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.

Arizona – Lawmakers Reviewing State Repeal of “Automatic Citizenship” - Analysis

Arizona Border - photo MSNBC

(AP) Arizona lawmakers are considering a bill that would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, as the Federal Government continues to ignore pleas from the Governor to defend the border. In passage of Senate Bill 1070the State of Arizona mirrored Federal Laws, going a step further by softening portions of the legislation that might have included “racial profiling” in order to pass U.S. Constitutional muster. Since the passage of that bill, the State has come under fire from special interest groups, the White House and administration (who had not read the bill), and municipalities small and large within States and Commonwealths that lean left and support “open borders”.

The situation in Arizona (and other border states) had risen to the extreme: murders, home invasions, kidnapping (In fact, Phoenix, AZ now leads the nation in cases involving kidnapping), destruction of property, et al. In a state of virtual siege, Arizona’s lawmaker and Governor Jan Brewer, had to do what they could to bring attention to the situation as well as protect the citizens of the state.

The Federal government, which has, on the one hand, demonized the Arizona law, while on the other hand, doing little in way of the Fed’s actual duty to protect the border, now finds the Arizona Legislature looking at other ways to stop the influx of illegal aliens into the state.

Russell Pearce (R) State Senator is introducing legislation that would ban citizenship to children born to parents here illegally. The premise, at least one of two parents would have to prove legal citizenship status in order for the child to gain citizenship. The cry of “foul” to the 14th amendment is being shouted from the rooftops over this new angle on curbing illegal immigration in the State.
The 14th Amendment, which ensures citizens, rights reads as follows:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

“The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days).

Therein lays the gist of the problem: although the language does state that anyone born on U.S. soil is considered a citizen, it was the intent of the amendment at the time that is fueling the Arizona legislature to write a contrary bill.

The AP story includes a quote from one family who felt this bill was out of hand:

Araceli Viveros, 27, and her husband, Saul, 34, are illegal immigrants from the Mexican state of Guerrero. He has been in Phoenix for 20 years, she for 10, and their 2- and 9-year-old children are U.S. citizens.
"I am so proud my children were born here. They can learn English and keep studying," Viveros said in Spanish.
She said her husband has been working hard in Phoenix as a landscaper, and their children deserve to be citizens. The lawmaker's proposal "is very bad," she said. "It's changing the Constitution, and some children won't have the same rights as other children."

The inclusion of a viewpoint from an illegal husband and wife, one of which is working as a landscaper (either illegally through an employer, or “under-the-table”, thereby paying no taxes, another crime), speaks about her children’s rights to citizenship, due to her husband’s hard work. Additionally, the non-English speaking wife, (services for Spanish language costs to the Federal Government – unknown), talks about changes to the U.S. Constitution, under which, she personally has no protection. Perhaps the AP author might have found a more sympathetic “victim”, or not.

Unfortunately, as the economy worsens, legal citizens of the United States view those who enter illegally, work her illegally paying no taxes, and have children here in order to gain access to our schools (while not paying taxes), as just another drain on the economy.

Is life so bad in Mexico? One has to ask, aside from the constant drug wars, crime, corruption, etc.,(similar to Arizona) why are they here? Mexico does not have the same generous welfare benefits, medical benefits, and prior to NAFTA, employment opportunities as the U.S. However, those in the U.S. that purchase anything from groceries to cd’s, are likely to find that “product of Mexico” label slapped firmly on the item.

The aforementioned makes it difficult for those here legally to feel for those who take advantage of the continued failure of the U.S. Federal government to enact the immigration laws currently on the books. If the Federal government would do its job, lawmakers in Arizona would not be compelled to write the attention grabbing, state saving, legislation that is so maligned by the majority of the press, as well as the estimated ten to twelve million individuals that are in this country illegally. That being said, if one expects the current administration to move to do its job protecting the border, think again, or more precisely look at day whatever of the gulf oil spill – it is this feeling of “no confidence” by the state of Arizona, and a growing majority of American’s that has prompted this state’s legislature to produce laws, conflicting or no (as States rights are also guaranteed in the Constitution, the 14th amendments intent was specific to the time, and it is a question of whether or not States’ rights trump subsequent amendments), in order to protect themselves.

Obama - Immigration Reform not Likely – Additional States Consider Arizona Legislation.

Arizona border Rancher Rob Krentz and his dog murdered by illegal border crossers - story and image Examiner.com

Barack Obama is backing off Immigration Reform for this year according to Politico. The President indicated that he would prefer that immigration reform be taken up in the Congress; however, it is unlikely that a consensus would be reached in the house. He went on to blame “Republican’s” for the stalemate, even though the House Republicans are, at the moment, vastly outnumbered by Democrats who were able to push through Health Care legislation with ease. Meanwhile, he is seeking ways for the Federal Government to challenge the new Arizona immigration law – one which seeks to enforce Federal laws already in place.

The Act, SB1070-492R available here is loaded with “safeguards” against so-called “racial profiling”, and seeks to maintain stability in a Mexican border state where violent crime has become the norm. Special interest groups have vowed to boycott the State, and several Democrats and Republicans have banded together in a call for troops on the border. A press conference was held yesterday by Gabrielle Gifford (D-AZ), Dan Burton (R-IN), Ted Poe (R-TX) and Edward Royce (R-CA) announcing legislation introduced in the House calling for immediate deployment of troops on border States. This may be why Obama’s plan to push immigration reform through the House may come to naught, with the more pressing issue being security and enforcing existing laws on the books.

Article 1, Section 10of the Constitution is an interesting read in relation to the border states and their right to protect themselves, even so far as: “engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” combined with the 10th Amendment which grants autonomy to the States (specifically and the people) in cases where powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, or not prohibited by the Constitution are up to the individual States. Therefore, while Obama seeks to find ways around protecting the citizens of the Border States in an attempt to pacify special interest groups, the State of Arizona has acted in accordance with the Constitution, and apparently has the ability to go further.

Progressive are up in arms over the fact that seven other states are considering legislation similar to Arizona’s. Included in the list: Utah, Georgia, Colorado, Maryland, Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nebraska. All of the aforementioned are either border states or have experienced an influx of illegal immigrants and the resulting increase in crime. Apparently, much to the Progressive’s dismay, those State Legislators have access to the U.S. Constitution.

Why not close the border, enforce existing laws, and protect U.S. Sovereignty? Simply put, pacifying a large and growing voting bloc. Regardless of political affiliation, every single President since Ronald Reagan has promised to seal the border, yet somehow, words alone have not sufficed. From George Bush, who captured the Hispanic vote in both elections to Barack Obama who did the same, closing the border may upset certain groups that drive the vote. It is about racial profiling to the extent that politicians are depending upon a specific segment of the population to vote in a particular way – closing the border would stop the importation of positional “voters”.

Security should be the main concern regarding all borders, north, south and the coasts, regardless of the tip of threat posed by those crossing, be it guns, weapons of mass destruction or drugs. The United States already has a mechanism in place for those foreign nationals who wish to work in the United States through a visa process. The only overhaul needed on immigration is a reduction in fees for those applying for citizenship, a reduction in the wait time prior to an application being processed, elimination of the need for high-priced “immigration attorney’s” and a test revision that any one of our high school seniors might pass. As to those who are already here, and working in the United States (estimates of 12 million), those who have a clean record, should be fast-tracked, the rest, put on a first class one-way flight back to where they came. Understanding that “amnesty” is a dirty word amongst conservatives, it is not without some sanity that one must consider logistics in moving millions of people from homes and schools that have been established for years, and “shipping” them to their country of origin (be in Mexico or Ireland). Impose a fee,(give the IRS another job along with fleecing American’s who cannot afford health insurance by taking it out of their taxes) that must be paid – given a valid social security number, one which would allow the IRS to withhold refunds and garnish wages if necessary. Perhaps a penalty that fits the crime that had been committed when the individual crossed into the United States illegally would be in order. One can bet, however, that nothing will be done on reform, as it is as much a political issue as Gay Marriage and Abortion – a rallying cry for politicians in opposition of one another, with zero intent of doing anything – period.

Given that simple steps would go a long way towards fixing problems on the Federal level, and the same refusing to budge, over decades no less, the States have the right to protect them by any measure, apparently including going to war, in powers granted them by the Constitution of the United States.