Archive for the “Pro-Illegal Groups” Category

AZ Central

Changing Phoenix police’s immigration-enforcement policies will create a climate of fear in Phoenix that could lead to multimillion-dollar lawsuits and even riots, speakers said Thursday at a raucous town hall.

From the audience, supporters of drafting a new policy said police need more freedom to enforce the law and said their voices weren’t being heard Thursday night.

About 600 people packed the auditorium at South Mountain High School to address a four-man panel convened by Mayor Phil Gordon to review Operations Order 1.4.

The policy prevents police in most cases from asking about a person’s immigration status. It has led some to brand Phoenix as a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants.

“Don’t let Phoenix become the next Watts, the next LA riots,” Alex Navidad, an immigration lawyer, said in an impassioned plea to the panel. “That’s what’s going to happen. A community that’s fearful, with loads of police, can only lead to tragedy.”

Phoenix police are already overburdened without having to enforce immigration laws, said Lizzette Alameda Zubey, president of the Maricopa County Hispanic Bar Association. She said that eliminating the policy would lead to expensive racial-profiling lawsuits against the city, as well as additional costs for processing and jailing undocumented residents.

Read more

Comments 6 Comments »

September 7, 2001 - Four days before undocumented immigrants flew jets into the World Trade Center, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said NYC Is “Quite Tolerant Of Undocumented Immigration. This shouldn’t surprise you because I’ve been the Mayor a long time.”

Comments 3 Comments »

“Let the Gringos pay!”

OneNewsNow

Huckabee continues to be dogged by a lingering controversy over the role he played in establishing a Mexican consulate office in Little Rock that was financed by Arkansas taxpayers and local businesses. The permanent facility for the consulate, located near the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, opened in April amid fanfare by supporters and protests of some who are concerned about it causing a surge of illegal immigrants into the Natural State.

According to The Morning News (Northwest Arkansa), the idea of establishing a Mexican consulate in Arkansas was first discussed by former Governor Mike Huckabee after his trip to Mexico City in 2003. Dr. Jerome Corsi recently published an article in WorldNetDaily which quotes several critics of Huckabee, who contend that the then-governor worked with some of the state’s most prominent and politically powerful businesses [Tyson Foods] to draw illegal aliens to the state to accept low-paying jobs.

Corsi claims Huckabee and the state “courted” then-Mexican President Vicente Fox to establish the consulate. “Mike Huckabee took an airplane ride in 2003, was going on down to see Vicente Fox with one of his top economic advisors,” he says, “and that started discussions where basically Arkansas came and courted Vicente Fox, saying put a Mexican consulate here in Little Rock, please.”

The investigative journalist believes the state may have overstepped its authority in urging the Mexicans to come to Little Rock, and contends the state essentially “shelled out” office space for the consulate because the Mexican government preferred to “let the gringos pay.” Corsi questions if a consortium of businesses had the legal right to “support the consular presence” during the first three years, including what appears to be the costs of building a permanent consular facility in Little Rock.

“I’m not sure that Arkansas law permits the state government to subsidize … another foreign government [in that fashion],” he shares. “I haven’t yet identified who the corporations are who paid this lease, and I still don’t know if the Mexican consulate is paying its own way or not, or if the private corporations in Arkansas are still funding the bill.”

Read more.

Comments 2 Comments »


Racist Hispanic Caucus

Daily Pilot

As soon as a bipartisan resolution hit the floor of Congress last week calling for the pardon of two Border Patrol agents convicted of a shooting in 2005, the Democratic leadership bottled it up in committee, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher said Monday

The bill, sponsored by William Delahunt (D-Mass.) with co-sponsorship from Silverstre Reyes (D-Texas) and Rohrabacher, was the first such bipartisan gesture since agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were served with 11 to 12 year prison sentences for shooting an accused smuggler in the back, Rohrabacher said.

?The significance of the resolution is that it is truly a bipartisan effort,? he said. ?Up until this point, this has basically been a conservative Republican cause.?

The bill was shelved this week after Rohrabacher lamented the efforts of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, whom he blamed for lobbying the resolution into political limbo.

?The [Democratic] leadership has gone along with the Hispanic Caucus and their claim that Ramos and Compean are guilty of police brutality,? he said.

?Instead of being proud Mexican-Americans who are defending our border, the Hispanic Caucus is portraying them as simple, brutal cops who are committing police brutality.?

The shooting victim, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, was charged last month with possession with intent to distribute marijuana in September and October 2005.

Comments 16 Comments »

Comments 8 Comments »

You may or may not have noticed this, but in the two and a half years of running this website, I never discuss Jim Gilchrist. It’s because he’s an idiot.

FOX News

Noting that he might not agree 100 percent on immigration with Huckabee, the firebrand illegal immigration opponent said Huckabee’s recently released immigration plan won him over.

“The governor has a plan and I appreciate his plan. That’s why I’m supporting him. He’s one of the few who’s actually brought forth a plan and gone public with it. It shows to me that he’s willing to engage in the tough love necessary to fix this problem,” Gilchrist said.

Read more.

Comments 14 Comments »

Robert Menendez
Race baiter, Robert Menendez
317 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
202.224.4744
202.228.2197 fax
Website
Email

Hispanic PR Wire

Washington, DC–(HISPANIC PR WIRE)–December 10, 2007–The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC), today applauded U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) for calling on an updated study of a 1993 congressionally-mandated report on the relationship between the use of electronic communications and media communications to encourage acts of hate crimes or to spread messages of hate. In a letter addressed to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez

?In November of this year, the FBI released a report showing that in 2006 hate crimes against Latinos increased by 25% since 2004,? said David C. Lizárraga, USHCC Board Chair. ?We are seeing that anti-immigrant sentiment has quickly become anti-Hispanic sentiment. It is in the economic interest of the U.S. that its largest minority group and fastest growing business sector not be a target of anti-Hispanic rhetoric through media coverage.?

Read the entire article

Comments 5 Comments »

Comments 4 Comments »

The idea is to keep filing lawsuits until some lame liberal judge agrees with you. UGH! GuardDog

Ariz.: New Immigration Lawsuit Filed
Associated Press
December 10, 2007

Lawyers have filed a second lawsuit challenging Arizona’s new employer-sanctions law in an end-of-the-year rush by business groups to stop it before it goes into effect Jan. 1.

The lawsuit was filed Sunday night, two days after a federal judge said the groups fighting the anti-illegal immigration law sued the wrong government officials.

The groups are now targeting the state’s 15 county attorneys. In addition, their lawyers said Monday they planned to add a request for a temporary restraining order, which would put the law on hold until a judge can determine its constitutionality.

“Our objective is to have the court rule in December _ before the Jan. 1 effective date _ to enter an injunction to block the law because it’s unconstitutional,” said David Selden, one of the lawyers working on the case.

The employer sanctions law is meant to take away economic incentives for people who cross into the U.S. illegally. It punishes business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants by suspending their licenses for up to 10 days. Second-time violators would have their business licenses permanently revoked.

The law also requires businesses to verify the employment eligibility of new workers through a federal database.

Business groups have been fighting the law since the Republican-majority Legislature and Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano approved it this summer. They’ve argued that it’s an unconstitutional burden on employers and poisons Arizona’s business climate.

Supporters said state punishments were needed because the federal government hasn’t adequately enforced a federal law that already prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

The new lawsuit came after U.S. District Judge Neil Wake ruled on Friday that the first lawsuit against the governor and state attorney general had targeted the wrong authorities. Wake said county prosecutors actually have the power to enforce the restrictions……

To read entire article click here.

Comments 3 Comments »

Global Politician

While President George W. Bush, ICE, and Congress act as if the U.S. had no immigration laws and no borders, some heroic local officials and private organizations have nevertheless sought, against all odds, to enforce and uphold immigration law. And every time they have done so, the ACLU has been there to fight them, on behalf of the criminals invading America.

A study of the tactics of local ACLU chapters across the country and the national ACLU reveals a distinct, coordinated strategy of six components:

1. Abusing the English language, by referring to illegal immigrants as ?immigrants? and ?undocumented workers,? in order to make it seem as if illegal immigrants, all of whom are criminals (and in the case of those who have previously been deported, felons), were law-abiding, legal residents;

2. Misrepresenting immigration law, to make it appear as though law enforcement officials were harassing non-criminals;

3. Misrepresenting the duties of local law enforcement, to make it appear as though they were abusing their power, in order to discriminate against ?immigrants?;

4. Misrepresenting the actions of local law enforcement, to make it appear as though they were ?racially profiling immigrants?;

5. Initiating frivolous lawsuits targeting any actions by state or local officials enforcing immigration law, including but not limited to actions which prevented illegal immigrants from enjoying privileges and services to which they were not legally entitled; and

6. Expanding the above five strategies to other types of law, such as election law, in conspiring to rig American elections through flooding them with the fraudulent votes of illegal immigrants.

?The rights and liberties? of illegal immigrants? For make no mistake about it, the immigrants the ACLU is primarily concerned about are illegals. You cannot ?expand? rights that do not exist. The ACLU is acting on behalf of the notion that syndicated columnist Paul Craig Roberts has called the ?squatters? rights? approach to law. That means that if authorities do not enforce extant laws for a certain period, activists like the ACLU not only act as if the statutes did not exist, but as if the ?squatters? violating the law (in this case, illegal aliens) enjoyed positive rights nowhere existing in law.

Consider the ACLU?s statement that it is fighting ?discrimination on the basis of ?alienage? by governmental and private entities?.? In practice, what that means is that if a state passes a law denying public services or driver?s licenses to illegal aliens, the ACLU will challenge the law as ?discriminatory.? Never mind that it was already illegal, according to federal law, to provide public services or driver?s licenses, or private services such as bank accounts or mortgages to illegal aliens.

The notion that enforcing immigration law in the case of illegal immigrants constitutes ?discrimination? is logically the same as saying that enforcing the laws against stealing cars constitutes ?discrimination? against auto thieves.

?Equal justice under the law? and ?the [other] guarantees under the Constitution? apply only to American citizens. Likewise, civil liberties are those freedoms due to citizens. The ACLU, however, has for years worked to reverse things. The organization seeks to steal the rights of Americans, disenfranchise them, and give those rights to illegal aliens. The ACLU seeks thus to make illegal aliens citizens, and make Americans helpless aliens in their own land. As Carly Simon once sang, ?The world?s just inside out and upside down.?

The ACLU?s name is misleading. The organization supports neither civil liberties nor America.

Even more chilling than the realization of what the ACLU is up to, is the realization that the President of the United States is ? for perhaps different reasons ? up to the same thing.

Read more.

Comments 11 Comments »

By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles, www.WalterMooreForMayor.com

Today the L.A. Times reported the results of a poll it conducted on illegal immigration. The newspaper’s bias — political and financial — shows when you compare the article to the poll itself, and when you look at the wording of the poll.

THEIR HEADLINE LIES

Let’s start with the headline: “1 in 3 would deny illegal immigrants social services.” The headline makes it sound like only 33% would deny illegal aliens welfare, “free” education, etc. Hidden message: if you want to deny them benefits, you’re in some kook minority.

But the actual poll results are quite the opposite. Here are the percentages of people who said they would DENY the following specific benefits to illegal aliens:

In-state college tuition 82%
Food stamps 76%
Driver’s licenses 72%
Public schools 56%
Emergency medical 48%

Quite a difference from the “1 in 3″ proclaimed in the headline, huh? If you were writing the headline, what would it say? How about something like, “Majority favor denying all social services except emergency medical.” Wouldn’t that be more accurate?

So where does the “1 in 3″ figure come from? That’s the number of people who chose “none of the above” when asked which services they would let illegal aliens receive.

THEIR PIE LIES

Let’s move from the headline to the “lying pie.” The article also features a pie chart showing that only 36% of the respondents said illegal aliens have had a negative impact on their communities. The key words are “on their communities,” because the survey included people all over America, not just here in the “Ground Zero” of the illegal invasion. Have illegal aliens ruined Bangor, Maine yet? Probably not. Key West? Ditto.

The results differ dramatically when the question shifts from respondents’ “communities” to the nation as a whole. When asked about problems “facing the country,” 81% said illegal immigration is an important problem. Specifically, 54% said it was important, and another 27% said it was one of the most important problems facing the nation.

HOW ABOUT “ALL OF THE ABOVE?”

Other examples of bias abound. The questions are, for the most part, rigged to minimize the problem of illegal immigration. For example, the poll did not ask people whether they support more border security, sanctions against employers, AND more arrests and deportations, etc.

Instead, respondents were asked on which item the government should focus. Result? You make the percentages for each look smaller than otherwise by forcing people to chose one or the other, rather than “all of the above.” Oh, and get this: people were allowed to support UP TO two items, but they weren’t told that in the question, and they could not support three or more.

CNN DID IT RIGHT

Another way to see the bias in this poll is to compare its wording to the wording of another, objective poll. In October, CNN — unlike the L.A. Times — asked some straightforward questions, and got straightforward responses.

CNN asked, for example, “Would you like to see the number of illegal immigrants currently in this country increased, decreased, or remain the same?” The number of people who said “decreased” was 69%. Quite a different image from the L.A. Times poll, huh? The CNN poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans — 69% — want the number of illegals in this country reduced. Do you remember reading about THAT poll in the L.A. Times? Me, neither.

CNN also asked a question about “sanctuary cities,” like ours. Here is that question: “When state or local police forces encounter illegal immigrants who have not broken any state or local laws, do you think the police should or should not arrest those people and turn them over to the federal government?” The number of people who said the police should turn them over to the feds was 55%. So a majority of Americans oppose “sanctuary city” policies. Shouldn’t the L.A.
Times have made that a headline?

WHY IS THE L.A. TIMES BIASED ON THIS ISSUE?

Why is the L.A. Times so biased about illegal aliens? In a word: money. The L.A. Times is owned by the same company that owns Hoy, a Spanish-language newspaper. The financial success of Hoy depends on having large numbers of people here in California who cannot speak English. So the last thing the L.A. Times wants to do is stir American citizens into enforcing our immigration laws.

WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT ALL THIS?

What should you do about all this? Don’t bother writing letters to the editor — they don’t care. Instead, write a check to the Committee to Elect Walter Moore. We need to start replacing the corrupt career politicians in this country. It’s easier to write a check than organize and attend a mass rally. Go ahead: take action.
You’ll be glad you did. Just go to www.WalterMooreForMayor.com and click on the “contribute” button.

Comments 1 Comment »

60 Attorneys From Bay Area Firms Criticize ICE Raids

NBC11

SAN JOSE, Calif. — Dozens of attorneys from some of the nation’s most powerful law firms have united to create a task force that will come to the aid of undocumented immigrants, NBC11’s Damian Trujillo reported Monday.

The 60 attorneys from 14 law firms have said they will face the government head-on — challenging the legality of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.

The list of law firms includes Dechert LLP, Wilson Sonsini, Skadden-Arps and Orrick, Herrington & Suttcliffe, according to Trujillo.

The firms count Yahoo, Hewlett -Packard, Sun Microsystems and many other Fortune 500 companies among their clients.

The legal plan called for the lawyers to vigorously defend the constitutional rights of all people, including undocumented immigrants, Trujillo said.

Andrew Thomases said Dechert LLP, which represents Yahoo, and the other law firms would represent undocumented immigrants for free.

“We do have the resources to help all our clients,” Thomases said. “All individuals have constitutional rights, and we want to make sure the rights are not violated, and the government is not violating the Fourth or Fifth Amendment when doing searches and seizures.”

Eight lawyers from the international firm are on the list of high-powered attorneys who will go to court against ICE, Thomases said.

Thomases said lawyers would specifically tackle violations such as entering an apartment without a warrant or pushing an immigrant to answer questions when he refuses to talk.

Read more.

Comments 5 Comments »

The author of this propaganda is Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

max boot
Max Boot
Contact Info:
Phone: +1-212-434-9619
E-mail: mboot@cfr.org

LA Times

What makes illegal immigration so bad? There is no question that an influx of illegals puts pressure on public services, especially in the border states, and that issue needs to be addressed, perhaps with greater assistance [taxpayer money] from Washington. But it is hardly unmanageable, especially because illegal immigrants, while making use of some government services, also contribute a lot to society via sales taxes and other means without collecting Social Security, unemployment or other benefits available to legal residents. Studies of the net economic effect of illegal immigration show mixed results.

Aside from the cost to government, opponents of immigration claim its biggest downsides are lost jobs and lost identity. Neither argument strikes me as especially compelling.

Read more.

Comments 18 Comments »

December 2, 2007 - Lupe Moreno and the Campo Minutemen organized a rally to protest the Santa Ana, CA Mexican Consulate, that set up a mobile matricula consular ID center, in front of the Orange, CA Teamsters Union Local 952 in order to provide identification to illegal aliens.

At 1:00 pm - Campo Minutemen observed: a continual stream of individuals meeting with the Mexican Consulate mobile staff members - outside of the Teamsters Union Local 952 - and applying for the matricula consular identification. The place was mobbed.

When the Minuteman rally began - to chants such as “MEXICAN CONSULATE GO HOME” the mobile center moved from outside of the building to the inside.

Once the very vocal, but peaceful, rally in front of the Teamsters Local 952 began, only a few applicants ventured forward to apply for the matricula consular ID. The police were called, and assured the protesters they had the right to peaceably assemble, with a car staying to watch over the group. The Minutemen virtually shut down the Mexican Consulate mobile operation.

PLEASE CALL…please call the Teamsters and express your stance on a union “opening its doors” to issue identification to illegal aliens.

If you know members of the Teamsters please ask them to call.

TEAMSTERS ORANGE, CA
(714) 939-1519

TEAMSTERS WASHINGTON, DC
(202) 624-6800

WRITE A LETTER OR POSTCARD:
Michael B. Davis, President
Teamsters Union Local 952
1936 W. Chapman Avenue
Orange, California 92868

James P. Hoffa, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Office of the General President
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
www.teamster.org

Comments No Comments »

Sheriff Joe
Sheriff Joe Arpaio

East Valley Tribune

Maricopa County sheriff?s deputies arrested eight illegal day laborers on Saturday during a protest outside a Phoenix furniture store embroiled in a heated immigration debate.

Immigration activists have gathered on Saturdays for the past six weeks outside Pruitt?s Furniture Store to challenge Sheriff Joe Arpaio?s enforcement of immigration laws.

Saturday was the first time deputies made arrests during the rallies. Deputies had arrested 24 illegal immigrants in the area before Saturday, but those arrests were not made during protests.

?I thought it was time to do something more about it,? Arpaio said Saturday night. ?The Pruitt?s situation is getting out of hand. They are demonstrating every week and destroying this business. I don?t think that?s fair.?

Arpaio said the protesters were arrested Saturday on suspicion of violating federal immigration laws.

Demonstrators began protesting at the store near Thomas Road and 34th Street in late October, when the store hired sheriff?s deputies to keep day laborers away from the property.

The store asked the sheriff?s office to help because they felt the presence of day labors was hurting their business.

More than 100 protesters have shown for the rallies, including officials from the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

The union?s legal director, Daniel Pochoda, was arrested by deputies Nov. 5 after he was asked to attend a rally to observe the interaction between protesters and deputies.

Comments 2 Comments »

Close
E-mail It