Showing posts with label 10th Amendment. Jan Brewer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 10th Amendment. Jan Brewer. Show all posts

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Mexican Newspaper Stops Covering Violence After Second Bombing – Safe in AZ, TX, U.S.? The Chaos on the U.S. Border Begs For Sound Solutions.


More Crime south of the U.S. Border - move those patrols north! - image from the negelectedwar.com

From Insightcrime.org: Pesident Elect, Neitro has vowed to cut the Murder Rate in Mexico by 50% within six years – “The president-elect plans to launch a new offensive against the smaller, more locally-based gangs that have proliferated in Mexico in recent years, US congressman Henry Cuellar (D-Rep, Texas), a close associate of Peña Nieto, told the news agency.”. Six years may be a long wait for some families living inside Mexico – from the Houston Chronicle comes a tale of desperation as an entire family of 20, made up of businessmen and politicians are now seeking political asylum as two members of the family were murdered. One for reporting threats, his son, for visiting his father grave. The town is located 80 miles south of El Paso Texas.

The violence continues unabated, although the Mexican army reports a huge drop in violence in the past year – which has been reported by KHON-Hawaii, makes one wonder which border the Mexican Army is talking about.

It may be that there will be less reporting on murders, beheadings, shootouts, kidnappings, both inside Mexico’s provinces, or directly on the Mexican/U.S. border as Journalist literally take their lives in their hands (Mexico being the 3rd most deadly place for Journalist – in the world – Reuters). In fact, this week, one of Mexico’s Border Newspapers has reported in an editorial it will no longer cover any stories related to the cartels and violence – a move of desperation after having a second bomb attack at the newspaper offices.
(Reuters) One cannot erase the facts.

Even a trip deep into Mexico – by air- may be life threatening: back in June The BBC reported on a shoot-out in Mexico City’s airport that had passengers “diving for cover”. The border, however, remains the most violent, from Borderland Beat July 11 13 murders took place La Laguna region of Mexico in the last five days – bodies found in garbage bags, executions – the normal everyday life of the Mexican citizen surrounded by vicious, beheading prone, “gangs”which have, evidently shut down one newspaper – to date.

It goes without saying that unless and until Mexico beefs up its security forces inside its own country and protects its own citizens, and places its army on the Mexican side of the U.S. border – the violence will continue to spread both north and south of the border. As to the Southern U.S border, with Arizona being the primary entry point (after fencing was installed in San Diego and the Border clamped down in El Paso by the Clinton Administration), the balance of the border should be fenced, droned and monitored by the Federal Government – but to date, under both the Bush and the Obama administration – nothing has been done – This leaves on lone demonized, Arizona Govenor, Jan Brewer, fighting for the citizens of both nations. Although the press in the U.S. and the Obama Administration in particular, along with Mexican’s former President (and one can suspect, given his ties to the U.S. Democrat party, the President Elect), have fought tooth and nail to keep the border porous – yes, for votes, from both parties, but votes by whom? It is estimated that only 5% of the U.S. Hispanic population is eligible to vote Pew Research and those who are eligible might not even care to be labeled “Hispanic”, they are the legal immigrants who came here through the “front door” – and are businessmen, teachers, mothers, fathers, lawyers, doctors, students, Democrats, Republican’s and Libertarians, therefore it makes no sense to keep the borders unprotected.

Shouts of Racist can be heard every time someone suggests shutting down the U.S. Mexican Border – and the question is why? The nation should protect it’s sovereignty, in doing so, it is protecting the lives of individual Mexican and American citizens along the border as well as in every state of the U.S. – where the Mexican “mafia “operates, dealing not only in drugs but in human capital. Women suffer to the extreme, brought over the border by drug cartels, which they pay in order to enter the U.S. illegally, then they are brought to “safe houses” raped, beaten and held for ransom – they area also, not always Hispanic, if one is naive enough to think that is the case, the one should read a bit more of the police blotters and information coming out of the border states – this does not include forced prostitution (as young as 13), another offshoot of the “Culture” that is being exported north of the border. Both nations should get their act together and quickly. The chance of this happening is, of course, ridiculously low – it is simply not a priority, one or the other may lose “votes”. (Speaking of both politicians of all political persuasions in the U.S. and in Mexico).

Yet millions of illegal immigrants risk live and limb to get here every year, and to stay here “illegally” – breaking our laws (this is not, by the way, tolerated in Mexico – who has strict enforcement of illegal immigrants) – In fact, some of them do so without any legal status in Mexico or the U.S. – A report from WIST NY speaks to the millions of illegal immigrants living in NY, NJ and CT, who have no identification what-so-ever, making it impossible for them to get a bank account, get a job, get married, or get their G.E.D. (Keep in mind, they are still here illegally) – The Solution was found:

New York City's Mexican consul, Carlos Sada, estimates there could be hundreds in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut who are not included in his country's registry or who have errors on their birth certificates. He added that there are "considerable figures" of people in the same situation across the U.S.
Oaxaca's civil registry officials recently traveled to New York and spent a week in the city working to give an identity to dozens of immigrants.
Civil registry officials also have traveled to Los Angeles on the same mission, and officials from the states of Puebla and Guerrero will probably come to New York soon, said Mexico's consulate in the city.
Haydee Reyes Soto, director of Oaxaca's civil registry, said Mexicans with no U.S. or Mexican identification are "twice as vulnerable."
Soto said dramatic scenarios can unfold, with immigrants being arrested but with no place to be deported to. If they have children in the United States, they can't offer them Mexican citizenship because they don't have it themselves. That can result in the separation of families.
Lack of identity is a serious problem as states approve their own laws to fight illegal immigration and local police departments work with federal agencies to identify immigrants for possible deportation, said Leticia Alanis, president of La Union, a Brooklyn nonprofit that helps immigrants.
Groups like Make the Road New York and El Centro del Inmigrante, on Staten Island, offer ID cards to their members, which sometimes helps immigrants without Mexican identification.
"We ask them to send a letter to themselves and when they receive it, we ask them to bring it to us. Like that, we can check their address," said Gonzalo Mercado, director of El Centro.


Why not just grant these individuals political asylum – fast track their illegal status to legal, make them legal Citizens of the U.S. , (revamp the test), and at the very least, have them pay taxes. Having another nation, hand out ID’s for their citizens, so that they can continue to stay in the U.S. illegally – makes no sense. If one is living in a nation that is besieged by beheading, jihadist like “drug” cartels” whose sole aim is to murder as many journalist, politicians and businessmen, then perhaps asylum should be granted en mass. Once there are secure (not secure for a quarter mile) borders in place on both sides – then give them the opportunity to repatriate to Mexico – or stay.

To follow the ongoing “cartel” wars visit Borderland Beat, and pray that the next administration in both nations pays a bit more attention to actually enforcing border security along the southwest corridor. If not, beheadings, mutilations and the like can become a part of anyone’s hometown in the U.S. as it is known that the cartels operate on both sides of the border now, in cities far from Phoenix, (which bears the brunt) – it is only a matter of time. With all sincerely, if one is religious, pray for those who must live with this – the families, the children, the young journalist who only want to exist in their homeland of Mexico in peace – yet face the fact that any second, either themselves or their loved ones may end up in a garbage bad in pieces, or their heads displayed as trophies on a car – or have a day at the beauty salon, interrupted by spraying bullets. Pray also for those families in the border states specifically Arizona, who have to live with the violence spilling over the border, with no help from the federal government, whose sole job it is to protect our borders – and one final note: if one thinks Jan Brewer ,the Governor of Arizona is some sort of bigoted, racists, crackpot, think again – she’s doing what no one else has had the cajones to do – stand up for the citizens of a border state, and in doing so – stand up for the citizens of Mexico.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Democrat Governors Meeting In Boston Fear Election Backlash from Obama’s Suit Against Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law

The New York Timesreporting on the Governors Association Meeting in Boston reported that Democrat Governors met with Administration officials over the weekend in order to discuss the suit brought against the State of Arizona and its impact on 2010 elections. Apparently, several of the Democrat Governors feel that their chances of re-election, already slim, are not being helped by the Administration’s rift with Arizona. Arizona passed SB 1070 (Short, easy to read Bill here), which enforces existing federal law – something the Federal Government has failed to do for decades. The problem for Democrat governors appears to be the fact that the Arizona Law is extremely popular among voters, with a majority supporting the State of Arizona (Gallop Latest Poll article LA Times). The Governors feel the “timing” was not right, as far as the Administration’s decision to go forward with the suit, suggesting that Obama and Holder should have waited until after the 2010 election. The word used to describe the suit by one anonymous Democrat Governor – “Toxic”.

The topic of Illegal Immigration has been a thorn in the side of Presidents going back decades, with a majority of United States citizens supporting legal immigration, with no support for open border policies that have been in place, or programs allowing for amnesty, which have not worked due to the fact that the border remains extremely porous. After September 11, 2001, the issue of open borders became one of national security, but in recent months it has also become attached to the issue of the economy. With jobs scarce, and states going bankrupt with entitlement programs, the cost of health care going through the roof and increased crime associated with illegal immigrants (specifically those on the Border States such as Arizona where home invasions, murders, et. al, are out of control) have citizens fed up.

As the suits against Arizona pile up, perhaps Holder should look to Rhode Island and consider a similar suit – Rhode Island takes illegal immigration seriously, and has measure in place that are a bit tougher than Arizona’s. However, it may not be politically expedient to do so, as the President and his advisers apparently believe that this suit is a no-brain Hispanic vote-getter. A poll may be in order – United States Citizens of Hispanic descent might view the situation a bit differently than Obama and Company believes.

A side note: In the New York Times Article by Abby Goodnough, the following paragraph should, perhaps, explain the erroneous views of the current administration and the fallacy of Progressive Think as regards the issue of the borders of the United States and the Federal Laws concerning same:

"The Arizona law — which Ms. Brewer signed in April and which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants."


To correct Ms. Goodnough and the administration, it is a crime to be an illegal immigrant in any of the 50 states that make up the United States of America. Illegal – by definition, implies that a crime has taken place. When one makes a decision to cross the U.S. Border without going through customs, and/or without documentation, one is indeed committing a crime, regardless of which border one crosses – be it Mexico, Canada or any coastal port.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

AZ’s Jan Brewer Draws More in Donations than Anti-AZ Immigration Law Protestors in “Liberal” MA – Deval “Obama” Patrick Weighs in Favor of Ilegals


Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, Faces Fans and Protesters in Boston, MA - image Phoenix Business



It was expected that the presence of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer at the Governors Conference in Boston, Massachusetts would draw crowds of Illegal Immigration supporters in massive protests – not the case. The “pouring rain” excuse was used in touting the “estimated 600” protesters who appeared in Boston to protest the Governor and SB1070, Arizona’s Immigration Law that mirrors the Federal Governments existing Laws. One would think that these protesters would have been from Massachusetts, however, according to ANSWER, a group of “community organizers” who staged the protests, participants came from: "throughout the region, with organized transportation coming from Worcester, Fitchburg, Providence, New Haven, New London, New York City, Syracuse, Baltimore, Washington DC, Philadelphia and elsewhere”. According to other sources, including the Boston Herald the figure was closer to 400, not including pro-Arizona protesters.


Pro Illegal Immigration Rally in Boston - Image Boston Herald

Can one find Pro-Arizona protesters in Massachusetts? Indeed, as well as individuals willing to donate to the defense fund for the State of Arizona. An estimated $7,000 has been donated by Bay Stater’s – so far.


Pro Arizona Protestors in Boston - image Boston Herald
Not everyone in Massachusetts is sympathetic to Arizona, including Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick, who, according to the Boston Globe ”Blasts Immigration Crackdowns”. Patrick is up for reelection in 2010, and also used that time to whine about the Republican Governors Association running Anti-Patrick Ads for Republican Challenger, Charlie Baker, calling them ”Stone cold partisan”. Of course, the Democrat Counterpart to the Republican Governors Association will begin running anti-Baker ads next week. Patrick, at the very least, grasps the obvious – Political ads can be – partisan.
So, why the disconnect between Governor Patrick and his constituents in the Bay State (one does not include the Democrat controlled City and Town boards who have instituted the aforementioned boycotts)?

Perhaps he missed the latest from, WWLP, of Western Massachusetts reporting on an illegal alien who had been charged with child rape last week, or the case where a State Lawmaker met an illegal immigrant by “accident”. The illegal immigrant, traveling at 60 mph, crashed into State Representative Mike Moran’s card.

What is a bit mind-boggling, is that Rhode Island (right next door to Boston), lost a battle in the Statehouse to implement a law similar to Arizona, however, they have a backup – an Executive Order, signed by Rhode Islands’ Governor, is someone more restrictive than has received little to no recognition for its mandates ordering immigration checks on all new state employees, as well as ordering RI State Politic to assist federal immigration officials.

One would hazard to guess that more Bay State and Rhode Island Residents support Jan Brewer than Deval Patrick on this issue.
Where to donate to Arizona’s defense fund against seven (7) suits filed (including one by the Nation of Mexico joined to the Federal Governments Suit (what Constitution?!) and to be heard by Clinton Appointee, Susan Bolton?

Go to: Keep AZ Safe.com.

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Obama Vs. Arizona – Immigration – Not specifically treated in the U.S. Constitution – Interpretation by Presiding Justice Will Herald Win or Loss


The Federal Suit Against Arizona is Joined by Mexico

The Obama Administrating filed a law suit this week against the State of Arizona, specifically to stop enforcement of a State Law which mirrors a Federal Law governing Immigration. The Federal Suit has been Joined by a Suit filed by the Mexican Government. (See references to Article 10)

The Brief (download here PDF via Washington Post) contains the following:

(i)
“In this action, the United States seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and
permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070, as amended and enacted by the State of Arizona, because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

and

(ii)
“ In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to
regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests. Congress has assigned to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Department of State, along with other federal agencies, the task of enforcing and administering these immigration-related laws…”

Regardless of the content of the suit, the Federal Government, by first naming the Supremacy Clause, hopes to end any challenge from Arizona based solely on this particular clause – which, according to the original verbiage used in the US constitution may not apply. The Clause, so named, refers to Article IV, which states (FindLaw):


All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.


As far as any one is aware, the State of Arizona has not entered into any treaties – strictly construed.

The Supremacy Clause referred to in Obama’s (Holder’s) Brief:
(Find Law on Marshals interpretation of the Supremacy Clause as it applies to States) – the findings regarded the imposition of taxes, trade, terrifs and finally treaties:


The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution. Their obligation ''is imperative upon the state judges, in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States--'the supreme law of the land'.'' 18 State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court.


The preceding opinion by Justice Marshal was based upon Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, specifically as applies to tariffs, treaties, and the like. The so called “Supremacy Clause (i.e. The Federal Government Always Wins), has not, to date, addressed immigration.

Perhaps this is because Illegal Immigration is not specifically addressed in the Constitution – The Argument: found at US Constitution. Net, entitled “Things Not Found in the Constitution”


Immigration
The Constitution never mentions immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas from countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how that immigrant can come into the country in the first place.
There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.


Therefore, as it appears the State of Arizona has not entered in to any Treaties, and it by strict interpretation of the Article 8, which states nothing specific regarding immigration being the federal domain - strictly speaking – the Federal Government may be about to trample on the Kicker:

The 10th Amendment: (Or Powers prohibited to the States)


The State of Arizona, embattled on their borders



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Taking the 10th Amendment regarding the limitations of States right, there is no mention made of anything other than Congress and its ability to hold the national purse strings. However, it does give Arizona the right to protect itself, implicitly.

As Arizona has been invaded by criminals from another country, it has every right to assemble its own army and enter into war, as it has been invaded and the citizens (according to several news accounts) have been murdered – delay, to the Citizens of Arizona, is not an option.

Therefore, although loosely interpreted as broad powers granted to the Federal Government in the Supremacy Clause, the argument can validly be made that illegal immigration and enforcement is not addressed specifically in the U.S. Constitution (rather naturalization of foreign citizens as outlined by Marshall’s Court so long ago.)

Arizona, therefore, is within its Constitutional rights as regards the enforcement of criminal laws within its borders, and, as the Arizona Law mirrors the Federal law, it does not attempt to usurp Federal Power. Should Jan Brewer decide to call a militia together, arm them, and enter into a war on the border, she’s within her rights as the Governor of the State, under the 10th Amendment.

Whichever Justice hears this case; they may stop at the Supremacy Clause, and rule in Favor of the Administration, (extremely loose interpretation). At that point, one would hope Jan Brewer takes this all the way to the Roberts Court.

Addendum: As noted in his inaugural address, President Obama’s favorite President remains Abraham Lincoln, which one would think odd, as Lincoln was a member (or founder some say) of the Republican Party, and/or it may have been looked upon due to his role in the Civil War and Slavery – However, what is not often mentioned is that, of all the Presidents, Abraham Lincoln suspended the Constitution, used the Constitution to increase the powers of the Executive Branch, imprisoned journalist and editors, ad nasuem. It was that aspect of the historical nature of Lincoln that made one shudder when Obama declared him “his favorite”. Here’s to Arizona, who is in need of a strict constructionist.

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address
Subject
Message