dinner or to shows or to have friends over a dinner guests. If the family should take in a guest for a few weeks and pay all the expenses for that guest, the family will have to pay for those expenses with money that might otherwise be used for other purposes. If the family is forced to take on two guests and pay for all their expenses, the family will have use money that might otherwise be used for other purposes. There is a point when the family can take in no more guests, maybe no more than four, and support those guests and have the family not be burdened. Generally speaking, the family--because of its total income--can only support so many people, or the family can only take in a finite number of persons and support them. If just anyone could come in to the house and use the house and food and whatever, the family could go bankrupt, being unable to pay for all the expenses that would be.
Basically, the federal government of the United States of America and the other governments of the United States of America, such as the state governments and county governments, have income, which comes from taxes that are imposed on individuals or businesses, such as "use taxes," personal income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes, and all the governments that make up the country produce nothing, such as products, but they do use money taken in to do things, such as pay the retirement incomes of former government employees, to pay Social Security benefits (retirement benefits) to citizens who have retired and can receive Social Security (a federal social program), to give money to some people for food (given as food stamps, which is a type of "welfare"), and to pay money to entities that provide health care to people.
A government entity can be looked at in economic terms. If a government were to take in more revenue--taxes--than it pays out, then the government would be in good shape or solvent. If a government were to take in less money than it pays out, then the government would in bad shape and could be called insolvent or even bankrupt.
Since the 1700s, people have come from other countries to live in the United States of America, and they have come from places all over the world, such as Asia, Europe, and Africa, and since the 1700s, people have come to the country and followed the laws of the country to become citizens, which has obligated them to pay taxes and has allowed them to receive benefits related to government, such as, when they retire, Social Security retirement benefits. It was in the 1930s when the federal government really got involved in paying money to citizens--legal citizens--such as in Social Security benefits. It was in 1965 when Medicare, which is, in essence, a medical program for senior citizens (who qualify) or disabled persons (who qualify), and Medicaid is a medical or health program for the poor persons (who qualify) that was started in 1965.
Today, the federal government of the United States of America can be called in bad shape economically, because it pays out more than it takes in in revenue, and, in fact, such federally operated systems as Medicare and Social Security are many trillions of dollars (or many thousands of billions) in debt or "in the red," and other government entities in the country, such as some state governments, are in bad shape economically.
One reason that parts of the southwestern United States of America are in financial trouble is illegal aliens are getting free services from social programs. For example, in California, children of illegal aliens can attend school. Illegal aliens become injured in their country, can come to a hospital in the United States of America, get treatment, return to their home country, and never finish paying for service.
Look at the State of Arizona. Over the last decade or so, Arizona, which became a state on February 12, 1914, is one state in the southwestern region of the country that has been having to deal with ever-encroaching crime relate to citizens of Mexico and countries that are south of Mexico, such as crimes associated with drug smugglers or killers, and the state cannot afford the crime, and illegal aliens have been allowed--illegally--to take up jobs that might otherwise be held by U.S. citizens, and the state cannot afford that (by the way, in February 2009, ABC News had done a report in which it labeled Phoenix, Arizona, the "Kidnapping Capital" of the country because it had had over 370 kidnapping during the previous one-year period). In April 2010, the citizens of Arizona were working in earnest to do what the federal government, particularly U.S. President Barack Obama, was not doing, and that was working to protect the borders of Arizona and, of course, a portion of the southern border of the United States of America, which touches a portion of the border of Mexico; around April 19, 2010, for instance, citizens of Arizona were calling for the federal government to have U.S. Troops secure and guard the border between Arizona and Mexico, and, in the week to come, Barack Obama did nothing. To combat the problem of illegal aliens in Arizona, in late April 1010, the government of Arizona was working to pass a law, which was being called the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, that would give police officers help in dealing with illegal aliens, and it was on April 19, 2010, that the Legislature of Arizona passed the proposed bill and sent the bill off to be signed or not signed by the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer.
Around the time that the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, was getting ready to sign the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act into law, a number of people made comments about the legislation that was about to be signed into law, and the comments made by the people truly show the defectiveness of the people.
On April 18, 2010, Cardinal Roger Mahony, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Los Angeles, California, stated through a "blog" post, issued after the Legislature in Arizona had passed the legislation on immigration and had passed the legislation on to the governor for signature, that "The Arizona legislature just passed the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law...." and "I can't imagine Arizonians now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation...."
On Friday, April 23, 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama, who was disappointed with what was going on in Arizona on the issue of the proposed immigration law, made this statement: "...Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine the basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. In fact, I've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and the civil rights and other implications of this legislation, but if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will see misguided efforts opening up around the country...."
It was on Friday, April 23, 2010, that the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, signed into law the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. The purpose of the act is: "...The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States." The act notes, for one, that "...A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a country, city, or town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution."
After the legislation was signed by the governor of Arizona, a number of persons made statements that showed how evil they are and in some cases, how racist they are, and a few persons were clearly working to create racial unrest.
On Sunday, April 25, 2010, Reverend Al Sharpton, who was based in Chicago, Illinois, said: "..We will bring 'Freedom Walkers' to Arizona just like "Freedom Riders' went to the Deep South fifty years ago, 'cause we cannot sit by and allow people to be arbitrarily and unilaterally picked off as suspects because of the color of their skin...."
On April 27, 2010, in response to a question about whether or not it was time for the U.S. Congress to take up the issue of immigration presented during an interview of MSNBC, Reverend Jesse Jackson (the head of the Rainbow Push Collision) said: "It is time, with twelve million undocumented worker in the country do work....do generate revenue, who do pay taxes, who do have children in schools who are born here or, in fact, it should be addressed and immediately, because it's becoming an issue that's hot and dangerous. Really, it's a form of terrorism, for the innocent, not for the guilty...." [Note: I pass along Jesse Jackson's comment as I heard it, and the presentation might seem defective, but it was Jesse Jackson who spoke poorly, such as by saying "worker" instead of "workers."]
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush (who had been the governor of Florida from January 1999, to January 2007, and is the younger brother to former U.S. President George W. Bush) said in an interview published by Politico (a left-wing news entity) on the Internet on April 27, 2010: "...I think it creates unintended consequences...." and "...It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well...."
On Tuesday, April 27, 2010, Barack Obama was at another town-hall meeting--this one in Ottumawa, Iowa--and said: "...This law that just passed in Arizona, which I think is a poorly conceived law. Ya know, you can, you can try and make it really tough on people who look like they, quote unquote, might be illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is local officials are allowed to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be a illegal immigrant for their papers, but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic-American in Arizona, you're, you're great-grandparents might have been there before, ah, Arizona was even a state. But, now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're gonna be harassed. That's something that could potentially happen. I, I, that's not the right way to go...." (You should see Barack Obama is, for one, pushing the idea that the police are going to be like "storm troopers" who purposely harass people.)
On Wednesday, April 28, 2010, U.S. Representative Yvette Clarke (a Democrat related to New York) made a number of comments at a press conference, and one comment, which was about the new immigration-related law in Arizona, was: "...It's akin to apartheid....." (Note: "Apartheid" was a legal racial segregation system in South Africa (a country in Africa) from 1948 to 1994.)
On Thursday, April 29, 2010, one of the audio/video clips that The New York Daily News was featuring on its Web site was a recent one in which Michael Bloomberg (the mayor of New York City, New York) was commenting on the new illegal-alien law of Arizona, and a part of his comment was: "...If other states adopt this, it's very bad for the country. If, if they're the only ones, it's good for New York, because people will come here. We make sure that we protect everybody, and we want anybody that, ah, if they need medical care to get it...." (You should see Michael Bloomberg is encouraging illegal aliens to come to New York City and get, for example, medical care, and, in essence, free medical care for too many illegal aliens is what emergency rooms of hospitals in the southwestern United States of America are having to deal with, which is breaking their budgets, and New York City is having a super-big budget crisis, yet Michael Bloomberg wants illegal aliens to come to New York City and get what they can get.)
On Thursday, April 29, 2010, U.S. Representative Connie Mack (a Republican related to Florida) said: "...This law of 'frontier justice'--where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on 'reasonable suspicion' that they may be in the country illegally--is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause...." (Connie Mack showed through this statement that he is defective. During World War II, the Gestapo (a type of police) stopped German citizens in their search for, for instance, citizens of Germany who were Jewish. What the new law in Arizona is set up to do is, in essence, enforce federal law about immigration, and the law notes that police, once they have stopped someone for a potential crime or misdemeanor, may see whether or not the someone is legally in the country.)
Also, on Thursday, April 29, 2010, other things were going on, and, for example, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano appeared before a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee panel, and at one point, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (a Republican related to South Carolina) was questioning her about whether or not the border between the United States of America and Mexico was secure, and here is some interplay between the two persons:
Janet Napolitano: "...I've walked that border. I've ridden that border. I've flown it. I've driven it. I know that border I think as, as well as anyone."
Lindsey Graham: "Do you think it's secure?"
Janet Napolitano: "And, and I will tell you it is as secure now as it has, ah, ever been...."
Lindsey Graham: "My, my question...."
Janet Napolitano: "Senator, please...."
Lindsey Graham: "Would you say, would you certify that the Arizona border is secure?"
Janet Napolitano: "If I would, if, if I were asked that question now in this position--first of all, it's an unfair question and that's why the Board of Governors...."
Lindsey Graham: "If it's unfair to ask a simple question--'Is the border secure?'--then we're never have the confidence to get it secure, 'cause it is a fair question. And I'll give you my answer, 'I don't think it is!'...."What I show by presenting the quotations is some people do not have the interest of the citizens of the United States of America in mind, and those people seem to support illegal aliens, who are violators of U.S. laws, over the citizens of the country.
After the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act was made a law, people in other states in the United States of America decided that they should boycott Arizona, such as products from Arizona, though what Arizona had done was enact a law to protect the citizens of Arizona and the citizens of the other states of the United States of America, and, of course, those who pushed the idea of boycotts showed that they are anti-America and anti-the United States of America, and you should not forget such persons exist. On April 28, 2010, the City Council of San Francisco, San Francisco, California, in a vote of ten "yes" votes to one "no" vote, passed a boycott resolution in which, for one, would block the creation of any new contracts between San Francisco and Arizona. On May 5, 2010, the City Council of Boston, Massachusetts, passed a resolution to stop contracts with and and pull investments from Arizona. It was on May 12, 2010, that the City Council of Los Angeles, California, voted for a partial boycott of Arizona (the vote came out thirteen "yes" votes to one "no" vote), and it was the mayor of the city--Antonio Villaraigosa--who had strongly pushed for sanctions against Arizona; for one, the city voted to ban travel to Arizona by employees of the city. Although the State of Texas is next to the State of Arizona and is having trouble with illegal aliens, as is Arizona, the City Council of Austin, Texas, on May 13, 2010, passed a boycott-related resolution, which, for one, would block Austin from doing some business with Arizona in the future. Around May 14, 2010, it became national news that, in the previous week, the management of Highland Park High School in Highland Park, Illinois, had canceled a trip by the girls' basketball team to Arizona, where the team was going to take part in a tournament in December 2010; heavily involved in pushing through the boycott had been Susan Hebzen, the Assistant Superintendent of District 113. [Author note: I leave other boycotts unreported.]
On Thursday, May 13, 2010, the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing that focused on U.S. Department of Justice oversight, and Attorney General Eric Holder, who was the head of the U.S. Department of Justice at the time, had to be at that hearing. At one point, Ted Poe (a Republican related to Texas) was involved in questioning Eric Holder. This section presents a portion of the interview, which I present in two parts.
Here is part one of my presentation:
Eric Holder: "...I have not had a chance to--I've glanced at it. I've not read it."
Ted Poe: "It's ten pages. It's a lot shorter than the, ah, health-care bill, which was two-thousand-pages long. I'll give you my copy of it, if you, ah, would like to, to have a copy. Even if you haven't read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it's constitution?"
Eric Holder: "I have not really, I've not been briefed yet. We, as I've said, have had underway a review of the law. I've not been briefed by the people who have been responsible, who are responsible for that review."
Ted Poe: "Are you going to read the law?"
Eric Holder: "I'm sure I will read the law in anticipation of that briefing. I know that they will put that in front of me, and I'll spend a good evening reading that law."
Ted Poe: "Well, I've gone through it, and it's pretty simple. It takes the federal law and makes it, enacts it in a state statute...."
Here is part two of my presentation:
Ted Poe: "Can you help me out there a little bit how you can make a judgment call on, on that, but you haven't read the law and determined whether it's constitutional or not?"
Eric Holder: "Well, what I've said is that I have not made up my mind. Um, I've only made, made the comments that I've made on the basis that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts...television, talking to people who are on the review panel, ah, on the review team that looking at the law. Ah, but I have not reached any conclusions as yet with regard to, I was just expressed concerns, um, on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with the people who are doing the review, exactly what my position is."
The two parts of the interview that I present between Eric Holder and Ted Poe have to be remembered with several comments made by Barack Obama. It was on April 23, 2010, that the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act was signed into law by the governor of Arizona, and, on that day, Barack Obama showed his displeasure with the law through at least one public statement, and you must remember that, on April 23, 2010, Eric Holder was the Attorney General, a person who should advise Barack Obama on such laws as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act before Barack Obama speaks about them, and, by the end of that day, Eric Holder had yet to read the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (and it seems very likely to me Barack Obama also had not read it), and then on April 27, 2010, Barack Obama was in Ottumawa, Iowa, and spoke against the law through a race-baiting tactic, but Eric Holder had yet to read the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. So between April 23, 2010, and May 13, 2010, Eric Holder was still a man who had yet to read the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, meaning that anything that he had said about the act so far in public had been hearsay or a lie. (To see comments made by Barack Obama on April 23, 2010, and April 27, 2010, you should see the listings for those days in the document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document.)Some issues of the day become so important that the head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is involved in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration--because illegal immigrants can possibly be terrorists--should be well versed in them. On Monday, May 17, 2010, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was testifying before a U.S. Senate committee, and, at one point, U.S. Senator John McCain (a Republican related to Arizona) was interviewing her, and the subject was the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of Arizona. Examine a text version of some of the interview:
John McCain: "...I might ask of you--Had you had a chance to review the new law that was passed by the State of Arizona?"
Janet Napolitano: "Ah, I have not reviewed it in detail. I certainly know of it, Senator."
John McCain: "So, you're not prepared to make a judgment on it?"
Janet Napolitano: "Senator, ah, ah, that is, ah, ah, not a law, ah, ah, ah. Let me just say this. As you know and, and are well aware, that's not he kind of law I would have signed." [Note: Janet Napolitano reported that she has not read the law, so how could she determined whether or not she would have "signed" the law?"]
John McCain: "And for what reason?"
Janet Napolitano: "Ah, well, because I believe that, ah, it, it's, it's a bad law-enforcement law. Ah, I believe it mandates and requires local law enforcement or puts them in a position that many do not want to be placed in. Um, when, when I was dealing with laws of that ilk, ah, it, most of the law-enforcement organizations in Arizona at that time were opposed to such legislation...." [Note: She provided no proof that law-enforcement organizations were against such a law, and if they were in the past, they may not be now--given that mot people in Arizona approve of it.]
Well, that is all that I will present, and I say in jest--Notice how smoothly and well Janet Napolitano speaks.It was on Wednesday, May 19, 2010, that Barack Obama--the U.S. President--did for at least the third time publicly attack the State of Arizona for having recently enacted an immigration-related law (the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act). The attack took place at press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House that Barack Obama had with the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon. Some statements that Barack Obama said were, "...We also discussed a new law in Arizona, which is a misdirected effort, a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system and which has raised concerns in both our countries. Illegal immigration is down and not up, and we will continue to do what's necessary to secure our shared border. And I want everyone--American and Mexican--to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We're examining any implications, especially for civil rights, because, in the United States of America, no law-abiding person, be they an American citizen or a visitor or tourist from Mexico, should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like...." and "...A fair reading of the language of the statute indicates it gives the possiblity of individuals who are deemed suspicious of being illegal aliens from being harassed or arrested, and the judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome...."
I say that it is easy to find idiots who head governments--the United States of America has, for example, Barack Obama, and Mexico has Felipe Calderon, who is the President of Mexico, and this section shows how defective a thinker Felipe Calderon is.
On weekdays, CNN shows at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) a program known at Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. On Wednesday, May 19, 2010, during the day, Felipe Calderon was in Washington, D.C., to meet with Barack Obama, and then Felipe Calderon appeared on Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Wolf Blitzer asked Felipe Calderon a number of questions, and now I have two main sections of the interview to pass along to you (Note: I present quotations, but the quotations may not be completely correct because Felipe Calderon spoke English, but Felipe Calderon does not speak English well):
Here is section one, and this section leads off with Wolf Blitzer's wondering if people of other countries can simply walk in to Mexico from other countries:
Felipe Calderon: "...No. They need to fulfill a, a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually...."
Wolf Blitzer: "Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?"
Felipe Calderon: "Of course, of course, in the border, we are asking the people--'Who are you?'. And if they explain...."
Wolf Blitzer: "At the border--I understand--when they come in."
Felipe Calderon: "Yes."
Wolf Blitzer: "But once they're in...."
Felipe Calderon: "But not, but not in, if, once they are inside the, inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is a crime anymore in Mexico."
Wolf Blitzer: "Immigration is not a crime, you're saying?"
Felipe Calderon: "It is not a crime."
Wolf Blitzer: "So, in other works, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua, some other country in Central America through the southern border of Mexico--they wind up in Mexico--they can go get a job, they can work...?"
Felipe Calderon: "No. If somebody do that without permission, we send, we send back them...."
So, what can be made of the section of interview that I have presented? Democrats in the United States of America have been claiming that it is wrong for police to be able to ask people for their "papers." Yet, police in Mexico can ask for "papers," and people who are in Mexico illegally can be sent back to their home countries.
Here is section two, and it is nothing more than some of what Felipe Calderon said:
"...in Arizona, there is some racial profiling, I tell, ya, in order to enforce the law that it's against any sense of human rights, and, of course, it's provoking, ah, very disappointing of things, very disappointing opinion in Mexico and around the world and even here in America to introduce this kind of elements, especially racial profiling tactics that are attempting against what we consider human rights, its principle of discrimination which is against the values of this great nation...."
The two previous sections of quotations should be studied well, and once you have studied them well, you may then go on to see the next bit of text, which deals with Felipe Calderon's speech before the U.S. Congress on the following morning.
On Thursday, May 20, 2010, in the morning, Felipe Calderon gave a speech before a joint session of the U.S. Congress, and I present two main pieces of his speech (Note: I present quotations, but they may not be completely correct because Felipe Calderon does spoke English, but Felipe Calderon does not speak English well):
"...I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona." At this point, Felipe Calderon had to stop speaking, because some of the members of the U. S. Congress who were present in the audience began to applaud, meaning they agreed that the new law in Arizona is bad, and what the people who were clapping were doing were agreeing with a politician of another country and attacking citizens of the United States of America. Felipe Calderon did continue his speech, but, instead of presenting the words that followed immediately after the words that I have presented in quotation, which were difficult to understand, I only say that Felipe Calderon then went on to say that the new law introduced the terrible idea of "racial profiling." To me, it does seems very unlikely Felipe Calderon has not read the Arizona law!
"...You will notice that the violence in Mexico started grow a couple of years before I took office in 2006. This coincides with, with the lifting of the assault-weapon ban in 2004. I will ask Congress to help us with respect and to understand how important it is for us that you enforce current laws to stem the supply of this weapons to criminals and consider reinstating the assault-weapons ban." When Felipe Calderon finished his sentence, there was clapping from some of the people in the audience. When I think about this set of words from Felipe Calderon, I think that Felipe Calderon might have been briefed on the subject of gun control in the United States of America by Barack Obama. Democrats in the United States of America--especially those who are communists really--want gun control in the United States of America so that citizens cannot fight back if they have to against evil politicians, such as Barack Obama, who happens to be at least a communist.
When you analyze all the quoted material, you will see that Felipe Calderon is a detective thinker, since, for one, he smashed the Democrat's and Barack Obama's argument that having a person's "papers" is bad and that a policeman's asking for "papers" would be done for "racial profiling."
By the way, Rush Limbaugh reported, during the first hour of The Rush Limbaugh Program (the nationally syndicated radio show) on May 20, 2010, that Felipe Calderon's close friend was recently kidnapped in Mexico and is feared dead, and, later, on the same day, I found that an Internet entity called The Take Away (with John Hockenberry and Celeste Headlee) reported on May 18, 2010, that Fernandez de Cevallos was indeed missing ("Prominent Mexican Politican, Kidnapped, Feared Dead." The Take Away, 18 May 2010.).I say that there are corrupt and dangerous people in federal government jobs right now, and some of them seem to think they can do what they wish and disregard law, as I show here. On Wednesday, May 19, 2010, John Morton, the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (or ICE) of the federal government, was in Chicago, Illinois, and John Morton made a number of comments that were published by the Chicago Tribune in an article entitled "Immigration crackdown for Illinois." One of John Morton's comments hinted that his agency might not accept referrals of potential illegal aliens from Arizona. It is usually local police, such as state police, who catch illegal aliens and pass them along to the proper authorities or government agencies. Yet, John Morton hinted that he might not accept any potential illegal aliens and process them, and what John Morton was hinting at is that he would make his own determination about the law and, in essence, create his own laws. One statement presented in quoted form that was contained within the article published by the Chicago Tribune was: "I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution." It seems to me John Morton thinks he can act as a dictator. (Avila, Oscar. "Immigration crackdown for Illinois." Chicago Tribune, 19 May 2010.)
It was on May 20, 2010, that Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona publicly spoke out against Felipe Calderon (the President of Mexico) and even Barack Obama on On The Record with Greta Van Susteren, which is a evening weekday program shown by the Fox News Channel. To counter what Felipe Calderon had said earlier in the day, Jan Brewer said, "...I think that's really unfortunate. I don't believe he understands what the law actually says. You know, I don't mean that derogatory. But the fact of the matter is is that it prohibits, ah, racial profiling. It's illegal in the State of Arizona, and racial profiling in illegal in the United States...." And to counter Barack Obama's statement that had been been recently that the law was "misguided," Jan Brewer made this comment: "...It's very clear. It's been in federal law for decades. And it's something that we implemented in here to use as another tool to get our border secured. And if it was illegal or it was racial profiling in the State of Arizona, it would have been illegal and racial profiling decades ago for the United States...." At one point during the interview, Jan Brewer said, "...I have repeated, ah, sent letters, ah, to the administration and to the President of the United States without absolutely no response...."
On June 8, 2010, NTN24 (of Equator) has U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as an interviewee, and a reporter asked Hillary Clinton about the Arizona immigration-related law, and Hillary Clinton said, for example: "...Ah, President Obama, ah, has spoken out against , ah, the, ah, the law because he, he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department under his direction will be, ah, bringing a lawsuit against the act. But the more-important, ah, commitment that President Obama has made is to try to, ah, introduce and pass, ah, comprehensive immigration reform...."
It was around June 14, 2010, that people around the country were first learning that the United States Fish and Wildlife service had made parts of southern Arizona, in essence, off limits to American citizens, because the safety of Americans could not be guaranteed, since the parts were sort of in control of illegal aliens, such as smugglers who were it seemed well armed, and the lands, which were marked with signs and were in and near the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (and to learn more about this subject in which foreigners have control of U.S. land, you should see the document entitled "La Raza": Yet Another Enemy in the United States of America, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document).
On Friday, June 18, 2010, U.S. Senator John Kyl (a Repubican related to Arizona) was in North Tempe, Arizona, so that he could speak before a group, and one thought he passed along was: "...the Oval Office, just the two of us [Barack Obama and John Kyl]--I kicked the rest of the people out. Here's what the President [Barack Obama] said. 'The problem is,' he said, 'if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason for comprehensive immigration reform.' In other words...[Words are missing here because others were talking].... They won't secure the border un, unless...combined with comprehensive immigration reform. [You are urged to see my document entitled Nonsense Statesments and Quotations of Barack Obama, because the document shows how much of a lair Barack Obama is and shows Barack Obama cannot be trusted, and the document can be reached by using the link at the end of this document.]
Bill Burton handled the press event at the White House as a substitute for Robert Gibbs on Monday, June 21, 2010, and here is a comment that Bill Burton made during the daily question-and-answer session: "...No, the President didn't say that. Senator Kyle knows that the President didn't say that, but what everybody knows, because the President has made it perfectly clear, is that what we need to do is , ah, everything that we can...."The Mark Levin Show was one of the nationally syndicated radio shows in the country on Tuesday, June 22, 2010, and the host--Mark R. Levin--interviewed U.S. Senator John Kyl on Tuesday, June 22, 2010, and here are some comments made by John Kyl about his meeting with Barack Obama (as talked about in the previous section of this document):
Here is one segment of the interview:
John Kyl: "...Let me set the scene for you. Um, we were talking about the illegal immigration problem, and I was making a pitch that we needed to do a lot more to secure the border, and he talked about a lot the reasons why this was difficult. Politically, ah, there are problems on, on both sides of the aisle in dealing with this. And, and in that context--and I want to make that clear--ah, he said, in effect, that, ah--and I don't know whether, I don't recall whether he said, um, folks on my side or but, but it is basically talked about Democrats--um, believe that, if we, ah, secure the border, then you guys--meaning Republicans--won't have any incentive to pass comprehensive reform, and, in, in other words, expressing it as a trade off. Now, he didn't say that's the philosophy of my decision not to secure the border. He didn't say that. I didn't say he said that. Um, but it was clear that he was talking about a quid pro quo at least in the minds of some. And, um, when I was asked at this town-hall meeting--'Why is it people don't want to secure the border?' And my response was, in effect, well, one of the reasons, one of the problems is--and then I repeated what the President told me. And I really do believe that that is the attitude of a lot of people, and the people that the President has to, has to listen to, because they are big part of his political base. And what I responded with was--Look, you and I both have an obligation to enforce the law, to secure the border whether or not we ever get comprehensive reform. And I said irony is, once you secure the border, you're chances of getting comprehensive reform are a lot greater. So let's secure the border."
Mark Levin: "And what did he say to that?"
John Kyl: "Well, we continued to have a, have a discussion about it. Ah, he continues--and even in the statement where they denied the conversation--they once again--to the White House now--once again reiterated that we need comprehensive immigration reform."
Mark Levin: "Um, hum."
John Kyl: "Well, no! We need to secure the border, then we can talk about comprehensive reform."
Mark Levin: "But, you know, we're a great country. If we wanted to secure that border--at least more, make it more secure than it is today and if this was a priority with the President, he'd do it."
John Kyl: "We could do it."
Mark Levin: "He's not doing it."
John Kyl: "John McCain and I were on the border, ah, Saturday, and we asked the head--the Tucson sector is where half of illegal immigration in the entire country is coming through, and it's only two-hundred-and-some miles, ah, miles long--and we asked the acting, ah, chief, there, what he needed. He said--Well, he needs eight-hundred more border patrol agents. The National Guard could certainly help. He needs to replace, ah, a certain amount of fencing. He needs a lot of new surveillance equipment. And he said there need to be consequences for people crossing the border. This is what, ah, what I have referred to as the 'operation streamline,' where instead of catch and release, you actually prosecute the people--send them to jail, at least for a couple of weeks. And that acts as a real deterrent in the Yuma sector of the border--ah, illegal immigration has gone down ninety-four percent, ah, once they implemented all of the things that the Tucson sector needs to implement. So it can be done."
Mark Levin: "So, what's the problem with the Tucson sector--they can't get the federal resources, right?'
John Kyl: "That's right...."
Really, what you have through the evidence provided is Barack Obama is at least delaying and stalling--not rushing to send National Guard members or U.S. troops to, for example, Arizona to clear out and clean out the invaders from other countries, such as Mexico, and it is another delaying incident in which Barack Obama purposely hurted or is purposely hurting the United States of America--he had delayed taking action on talking with General Stanley McChrystal in 2009 and on providing more troops for missions to Afghanistan, and, by this date, he was still delaying on taking action to allow entites from other countries from helping to contain leaked oil from the oil-rig disaster, which had begun on April 20, 2010, in the Gulf of Mexico.Around Tuesday, June 21, 2010, people were hearing or seeing a statement made in a public service annoucement (a PSA) from the U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis that had recently been posted on the "We Can Help" Web site related to the U.S. Department of Labor. Here is some of the material of the PSA: "....You work hard, and you have a right to be paid fairly. I'm U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, and it is a serious problem when workers in this country are not being paid every cent they earn. Remember: Every worker in America has the right to be paid fairly whether documented or not. So call us...." You can see that this government employee--appointed by Barack Obama--seems unconcerned about illegal aliens (or "undocumented people) working in the United States of America, and, in fact, she is willing to help them out--when they should be put out or sent back to their home countries.
From June 22, 2010, through June 25, 2010, Detroit, Michigan, was the location for an event called the "US Social Forum," which, in essence, was a gathering of socialists, communists, and the like, and during the event, which was designed to push "social change" or "social justice" in the country, a woman named Elena Herrada was one of the speakers. Elena Herrada is a community activist and is associated with a group called Fronteras Nortenas. Here is part of a speech that she gave during the event, and the topic was "border patrol": "...They're not like the police, who will sometimes answer a call in, in, you know, you know, the police, you know, kind of regulars. They're not all head bustin'. They're not all lookin' for trouble with everybody. They, there's, there's a place for the police in the community really. But there is no place for border patrol. They have no good intentions. They have no good intentions. So when you see them, refuse to sit with them, refuse to eat with them, pretend like, you know, they are the menace that they are, and pretty soon everybody will catch on to it, and they won't feel so **bleep** comfortable to terrorize our community...." You can see by the evidence presented that not only is the US Social Forum defective but also Elena Herrada is defective, promoting actions that are disruptive and unlikable and promoting the idea that border patrol agents, whose job it is to help protect the United States of America, are bad. (To learn more about the US Social Forum, you should see the document entitled Detroit and Death: A View of a Future United States of America, which can be reached by using this link: Detroit.)
Here is news to keep in mind. On Tuesday, June 22, 2010, a foreign country--Mexico--got involved in one of the lawsuits that existed that were asking the U.S. court system to declare that Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act is an unconstitutional law. Yes, a foreign country does not like a law that was created by a state of the United States of America and wants it removed (Note: I say, that it is nonsense--and it will be really nonsense if Mexico were able to get an Arizona law removed from the books). (The Associated Press. "Mexico Joins Suit Against Arizona's Immigration Law, Citing 'Grave Concerns." FOXNews.com, 23 June 2010.)
A big attack on Arizona came from Barack Obama--specifically from the U.S. Department of Justice--on Tuesday, June 6, 2010. On this day, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010, which was a law that was about to take affect in about three weeks. Since the Arizona law mirrors federal law about immigration, the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix, Arizona, then, in essence, the lawsuit is like a lawsuit against federal law, though it is directly against the Arizona law. The lawsuit does not bring up the point of any civil-rights problems with the Arizona law, and on Tuesday, June 6, 2010, the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, noted; "...There's a movement throughout the United States of people wanting some action from the federal government, and so we would probably see these types of bills being enacted in other states. We need the federal government to do their job, and if they don't do it, Arizona will..." and "...They [Barack Obama and his associates] attempted to scare people in responding to the initial presentation of the bill. Obviously, today...the federal government did not address that issue of racial profiling into their lawsuit...."
On July 14, 2010, Mark R. Levin talked about a court brief that had recently been filed by the Landmark Legal Foundation, of which he is the president, during the first hour of his nationally syndicated three-hour radio show, The Mark Levin Show. The brief--which is associated with case number CV-10-01061-SRB--was filed with the U.S. District Court (District of Arizona). Much of the ten-page piece showed, in essence, why Mexico's court case against Arizona related to the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010 (a law of Arizona) is defective and why Mexico's case should be dismissed, and during the radio show, Mark R. Levin noted, for example, that Mexico should not be able to affect United States law, especially a law enacted by a state--particularly a law made by Arizona--since Mexico is a foreign country, and if Mexico is allowed to affect United States law, all other countries could affect United States law, which would be a nonsense idea and detrimental to the United States of America. (Note: For more information on this subject, you should go to the Web site for the Landmark Legal Foundation and see "Landmark Files Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Arizona Immigration Law" (July 14, 2010).)
On July 29, 2010, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010 was scheduled to go into effect, but on July 28, 2010, a Federal District Court Judge (Susan Bolton) made a ruling about the law related to a case entitled The United States vs. the State of Arizona and Janice Brewer that noted that the law could go into effect but portions of the law were blocked. On the evening of July 28, 2010, Mark R. Levin reviewed the judgment during this nationally syndicated radio show, The Mark Levin Show. In summoning up what was done, Mark Levin said during the first half hour of this radio how, "...It's a terrible, terrible decision. It'll take time to deal with it as works its way through the system. But it turns the whole notion, the whole notion of a preliminary injunction on its head and the standards for that, and it is a result-oriented decision...." In addition, Mark R. Levin said that the judge based arguments on "suppositions," which should not have been done in this case, which was a "facial challenge," and Mark R. Levin said that the judgment was an abomination (though he may have said "Obama-nation," and I misunderstood him). On this day, it was generally reported that the ruling would be appealed by the State of Arizona.
Now, that you have read the previous sentence, I now present two sets of text from The Mark Levin Show of July 28, 2010. This section comes from the first half hour in which Mark R. Levin was talking about: "...And here's the summary from me. This court's decision is a typical example of a judge stating the correct legal standard and then ignoring it and applying the test in a fashion completely divorced from the facts of the case in order to reach a pre-determined decision.... First, the court states correctly that the sort of constitutional challenge brought here--a facial challenge seeking a preliminary injunction--is the most difficult challenge to successfully mount. It requires that the plaintiff, here the federal government, must demonstrate that the law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical arguments...that's exactly what the court relies on in its ruling--that the Arizona law will impose an impermissible burden on law enforcement, which is to determine the legal status of a person detained pursuant to the Arizona law when the reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. The court does not provide any empirical basis to support its conclusion! It's pure supposition!...." This section comes from the second half hour in which Mark R. Levin noted what provisions were blocked by Judge Susan Bolton: "...The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained, arrested if there's reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally, that has been blocked. The portion of the law that requires a crime of failure to apply for a carry-alien registration papers, that has been blocked. Portion of the law makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for, or perform work, not including day laborers, that has been blocked. Portion that allows a warrant arrest of a person where there's probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States, which, by the way, as far as I know is existing law, that has been blocked. The ruling says that law enforcement still must enforce federal immigration laws to the fullest extent of the law when Arizona law goes into effect. This is so incoherent. You talk about an undue burden. I don't know how police officers are going to figure this one out...." [Go to the Web site for The Mark Levin Show to get more information about Mark Levin's summary of the ruling. Also, you are urged to see the section called "Special note #54" in my document National Health Care and Mass Failure: The Reason it is a Dead Issue, since it hints at how a real judge should work, and the document can be reached by using this link: Health.]
By the way, on July 28, 2010, Mark R. Levin opened his show by reading information from an article that had been posted on the Internet by Michelle Malkin earlier in the day that noted that new rules related to the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 now require, for one, people who are involved in the mortgage-brokerage business must have their fingerprints listed with a federal database (the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry), and I say that that is more nonsense from the federal government, since people's having to have their fingerprints listed with the federal government before they can do mortgage-loan business is nonsense and since the federal government is arguing that illegal immigrants need not carry ID papers (Malkin, Michelle. "Feds to enforce fingerprint/ID registration database against...mortgage brokers." Michelle Malkin, 28 July 2010, 05:32 p.m.). [Note: When the government orders people involved in a particular business to have their fingerprints listed before they can do their work from now on, is it not very likely that soon the federal government will require each person to have fingerprints listed before each person can do any particular type of work, and if the person does not get listed, the person does not get to do the work?]On July 29, 2010, Jan Brewer--or the State of Arizona--filed an expedited appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the ruling that had been isused by Federal Judge Susan Bolton the previous day.
Friday, August 13, 2010--here was another "historic day"--maybe--in the life of Barack Barack, since Barack Obama signed another bill into law. Before I report what the law is, I have some background information to pass along. On June 11, 2010, a vote was taken by the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council (a union entity that represents about 7,000 persons who work in jobs related to immigration or immigration enforcement) of the American Federation of Government Employees, and the vote resulted in a 259-to-0 "No Confidence" stance against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton and ODPP Assistant Director Phyllis Coven, and a document related to the vote was 'VOTE ON NO CONFIDENCE IN ICE DIRECTOR JOHN MORTON AND ODPP ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PHYLLIS COVEN." In essence, the people involved in the vote were making a public statement that noted that they were being hindered from doing their jobs by the management (ultimately, the Barack Obama administration), which is to enforce federal immigration laws. It was around the first week in August 2010 that the results of the vote became public knowledge through news reports, and the document related to the vote showed that the Barack Obama administration has been pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens, many of whom have criminal backgrounds, as hinted at in the document. On Friday, August 13, 2010, Barack Obama signed a bill that would allow, for example, one-thousand more border agents related to immigration to be hired, but the bill did not well provide funding to allow, for instance, border agents to do more work o better work to catch illegal aliens involved in low-level crimes. Really, the funding initiative would put more agents in the field who could not really do their work properly. And, remember, the Barack Obama administration has not been enforcing federal immigration law and has been attacking Arizona for working to enforce federal immigration law. ["ICE Agents Vote 'No Confidence' in Leaders, Say Amnesty." Newsmax.com, 7 August 2010; Kephart, Janice. "ICE's Mission Melt: Agents Vote 'No Confidence' in leadership." Center for Immigration Studies, 4 August 2010.]
An event of Saturday, January 8, 2011, has some side information or related information to the main subject of this document that you should keep in mind. On Saturday, January 8,. 2011, a man named Jared Loughner shot and injured a number of persons and shot and killed several persons in Tucson, Arizona; for example, a judge (a Republican) was killed, and a nine-year-old girl was killed, and U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (a Democrat related to Arizona) was injured. Tucson is located in Pime County, which is a county that touches Mexico, and since 1980, the country sheriff in Pime County has been Clarence Dupnik. On Saturday, January 8, 2011, a bit of time after the shooting had taken place, Clarence Dupnik held a press conference, which a person listening to or watching would expect would only be about the shooting, such as about how well the injured are doing, and Clarence Dupnik--a Democrat--showed what the Democratic Party believes in and what he believes in through some of the things that he said, and one thing that he said is: "...But again I'd just like to say that, when you, when you look at unbalanced people, how they are, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the, ah, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous and, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of a capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry...." Given what Clarence Dupnik said, a person should wonder how much Clarence Dupnik stands up for the citizens of Arizona and the citizens of the United States of America, and a person should wonder whether or not this man looks the other way in matters related to illegal aliens (and maybe a person should wonder where this man stands on the matter of "La Raza"). [Incidentally, the idea about bigotry and prejudice should never have been mentioned, having no place in such a press conference, and the bigotry and prejudice implied by Clarence Dupnik probably not only is related to Barack Obama (a black) but also to Hispanic-type people (particularly illegal aliens related for Spanish-related countries), and you should notice Clarence Dupnik also attacked "conservatives," who oppose Marxism and enslavism (such as, specifically, communism, which is something that Barack Obama embraces) or you should understand the "mouths" to which he referred are "conservatives," people who are strongly oppose Marxism and enslavism and Barack Obama's work to change the country into a country controlled by enslavists. You are urged to see my document entitled Conservatives and The United States Constitution Versus Enslavers and Enslavism (Communism, Sharia, Socialism, et cetera), which can be reached by using this link: Conservatism. Let me me it clear--Clarence Dupnik does not support the United States of America as it was founded, and Clarence Dupnik does support Barack Obama's work to change the country into a country controlled by enslavists, as is shown in a statement that he made on the Fox News Channel on Sunday, January 9, 2011: "...I grew up in a country that was totally different from the country that we have today. We didn't have this kind of nonsense going on, and it used to be that politicians from different parties could sit down, forget about their ideology, and work on the country's problems. We don't see that happening today. As a matter of fact, we see just the opposite. We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country...." Yes, Clarence Dupnik dislikes people's work to block Barack Obama--a communist and such--and other Democrats from turning the country into, for example, a socialist country.]
On Thursday, February 10, 2011, the Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer held a press conference in which it was announced the State of Arizona was filing a lawsuit against the federal government, and the lawsuit was a counter suit related to the federal government's lawsuit against Arizona for enacting Senate Bill 1070. Jan Brewer held the press event outside, and with her were a number of officials, such as the Attorney General of Arizona. Here is a portion--in essence, the opening portion--of the press conference in text form, and these are the words of Jan Brewer:
"...As I have said many times, it's outrageous that the United States Department of Justice sued the people of Arizona to stop Senate Bill 1070. Our message to the federal government is very simple--Use federal resources to combat the cartels and who are breaking the federal law. Don't attack Arizona, which is helping to enforce the federal law. Although Arizona is very grateful for the additional federal resources to secure the border after I signed Senate Bill 1070, doing better is just not good enough. As the recent death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry reminds us, our border remains a dangerous place. Our border and immigration system are still broken. Now that the United States District Court has ruled on our motion to dismiss, the State of Arizona has a window of opportunity to file a counter claim against the federal government. Because the federal government has failed to protect the citizens of Arizona, I am left with no other choice. So, today, I am announcing that the State of Arizona is filing a counter claim against the federal government for failing to uphold its constitutional and statutory obligations. Arizona did not ask for this fight with the federal government to secure our border and to enforce our immigration laws. We did not want this fight. We did not start this fight. But now that we are in it, Arizona will not rest until our border is secured and federal immigration laws are enforced. And we will most likely have to pursue our claims all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The State of Arizona will sue the federal government on five separate counts--Failure to gain operational control of the border as required under the Secure Fence Act of 2006; Failure to enforce immigration laws enacted by Congress; Failure to protect Arizona from harm associated with rampant illegal immigration as required by The United States Constitution; Failure to reimburse Arizona for over seven-hundred-and-sixty-three-million dollars in costs incurred for the incarceration of criminal aliens; and Violating Arizona's Tenth Amendment right to protect the health, safety, welfare of all its citizens. Now, this fight will not be easy, and it will not be cheap. That's why I have established Arizona's border security fund at www.keepAZsafe.com. And I particularly want to take this opportunity once again to thank the thousands of Americans in every state for contributing to this fund to help Arizona in this fight against the federal government...."Two events of note took place on Monday, April 11, 2011. First, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals kept a "stay" active in relation to the Arizona law known as "SB1070"--a "stay" that had been put in place by a Federal District Court--and so the governor of Arizona (Jan Brewer) was going to appeal to a higher federal court level (by the way, the ruling on the "stay" by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was made by a panel of three judges, two of which upheld the "stay"). And on Monday, April 11, 2011, the State Senate of Georgia passed a bill about immigration--House Bill 87--that was similar in nature with the "SB1070" of Arizona, and the vote was 39 "yes" votes for passage and 17 "no" votes to block passage, and the bill then went back to the State House of Georgia for consideration.
During the week of Monday, December 12, 2011, two events really showed up how the Democratic Party (which is now a communist party) is working to destroy and corrupt the immigration system of the United States of America. One, the mayor of New Haven, Connecticut--John DeStefano ( Democrat)--was pushing to allow illegal aliens (who are people who are violating federal immigration laws) to vote in local elections, which if it became allowable would mean anyone could go to New Haven, take up residence, and vote in local elections, which would give bad people in the country the ability to cite such ability as precedent in court cases. Two, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (a Democrat) was pushing the idea, through a report released on Thursday of the week, that a county sheriff in Arizona--Maricapo County Sheriff Joe Arpaio--was discriminating against Latinos while supposedly upholding U.S. immigration laws, and it was reported that the head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security--Janet Napolitano--had blocked the ability of Joe Arpaio's department from using U.S. databases to check on the immigration status of persons who were in the custody of the department, so the department would be forced to let potential illegal aliens out of jail. (Remember: The U.S. Department of Justice had already attacked Arizona by starting up a court case related to "SB 1070," and illegal aliens are violating federal immigration laws.)
Monday, June 25, 2012--this day was a big day in the history of what is left of the United States of America (as it was founded). On this day, the U.S. Supreme Court released a ruling about the immigration-related law of Arizona informally called "SB 1070." It was a ruling that showed the bad that many of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are, having decided to strike down much of the Arizona law, and on Mark R. Levin (a lawyer who hosted the nationally syndicated radio show called The Mark Levin Show) commented on much that was wrong with the decision, and, for example, Mark Levin said: "...And he [Barack Obama] doesn't like the immigration law. And what did five justices of the Supreme Court say?--Fine by us. Excuse me! Fine by you! That's not what The Constitution provides. That's not what the statute provides. And, of course, a state has the right to protect its citizens. And, no, the immigration laws don't preempt the field to the point where state can't pass complimentary legislation. In fact, federal law strongly encourages local, state, and federal authorities to work together. Is that what Obama did today? Is that was Napolitano did today?...." The U.S. Supreme Court did say that, police officers, such as those in Arizona, while involved in policing other laws, could ask persons for immigration status. On the same day, though, the Barack Obama administration reported publicly that, for the most part, it would not answer telephone calls from police in Arizona who are involved in immigration-relation matters or enforcement, and on Monday, June 25, 2012, the governor of Arizona--Jan Brewer--appeared on a television show called On the Record with Greta Van Susteren (on the Fox News Channel), and one thing that she said is: "...I would think that the American people would think long and deep about what the federal government is doing and why aren't they abiding by the rule of law. It's just unconscionable. What they said to Arizona is--Drop dead, Arizona, drop dead and go away, we're going to ignore you...." In relation to the Barack Obama administration's having set up a Web site at which people could report on police doing immigration-related matters, Jan Brewer said on the television show: "...The federal government and the Department of Justice to go out, ah, in this manner and to, ah, encourage--I would say 'bait people'--to call up and report people that, it's just unbelievable. Is this not America? Is this not the United States? Do I not as governor have the right to protect the people of Arizona. It's just incomprehensible to think that this has all taken place today. And it ticks me off!...." What the country had on Monday, June 25, 2012, was a U.S. President--Barack Obama--choosing not to uphold existing immigration laws, acting like lawlessly, and it was another example of Barack Obama's disdain for the country and another example that showed Barack Obama was acting as a dictator and an enemy of the country--a U.S. President is required to enforce the existing laws of the land and is not able to chose to enforce some laws and not enforce other laws.
Note: It must be remembered the Barack Obama administration ran a program called "Fast and Furious" from 2009 to 2011, in which the administration worked to get guns from U.S. guns shops, such as in Arizona, into the hands of Mexicans thugs, such as drug smugglers, and it was a program in which the Mexican government was not involved, and it was a program in which none of the guns was tracked so that the bad Mexicans could be caught, and it was a program in which two American agents were killed with guns involved in the program and many other persons were injured or killed, and it was a program that was designed to make Americans ask for tougher gun laws in the U.S. (some people in the country are working to get guns out of the hands of citizens so that the citizens will not be able to rise up against bad politicians, such as dictator-type politicians, which is the way it is in many bad countries of the world).
Let me pass along some facts of life. It is a fact of life that the United States of America must have rules about who and who may not enter and stay in the United States of America and work to become a naturalized citizen, as have other countries. It is a fact of life that the United States of America must have limits as to how many persons from other countries may come in to the country and work to become naturalized citizens, or the United States of America cannot have what has become termed "open borders," which is the idea in which anyone can come in to the country and all can come in to the country. It is a fact of life that the United States of America has to set requirements about the type of person who may be allowed to enter and and stay in the country and work to become a naturalized citizen; for example, a person who is a known criminal or a known drug smuggler should not be allowed become a naturalized citizen and gain the privileges afforded a citizen of the United States of America and not illegal aliens.
I have my rules about who should be allowed or not be allowed to become a naturalized citizen of the United States of America. I say that a person should know at least some English before becoming a naturalized citizen. I say that a person who wishes to become a naturalized citizen should know and be able to answer some basic questions about The U.S. Constitution and the structural form of the government of the United States of America.
Barack Obama and Democrats in the U.S. Congress are working to pass a new federal immigration law, which would, for one, make all the illegal aliens in the country instant citizens, and such a rule would be bad for the country, since such people will not have followed the existing laws about immigration, as did naturalized citizens, who really worked and waited to become legal naturalized citizens--a process that can take years--and many of those persons are not versed in the ways and culture of the United States of America, such as versed in knowing the principles of The U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence and versed upholding the ways of The U.S. Constitution (and, by the way, the idea of "culture" as used in this document does not refer to religion or ethnic things), and, most certainly, it is clear that Barack Obama is not working as a good father would to protect this home--the United States of America.
P.S. #1: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which was signed into law on March 23,2010, has provisions to let illegal aliens use the health-care system and get free emergency medical care or emergency room care.
P.S. #2: You should be well aware American citizens have to carry identification papers and show identification at times, such as when they pay for something with a check or when they go to get a license to drive, and that happens because those offering things, such as a license to drive, have know that the persons who asking for things are truly who they profess to be and not impersonators or illegal aliens who may not be allowed to have the things that are being offered.
P.S. #3: There comes a time when the people in other countries must fight for their countries.
P.S. #4: Commentary: It looks as if politicians who want to give instant citizenship to illegal aliens--and, most certainly, one of those politicians is Barack Obama--only want to give the instant citizenship to illegal aliens so that the illegal aliens will when they become true citizens feel good about the politicians and vote for the politicians in the future, and that is bad policy and bad for the country.
P.S. #5: On February 3, 2011, I first learned of a three-hour documentary film from Eyefull Video Productions entitled Southern Exposure (which was released in 2010). This documentary from Eyefull Video Productions--Stan Wald and Jerry Misner--focuses on what has been and is happening in relation to illegal aliens at the border between Mexiceo and the United States of America, and it shows the bad that exists, such as government corruption. The web site to get the video is http://southernexposuredocumentary.us/, and, in February 2011, the cost of the video was $21.95.
###
Bibliography:
"Adverse possession." Wikipedia.com, 1 April 2010.
"Arizona." Wikipedia.com, 27 April 2010.
"Arizona pushes Congress to political minefield." MSNBC, 27 April 2010, 5:39 p.m. ET. (http://www.msnbc.com....)
"Chain migration." Wikipedia.com, 23 March 2010.
"City Council Votes Consider AZ Boycott." My Fox Austin (television station), 13 Mayy 2010, 6:22 p.m. CDT. (http://www.myfoxaustin.com....)
"Gestapo." Wikipedia.com, 29 April 2010.
"Gov. Jan Brewer announces Arizona dto file counter claim against U.S. government." ABC15.com, 10 February 2011.
"Highland Park High School In The Spotlight Over Arizona Boycott, Sarah Palin Gets Involved." The Huffington Post, 14 May 2010, 12:11 p.m. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com....)
"ICE Agents Vote 'No Confidence' in Leaders, Say Amnesty." Newsmax.com, 7 August 2010.
"Immigration Act of 1924." Wikipedia.com, 19 April 2010.
"Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965." Wikipedia.com, 12 April 2010.
"Immigration to the United States." Wikipedia.com, 25 April 2010.
"Jeb Bush." Wikipedia.com, 25 April 2010.
"List of United States immigration legislation." Wikipedia.com, 27 April 2010.
"Obama signs bill approving $600 million for border security." CNN.com, 13 August 2010, 1:37 p.m. EDT. (http://www.cnn.com....)
"San Diego Faces Own Medicine as Arizona Residents Cancel Travel Following Boycott of State." FOXNews.com, 17 May 2010. (http://www.foxnews.com....)
"San Francisco boycotts Arizona over immigration law." BREITBART, 12 May 2010, 01:36 a.m. U.S./Eastern. (http://www.breitbart.com....)
"Seattle Considers Boycotting Arizona." kirotv.com, 17 May 2010, 6:36 a.m. (http://www.kirotv.com....)
"South Africa under apartheid." Wikipedia.com, 28 April 2010.
"The Situation Room: Interview with Mexican President Felipe Calderon; Analysis of Special Election Results." CNN Transcripts, 19 May 2010, 17:00 ET.
Adams, Cindy. "Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer files appeal to immigration law injunction as protesters gather (VIDEO). Examiner.com (Grand Rapids), 29 July 2010, 7:52 p.m. (http://www.examiner.com....)
Archibald, Randal C. "Judge Blocks Disputed Parts of Immigration Law in Arizona." The New York Times, 28 July 2010. (http://www.nytimes.com....)
The Associated Press. "Feds Say Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Violated Civil Rights." FOXNews.com, 15 December 2011.
The Associated Press. "Obama Signs $600M Border Security Bill." FOXNews.com, 13 August 2010. (http://www.foxnews.com....)
The Associated Press. "Thousands Protest Arizona Sheriff's Immigration Efforts." FOXNews.com, 16 January 2010. (http://www.foxnews.com....)
The Associated Press and Reuters. "Federal Judge Bocks Key Portions of Arizona Illegal Immigation Law." FOXNews.com, 28 July 2010. (http://www.foxnews.com....)
Bailey, Melissa. "DeStefano Envisions A New Voting Frontier." New Haven Independent, 14 December 2011, 6:44 p.m.
Battenfeld, Joe. "Arizona boycott may prompt Boston boycott." My Fox Boston (television station), 7 May 2010, 10:09 a.m. EDT. (http://www.myfoxboston.com....)
Ching, Joslyn. "Jan Brewer Intends Countersuit Against The Federal Government." ThirdAge.com, 10 February 2011, 7:57 p.m.
Cowan, Claudia. "San Francisco Leads Charge to Boycott Arizona, But Calls Could Spark Backlash." FOXNews.com, 28 April 2010. (http://www.foxnews.com....)
Davenport, Paul, and Jacques Billeaud and Jonathan J. Cooper. "Arizona Legislature sends immigration bill to gov." The Associated Press, 19 April 2010.
Digger. "New Documentary, Southern Exposure, Dares To Shed Light on Corruption, Violence Along Border." Digger Realm, 31 August 2010, 04:29 a.m.
Dinan, Stephen. "Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police." The Washington Times, 25 June 2012.
Gibbs, Douglas. "Los Angeles Joins Boycott Against Arizona." Examiner.com, 16 May 2010, 7:46 a.m. (http://www.examiner.com....)
Goldberg, Andy. "Opponents furious over Arizona's 'Nazi' immigration law." EarthTimes, 28 April 2010, 05:00:56 GMT. (http://www.earthtimes.org....)
Hayes, Edward. "The Highland Park boycott of Arizona exposes left domination of our public schools." Examiner.com, 15 May 2010, 11:36 a.m. (http://www.examiner.com....)
Huston, Warner Todd. "Gov. Candidate Brady on Highland Park School Arizona Boycott." Chicago Now, 15 May 2010, 12:47 p.m. (http://www.chicagonow.com....)
Kephart, Janice. "ICE's Mission Melt: Agents Vote 'No Confidence' in leadership." Center for Immigraiton Studies, 4 August 2010.
Lacey, Marc, and Salvador Rodriguez. "U.S. Finds Pervasive Bias Against Latinos by Arizona Sheriff." The New York Times, 15 December 2011.
Mahony, Roger. "ARIZONA'S DREADFUL ANTI-IMMIGRANT LAW." Cardinal Roger Mahony, Blogs L.A., 18 April 2010.
Mantyk, Evan. "Arizona Immgration Law Favored by Arizona Voters, Poll Says." Epoch Times, 28 April 2010.
Martin, Jonathan. "Jeb Bush speaks out against Arizona Law." Politico, 27 April 2010, 3:15 p.m. EDT. (http://www.politico.com....)
Michaelson, Elex. "San Diego Schools Boycott Arizona." San Diego 6 (television station), 11 May 2010, 11:11 p.m. (http://www.sandiego6.com....)
O'Brien, Michael. "Democrat lawmaker: Arizona immigration law like apartheid." The Hill, 28 April 2010, 11:35 a.m. ET. (http://thehill.com....)
Olson, Alexandra. "Mexico defends bloody battle with drug cartels." Detroit Free Press, 17 June 2010, p. 17A.
Rayfield, Jillian. "Georgia Latest State to Advance Arizona-Style Immigration Bill." TPM, 12 April 2011, 1:10 p.m.
Ross, Brian, and Richard Esposito and Asa Eslocker. "Kidnapping Capital of the U.S.A." ABC News, 11 February 2009.
Sherman, Mark. "Outcome mixed on immigration law." Detroit Free Press, 26 June 2012, p. 7A.
Smith, Craig, and Ilena Diaz (and Web producer Ina Ronquillo). "Appeals court continues stay on key parts of 1070." KGUN9 (San Francisco, California), 11 April 2011, 9:46 p.m. EDT, and 12 April 2011, 7:31 p.m. EDT.
Staff, The Associated Press. "Obama's Labor Secretary Reaches Out to Illegal Aliens With Paycheck Complaints." CNSNews.com, 22 June 2010. (http://www.cnsnews.com....)
Starr, Penny. "Arizona Sheriff Says Cops Are Being Killed by Illegal Aliens; Joins Call for U.S. Troops on Border." CNSNews.com, 20 April 2010. (http://www.cnsnews.com....)
Watanabe, Teresa. "Cardinal Mahony criticizes Arizona immigration bill." Los Angeles Times, 20 April 2010. (http://articles.latimes.com....)
Weil, Dan. "Jeb Bush Opposes Arizona Immigration Law." Newsmax.com, 28 April 2010, 09:18 a.m. (http://newsmax.com....)
Willon, Phil. "L.A. City Council votes to ban travel and future contracts with Arizona because of tough new immigration law." Los Angeles Times, 12 May 2010, 12:23 p.m. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com....)
Zimmerman, Eric. "Mack (R) compares Ariz. law to Nazi Germany." The Hill, 29 April 2010, 01:23 p.m. ET. (http://thehill.com....)
Note: On Wednesday, April 28, 2010, I went to the Web site for FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) and was a document entitled "Chain Migration," which was not dated, and the main address to FAIR was http://www.fairus.org....
Note: To write this document, I also used my very long manuscript for the proposed book entitled The United States Book: A Guide for the Individual, which has a bibliography of some 500 books and 10,000+ articles.
###
Note: This document was originally posted on the Internet on April 28, 2010.
Note: This document is known on the Internet as www.hologlobepress.com/illegal.htm.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled "La Raza": Yet
Another Enemy in the United States
of America, which can be reached by
using this link: La Raza.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Conservatism for
Children and What Conservatism Means,
which can be reached by using this link:
Conservatism.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Madness in a President
and Other Matters of a Defective Mind,
which can be reached by using this link:
Madness.
For further reading, you should see my
document entitled Nonsense Statements
and Quotations of Barack Obama, which
can be reached by using this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Never Forget These
Media "Darlings" ?: A Guide for the
Individual in the United States of
America, which can be reached by
using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled A Little History of
Barack Obama Events: A Show of
Deconstruction, which can be reached by
using this link: History.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Lessons for Children
about Politics and Dangerous People,
which can be reached by using this
link: Children.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled The Next Elections:
What Has to be Done to Protect the
United States of America, which can
be reached by using this link: Elections.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled World Tyranny:
Warnings about the Insane Who are
Trying to Create a Communist World
Country, which can be reached by
using this link: World.Note: Many other documents exist at the
Web site for The Hologlobe Press that will
give you information about the bad that Barack
Obama and his associates are doing to the
United States of America, such as the Michigan
Travel Tips documents and the T.H.A.T.
documents that have been published since
the fall of 2008.To get to the Site-Summary Page for The
Site-Summary Page for The Hologlobe
Press, you may use this link: Summary.
To get to the main page for The Hologlobe
Press, you may click on this link now:
www.hologlobepress.com.###