Apr 27 2010
Democrats Jump The Shark On Immigration
The state of Arizona has sent the Democrats off the deep end over immigration, just like the Amnesty Hypochondriacs sent the GOP over the edge in 2006 and 2008. Each party has extremists who push too far and exaggerate to the point the middle of America gets completely fed up with the problem of illegal immigrants vs guest workers. On one extreme the far right wants all the illegals punished well beyond what is reasonable for a misdemeanor for not having proper paperwork and paying taxes. On the other, the far left want to treat immigrants as full citizens above the law and able to drain our resources.
In the middle is … well, is the middle of America. Arizona’s law to assess whether someone is legally in this country is not what some decry it to be:
A Colorado Democrat says Arizona is on its way to becoming a “police state†and its new immigration law is “reminiscent†of Nazi Germany.
“It is absolutely reminiscent of second class status of Jews in Germany prior to World War II when they had to have their papers with them at all times and were subject to routine inspections at the suspicion of being Jewish,†Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo), who is Jewish, told POLITICO.
Yeah, and making sure my car is inspected, my home improvements are to code and I have paid my taxes must be the trait of a Nazi. Gimme me a break. I am on travel, and therefore I need my ‘papers’ with me. To get on airplanes, check into hotels, access government facilities, rent a car …
This outcry for people who have flaunted the laws of the land is idiotic – and just another reason to boot the Dems out this November. Rasmussen notes the Democrats are fighting a losing battle, and losing what little credibility may still be lurking out there in America:
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last week signed a new law into effect that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of voters nationwide favor such a law, while 31% are opposed.
2 to 1 against the Dems. That will prove suicidal in the fall elections.
All I can say is we need to deal with immigration and guest workers sanely. It is not ‘amnesty’ to require people to work in the open, pay all back taxes and fines (which is an enormous penalty when your income is being pulled to pay these things over 3-5 years) and stay out of trouble. Yes, we need to protect our borders, and under that evil President Bush we achieved just that. When he left office no illegal caught at the borders was allowed to stay.
Under the comprehensive immigration reform bill, pushed twice during Bush’s second term, illegals had to register and pay their fines and back taxes. But also under that approach guest workers had to have ‘their papers’ with them showing they had abided by the laws. They needed an ID which proved they had been vetted and were given permission to work here (for 3 years at a time, not to exceed 6 years).
Also under that plan there was the strengthening of the ‘one strike you’re outta here’ rule. One violent crime conviction and out you went. This meant deportation was linked to felonies and violent misdemeanors, not lack of paper work or payment of taxes.
Democrats can wail all they want to about Arizona, but the fact we all have to show our papers to get jobs or when pulled over for traffic violations or to get on planes means they are just looking dumber than usual.
What’s really funny about the media hysteria about Arizona is that the new law basically just empowers state and local law enforcement to do the job that the feds already had but can’t or won’t do. Yet people are acting as if this is the start of a pogrom against Hispanics.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jessy Alt, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: Democrats Jump The Shark On Immigration http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/13263 […]
Typical media PR games.
Just as bad as “Leaving it to Cleaver”.
Wait, I am confused, wasn’t it last week the tea party people were the NAZIs and now it’s Arizona who stole the NAZI flames?
Isn’t the Arizona law just a state redo of the very same federal law … then doesn’t that make the federal government and the Democrats in particular who run it, the new NAZIs. We used to have our sheriffs department trained to round up and get rid of the illegals walking our roads, but Obama canceled that program.
Talk about whiplash … A guest worker plan, would solve the ILLEGAL immigration problem. Oh wait don’t we already have such a system?
hmmmm … something else appears to be in play, like Democrat voters needed STAT.
It’s amazing that one of the pinball effects of this bill was to kill any “climate change” legislation for the year because the Dem’s decided to make this their fight and not any other.
It is a truly insane move – as you could see in Obama’s televised words yesterday, the dems have given up on any hope of attracting white voters, and are now going to concentrate exclusively on making hispanics and blacks feel threatened in their fall campaign. That apparently is going to be their only response to the Tea Party movement, and the ensuing racial polarization is going to damage this country for many years to come.
I think Arizona made a good move by pushing this bill now – those who haven’t been there have no idea how bad the problems have gotten, with in some cases entire neighborhoods taken over by some of the major Mexican narco-gangs. The violence is escalating out of control, and the Feds are doing nothing.
Still, I don’t know if this bill will pass federal scrutiny – I’ll give 60/40 odds that opponents will be able to find a Federal Judge that will invalidate it on Pre-Emption grounds, and the 9th Circus would certainly uphold that. So it will have to go to the Supreme Court, but that could take years. And whether the Supremes uphold it will depend on what side of the bed Kennedy gets up on that morning.
The other thing that concerns me in the bill is the phrase “reasonable suspicion.” In the real world, any use of the word “reasonable” means endless litigation. It would have been stronger if it would have given the grounds much more specifically rather than using a word that sounds good but that is very hard to pin down.
This is ALL about votes and future voters.
If the Pinnochio Presidente can organize the Illegal community to demand “rights” through loud and violent demonstrations and can push amnesty for these third world imports he can add to the Gov’t dependency class and the uneducated will willfully follow the Pied Piper Pinnochio to the “free stuff” pot of gold.
Meanwhile the Legal Immigrants who came here to work and make a better life for themselves by educating themselves, starting businesses, becoming doctors, nurses and engineers, along with the youth of America who bother to educate themselves will become the slaves to the freebee demanding loud and violent lazy ingnoramouses!
Why is it profiling to demnad to see an individuals papers when its not to ask age, race, sex on the census form.
Answer:
the census form is there to identify Dem constituents who will be the recipients of others labor through govt giveaways.
The demanding of legal paperwork by law enforcement identifies and potentally deports these same Dem voters.
Mr. President, I thought you were the smartest President we have had in a long time. Would it be too much to ask that you read legislation written in good faith (by constitutional lawyers) and voted on by Americans, before you comment? All Americans need to be able to produce identification when asked, why are those who don’t have identification because they are here illegally get special treatment?
kathie asks that ‘good faith” be employed by Obama. I have never seen a President who sold himself one way and turned out the complete opposite: he was the good faith, post partisan, post racial candidate. What a devisive, ill tempered, petty, immature, lying snob he turned out to be. “Good-faith Obama” — now that’s an oxymoron!
when you say a “misdemeanor for not having proper paperwork” you make sound as if they left their ID in there other pants. Kind of like leaving your license at home.
Maybe you don’t get it but the law they have broken is not “missing papers” but is trespassing into the United States illegally, something I do not consider a misdemeanor.
With respect to “Good Faith” as it pertains to this administration – have you seen the report out this morning that *Both* Obama and Sebelius personally saw the HHS report saying that the Dem Health care bill would *increase* insurance costs a full week before the vote was taken? They were both out proclaiming that this bill would lower costs *after* they were given this report, so they knew, unequivocally and absolutely that what they were saying was a lie.
And their only answer was to bury the report and all references to it until a month *after* the bill had been passed. Too bad, suckers!!!
And that’s what passes for “Good Faith” in this administration.
They are quite literally Thieves and Liars, all of them, especially Obama himself. That is not a slur – that is now a demonstrable, unarguable Fact.
I’m just wondering how this is going to play out. The “tea party” people are out in the streets asking that the government listens to their point of view. As it turns out, the cost of “Health Care” legislation will insure few of those who don’t have insurance, and cost billions more then stated by the President. This information was available to the President and legislators before it was crammed down our throats, but hidden by HHS. The “tea party ” people were deem radical, racial, misfits.
Now we have the Democratic party lead by the President of the United States and Al Sharpton, encouraging illegal immigrants to violently protest in public, laws written by Arizona law makers. What is the President encouraging these people we now see on the street to protest?
Gimme me a break. I am on travel, and therefore I need my ‘papers’ with me. To get on airplanes, check into hotels, access government facilities, rent a car …
Do you need your birth certificate on you when you travel? How about while working? Driving to the grocery store? Oh wait, you don’t have brown skin, do you? Nothing to worry about then.
Truck driver forced to show birth certificate claims racial-profiling
Democrats can wail all they want to about Arizona, but the fact we all have to show our papers to get jobs or when pulled over for traffic violations or to get on planes means they are just looking dumber than usual.
Whatever, Nazi.
AJ,
I am going to pick on a very small part of your posting, not because it is a major theme, but it is just not correct. It drives the notion that the “centrists” are the only reasonable ones theme.
You said, “It is not ‘amnesty’ to require people to work in the open, pay all back taxes and fines (which is an enormous penalty when your income is being pulled to pay these things over 3-5 years) and stay out of trouble.”
The statement is true on its face. Amnesty is not those things. However, the implicit point of the statement was that claiming those things was what the opponents of the Bush immigration bill were claiming did define amnesty.
As I have commented on your site in the past, so I won’t rehash the old argument, amnesty is not defined by the new obligations imposed but by the old obligations removed. Removing the previous criminal liability in favor of your listed obligations is just that: a blanket removal of criminal liabilities already accrued.
If you are in favor of amnesty, that is your right. But let’s call it what it is. Otherwise you are left sounding like my 10 year old a few years ago (before he understood the physics of calories) telling me to make a glass of water colder you needed “to add cold.” To make cold in strictly Newtonian physics terms, you have to remove calories, i.e., heat, not add cold.
In this case, your wish to add obligations sounds like you want to add cold. It is just not logical, so it make you far less persuasive on the other points with which I adamantly agree.
Sorry for the long post, but it’s important..
http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/3735
An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy
An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy
By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director
27 April 2010: I cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.†But has it really been answered, and if not, why not?
In consideration of the controversy that continues to plague Barack Hussein OBAMA over his citizenship status and his well documented sustained pattern of refusal to provide authenticated documentation of his birth records and numerous other pertinent records, I’ve conducted an in-depth investigation into the matter in an effort to separate fact from fiction, myth from reality. My approach was the same I’ve used as an investigator over the last 25 years on behalf of Fortune 100 companies in their selection of corporate executives, conducting due diligence background investigations. In this case, however, I was not afforded direct and unfettered access to the “applicant’sâ€, or in this case, OBAMA’s original records. Nonetheless, I conducted inquiries and a lengthy investigation researching the information directly or indirectly disclosed by OBAMA, as well as collections of documents, court records, official federal and state documents, verbal statements, utterances and other documents determined to be of authentic provenance.
At issue is whether Barack Hussein OBAMA or any of his representatives have furnished sufficient documentation to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that states:
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.â€
Presently, OBAMA occupies the White House as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. As president, he is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and ultimately responsible for the security of the United States. Any person of reasonable sensibilities would logically believe that his eligibility status has long been established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or those in positions of oversight for such matters. But has it?
In order to be as comprehensive as possible, my investigative findings include important background information into the legal definition of a “natural born citizen†as applicable to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. This background information is provided to clear up many common misconceptions about the eligibility controversy, and to explain why so many people are confused and easily mislead over this issue. After thoroughly investigating this matter, I have found demonstrable evidence that this confusion is a deliberate and highly effective tactic used to divert attention from a constitutional issue and thus, the rule of law, to the detriment of American citizens.
This report will also provide insight into the reasons for the largely ignored yet unprecedented legal fight by Barack Hussein OBAMA II, his representatives and assigns, against any release of the authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate and a multitude of other relevant historical documents.
Natural Born Citizen Qualification: The Facts
Based on extensive research, there are two separate but equally relevant legal issues that involve the specific eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to legally serve as President of the United States. First is the U.S. Constitution which was adopted into law on 17 September 1787. As noted by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless that person is a “natural born citizen†of the United States.
The second issue is the precise definition of a “natural born citizen.†The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted on 9 July 1868, furnishes a rather broad definition of who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.†Specifically, who qualifies as a natural born citizen legally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution lies at the core of the eligibility argument. For the sake of clarity in advance of potential ancillary arguments, it is noted here that the Twelfth-Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates that Vice-Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents.
Obviously, there is no legitimate controversy over the eligibility status of Barack Hussein OBAMA in terms of his age and length of residency within the U.S. Despite popular belief by many to the contrary, there is, however, an unresolved issue over his status as “a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States.â€
While many constitutional scholars hold different beliefs over the intent of the natural born citizen qualifier, I submit that an extraordinarily prescient illustration of logic behind this qualification can be found in a brief letter from John JAY, a founding father of the United States and the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to George WASHINGTON dated 25 July 1787:
——————————————————
Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay.
——————————————————
A study of the Federalist Papers and the writings of our founding fathers clearly indicate a concern for the security of the United States stemming from “threats from within,†or to prevent foreign enemies from becoming commander-in-chief. Given the nature and various enemies we currently face, the brief but ominous note to George WASHINGTON would certainly appear as relevant today, if not more so, as it was over 200 years ago.
Three years after that note was written, Congress affirmed in 1790 that a person born abroad whose parents are both citizens of the U.S. is, in fact, a U.S. citizen. In the years that followed, there have been many legal arguments to further define a natural born citizen. Based on extensive research, it would appear that the “next best†definition originates from an 1874 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if an individual is born in the United States and both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, that individual is, in fact, a natural born citizen. That same Supreme Court decision also addressed the issue of a person born in the United States where one of the parents is not a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth of the child. The ruling noted that in such a case, the child’s natural born citizenship status is “in doubt.â€
In any event, subsequent rulings by Congress and enacted by federal statute affirm that children born abroad by parents who are both U.S. citizens are not only U.S. citizens themselves, but are recognized as “natural born citizens.†On the other hand, individuals born in the United States or elsewhere by one or more parents who are not U.S. citizens are not likely to be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States absent of federal statute affirming their eligibility. Therein lays the current situation of Barack Hussein OBAMA II and the need to establish his citizenship status through authenticated documents.
Presidential eligibility; historical & current oddities
Since the U.S. Constitution was adopted into law, every elected U.S. president who was born after 1787 was born in the United States of parents who were both U.S. citizens except two: Chester Alan ARTHUR and Barack Hussein OBAMA II. It is interesting to note that when Chester Alan ARTHUR was born, his father, William ARTHUR was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen. There is ample authenticated historical evidence to substantiate that ARTHUR deliberately and publicly misrepresented his family lineage during his campaign and following his election in 1880 as the 21st President, took steps to destroy evidence, including family and birth records.
Barack Hussein OBAMA II has publicly admitted that his father was a Kenyan native and a British citizen who never became a U.S. citizen. Based on that admission and further verification of his father’s nationality, OBAMA’s status as a natural born citizen and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States is questionable at best, at least according to the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happersett. This issue becomes more prescient and ominously nefarious when one investigates the overt and covert behavior of OBAMA as a candidate, his actions following his election, the duplicity of the media, members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal Elections Commission and other factors by those who appear to be working individually or in concert to purposely misdirect the core Constitutional argument.
It is obvious that not all presidential candidates are treated equally in terms of their eligibility, as illustrated during the 2008 election. During the 2008 campaign, a lawsuit was filed petitioning the removal of Presidential candidate John McCAIN from the ballot. Ironically, the suit stemmed from the questions over McCAIN’s constitutional eligibility as his natural-born status was in doubt. To put to rest any doubt, McCAIN responded by providing an authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and Congress. Despite the early rumblings of controversy over OBAMA’s origins, OBAMA did not.
Although McCain provided his long form birth certificate and took proactive measures to ensure his eligibility to hold office, many political and media pundits remained unsatisfied. Before the term “birther†became synonymous with racist conspiracy theorist, an article published on 28 February, 2008 in The New York Times titled McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out questioned McCAIN’s eligibility.
On that same day, Senator Claire McCASKILL, a Missouri democrat introduced a bill titled Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. Oddly, the bill was co-sponsored by both Senators Barack Hussein OBAMA II and Hillary Rodham CLINTON, both who were running against McCAIN at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the specificity of its title, the bill (SB 2678) was an attempt to change the legal definition of a natural born citizen as referenced by Article II, Section I, clause V of the U.S. Constitution, a move that by default, would arguably and preemptively take away any constitutional challenges against the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.
Although the bill failed to progress in the Senate, the same lawmakers introduced a non-binding resolution (Senate Resolution 511) on 10 April 2008 to again ostensibly recognize McCAIN as a “natural born citizen,†the resolution contained broad language that could be applied to OBAMA.
The controversy surrounding the eligibility of John McCAIN to hold office continued, at least in the media. On 11 July 2008, an article was published in The New York Times under the title A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue. The article cited a law professor from the University of Arizona who concluded, in a detailed analysis “that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.†The law professor cited in that article, Gabriel J. Chin, published a sixty-two page discussion paper in August 2008 titled Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship (Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper 08-14).
The status of Barack Hussein OBAMA, however, remained unquestioned by the majority of academia.
Arguments over importance & relevance: “Birthers†are born
Like the layers of an onion, one must peel back the layers of hyperbole, political agendas, accusations of racism, and other types of detractions and distractions to arrive at the very core of the argument, which is simply this: Is Barack Hussein OBAMA in fact legally eligible, under the United States Constitution, to serve as President of the United States?
There are many who claim that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is unimportant and irrelevant, or an unnecessary distraction to the “real†crises facing America, including but not limited to OBAMA’s policies and actions as President. It is an interesting dichotomy that some of the most vocal proponents of the first amendment are the same who appear to disregard the fourteenth amendment, a practice especially virulent among those in the media. There are also those self-proclaimed conservative media pundits who have the collective audience of millions of Americans who flatly refuse to discuss, let alone demand answers to a legitimate legal question as defined by the U.S. Constitution.
Others claim the argument is moot, as the President was duly elected by the will of the people. Those people are in need of a history lesson as that argument is technically flawed at the most fundamental level. Others assert that questioning the eligibility issue is rooted in racism and bigotry, at which point the rule of law is ultimately lost in a flurry of deliberate distractions presented in the form of incendiary accusations.
Perhaps the most calculated and methodical approach in use today to dissuade people from addressing this issue is the labeling of anyone who believes that American citizens deserve to know whether Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements as a “birther.†The negative connotations of this label are vast and incisive, and the evolution of this term has grown to include ancillary questions of OBAMA’s past.
The popular but erroneous perception is that “birthers,†often lumped together with “9/11 truthers†and others who have legitimate questions and concerns about important issues either live in a world where conspiracies dominate their thoughts, or are simply branded as kooks seeking answers to non-existent questions. The fact is that there are indeed legitimate unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 as there are legitimate unanswered questions about the background and overall eligibility of OBAMA. Individuals asking rational, fact based questions about either subject are intentionally combined with others whose questions are obviously well beyond the realm of reason.
In particular, it is not only the absence of authenticated evidence regarding OBAMA’s citizenship status at birth that cause rational people to question his eligibility status under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, but the manner in which OBAMA and those in positions of government oversight have responded to legitimate inquiries. It is also how some members of the media have chosen to report on this issue, misreport or otherwise distort the issue, or not report on it at all.
Whatever arguments are used to understate or even mock the importance of this matter, it cannot be denied that the rule of law is being ignored and as a result, the Constitution of the United States is being trampled. If the fourteenth amendment is permitted to be exploited, ignored or violated, it might not be long before other amendments, along with the entire Constitution, become nothing more than a footnote in American history. As such, questions surrounding this matter must be taken seriously.
The Obama eligibility issue: has it already been answered?
No. It has been a common tactic to refute questions about OBAMA’s eligibility by citing the Internet publication of a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), also known as a “short form birth certificate†purportedly issued by the state of Hawaii. The controversial document was originally posted on the Internet at http://www.dailykos.com, a political website on or about 12 June 2008 as questions about OBAMA’s place of birth and eligibility status began to become a popular Internet topic. As there was no certification of authenticity that accompanied the alleged document, its provenance could not be established.
Subsequent to the document being posted on the aforementioned website, the “Fight the Smears†website reproduced the document here. While many believe “Fight the Smears†website is an independent organization dedicated to separating fact from fiction, it is actually owned and operated by “Organizing for America,†the successor organization to “Obama for America.†Clearly, it is far from independent.
Yet another website purported to be an independent arbiter of truth is “FactCheck.org,†which claims that the eligibility status of OBAMA has long been satisfied. Like the previous site, it is important to understand who owns or operates the site in order to assess the reliability of the site. The Fact Check website is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It receives its primary funding from the Annenberg Foundation. It is relevant to note that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was a founding member, chairman, and past president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Accordingly, it is reasonable to challenge the neutrality of the information provided by that site.
Since then, the image, including variations of the image, have appeared on the Internet to “prove†that Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.
Since its original posting, numerous individuals and websites have sought to disprove the authenticity of the document, which was posted as an image in JPEG format, through analysis of the image or by other means (e.g. sequencing of certificate numbers, absence of state seal, etc.). Although there appears to be sufficient evidence suggesting the document is not a valid certificate and has been falsely created or the image has been deliberately altered, limiting discussion at this time to the merits of the COLB detracts from a much larger issue: OBAMA’s massive and unprecedented campaign to keep sealed his actual birth certificate (and other relevant records) from public view.
This is not to say that the publication of the COLB document is unimportant. In fact, quite the opposite is true if the matter of legal eligibility is ever properly and thoroughly investigated by a legitimate court of inquiry within the United States. As agents, representatives or the assigns of Barack Hussein OBAMA have publicly asserted that the question of eligibility has been officially answered by the publication of the COLB as listed on officially sanctioned web sites, and it is ultimately proven that the document is deliberately deceptive by any means, an inquiry into violations of the United States Crimes Code, 18 USC Section 1028 encompassing fraud and other related activity involving identification documents might apply.
Since the initial COLB was first published in June 2008, there have been at least two additional incarnations of the document, each containing revisions that bear additional information allegedly “supporting†its authenticity. Accordingly, the Certificate of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA. Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certificate of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.â€
Hawaii officials declare Obama eligible
Yet another deception levied against the American people is the assertion that the Hawaiian officials have confirmed Barack Hussein OBAMA’s “eligibility†through a statement issued on 27 July 2009 by Dr. Chiyome FUKINO, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a “natural-born American citizen.†Those who claim that the 2009 press release by Dr. FUKINO must understand that FUKINO has absolutely no statutory authority to make such a statement. Accordingly and based on the rule of law, that statement cannot be considered as evidence or legal documentation either to support or deny OBAMA’s eligibility status.
Hawaii birth announcements: anecdotal evidence of eligibility
Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.
Coming next: Legal Stonewalls & identifying the money & people behind the fight
This report is available for downloading in PDF format.
Reid apparantly thinks this will split the Republicans – I think this will actually have the opposite effect. I’ve got to hand it to him, I didn’t think anyone could come up with a way to unify the Republicans on immigration, but Reid has done it.
This is a bill we can all hate equally. And for those who don’t recall, I did strongly support GWB’s bill.
Mexico’s Immigration Law: Let’s Try It Here at Home
by J. Michael Waller
Posted 05/08/2006 ET
Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.
That’s too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.
At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve
our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
* in the country legally;
* have the means to sustain themselves economically;
* not destined to be burdens on society;
* of economic and social benefit to society;
* of good character and have no criminal records; and
* contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
* immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
* foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
* foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
* foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
* foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
* those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens — and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.
It is an interesting law — and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.
If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.
We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
* Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
* The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
* A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
* Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
* “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
* Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
* A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American
immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.
Let’s call Mexico’s bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let’s propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico’s own law as a model.
This article was first posted at CenterforSecurityPolicy.org.
1. “Mexico’s Glass House,” Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper, April 3, 2006.
Dr. Waller is vice president for Information Operations at the Center for Security Policy. A journalist and author, he brings expertise in terrorism, intelligence, the former Soviet Union and the Americas. He previously served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of State.
Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2010 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Just a reminder that my position has been always to expand the methods and streamline the ways for legal immigration but NOT to do another amnesty which will only encourage more to cross over and wait for the NEXT AMNESTY.
gawddammit, dbostan, just post a link and not the entire book!
My complaint has absolutely *nothing* to do with the content of your post and everything to do with your violation of basic net etiquette. You don’t go to people’s blogs and junk up the comments with massive reposts of other people’s writings that you could just give a link to. All that does is piss *everyone* off, including people who might support you if you behaved a little better.
AJ,
When you see a political party do something as stuck on stupid as what the Democrats are doing on immigration, you had better stary looking at campaign contributions.
IMO, the Democrats are working their fund raising opportunities as hard as they can prior to 2010 because they think they are going to lose the House.
My worry here is that the Democrats are playing to their nutballs the way Newt Gingrich did in 1993 prior to the OKY City Federal building bombing.
As in “Will no one rid me of this priest” with Tea Party protestors and Republicans being in the role of “Priest.”
This is really bad for the simple reason that the Jacksonian base of the Republican Party does of intimidate worth spit and are firm believers in their 2nd Amednment right of self-defense.
WWS,
I did not see the complaint. You are right, I should have cut the lenght of the posting.