ChaosCrew's Blog

By Mickey Kaus

Mickey's Single Issue Voter's Guide: Suppose you were a single issue voter, and your single issue was immigration. Specifically, you were opposed to legislation that combines some form of amnesty (legalization of existing illegal immigrants) with tougher border enforcement. If so, you would probably be pretty depressed right now–three of the four leading presidential candidates explicitly favor such "comprehensive" reform. The fourth, Mitt Romney is the least likely to win. And even he's suspected of being a closet comprehensivist.

But you still have to vote. Before you did, you'd want to ask: Which of the three pro-legalization candidates is least likely to accomplish their legislative goal? When you think about it this way, a clear and somewhat surprising ranking of top three emerges.

______________________________________________________
______

______________________________________________________
______

1) Hillary Clinton would probably be the best president for anti-comprehensivists. She's cautious. She's been burned by GOP opposition before (to her 1994 health plan). Is she really going attempt both health care reform and immigration reform in her first two years? Remember, Rahm Emmanuel's swing-state Democratic congressmen typically ran tough-on-illegals campaigns. They're squeamish about voting for "amnesty." If Hillary is president (meaning John McCain isn't president) the Republicans are likely to unite against a Democratic legalization plan. Meanwhile, Hillary's political adviser James Carville is on record suggesting that legalization, like welfare, is a potential election-loser. Hillary suppporter Paul Krugman seems one of those remaining economists who actually believe in supply and demand–i.e., that an increase in the supply of immigrant labor can drive down unskilled wages. And Hillary herself has made anti-illegals noises in the past, including reversing her endorsement of Gov. Spitzer's drivers license plan.

2) Barack Obama, on the other hand, may actually believe his standard-left immigration positons. He's shown an ability to bridge the partisan divide and get things done. All deeply troubling, in this case.. But at least he too would have a hard time getting both a health care plan and immigration legislation through Congress against opposition from Republicans (McCain having lost).

3) President McCain would seem like a replay of George W. Bush. Bush couldn't get his "comprehensive" immigration plan through, even with a Democratic Congress. What would be different with McCain? Quite a bit. a) McCain's likely to be more popular, at least if Iraq continues to improve; b) The Democrats are likely to have bigger Congressional majorities; c) McCain might be able to claim voter validation of his long-standing pro-legalization views. Certainly the Republicans wouldn't be united against a McCain "comprehensive" bill. Unlike Clinton and Obama, McCain doesn't have ambitious New Dealish health legislation that would compete for his and Congress' time and energy.

True, it would still be difficult to pass a McCainish immigration plan–you can imagine the Democrats splitting just like Republicans when faced with something that might actually become law. McCain would have campaigned on his pledge to secure the borders–his current plan for a quickie assurance by "border state" governors might be too transparent a ploy (especially if the press was reporting a continuing flow of illegals). Nevertheless,,McCain seems clearly the worst of the three possibilities, from an anti-comprehensivist perspective.

I'm not saying voters should be single-issue voters. I'm not saying I'm going to vote for Hillary. I'm just saying …

P.S.: OK,, I'm not just just saying. If I thought either Clinton or Obama would do a much better job on health care, that would be one thing. But both seem well-positioned to actually pass some big, broad health plan. An immigration plan, on the other hand, seems much iffier. It could pass or fail depending on who's president. And, unlike a health care plan, an immigration legalization bill is likely to have large, irreversible consequences. Misconceived health plans can be altered or repealed (remember "catastrophic insurance"?). But if a misconceived immigration amnesty attracts millions of new illegal entrants who then have to be given citizenship–on top of the new citizens created by the amnesty itself–it won't just lower unskilled wages etc. It will profoundly alter the very electorate that will have to consider any future change of course.

In this context, single-issue voting could be a highly responsible course.

Vote Hillary. She won't get it done!

 

"No person except a natural born citizen, shall be eligible to the office of President"

 

John McCain was born August 29, 1936 in Panama

by Francis Steffan
AmericanVoiceRadio.net

John McCain was born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone, to two U.S. citizens. It's a common misunderstanding that the zone was a U.S. territory - in fact, the U.S. had lease rights, but not territorial rights.

The US Constitution 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."

"Natural Born Citizen" - "is where ONLY the natural act of one being born in a place determines the status of ones citizenship with no additional stipulations necessary to influence that status"

No law or court ruling has ever established the precise definition of a natural born citizen. It is generally agreed that a natural born citizen of the United States is any person born in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia.

John McCain's father "Jack" was born in Council Bluffs, Iowa. McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1931. Like his father and son, he graduated near the bottom of his class. He married Roberta Wright, a wealthy oil heiress, on January 21, 1933, in Caesar's Bar, Tijuana, Mexico. During WW II he commanded the submarine Gunnel at Operation Torch. After the end of the war, he was assigned to the Office of the Chief of Naval Personnel until 1948. He assumed command of Submarine Division 71 in the Pacific the next year. In 1950, he was assigned to a series of posts at The Pentagon. He spent the 1960s in a series of commands in the Atlantic, becoming Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces in Europe in 1967 and 1968. Admiral McCain directed an investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and he wanted the investigation done in less than a week even though the court’s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to conduct properly. Admiral McCain also wouldn’t permit Admiral Kidd to travel to Israel or to contact any potential Israeli witnesses. In fact, the written affidavits of 60 witnesses from the Liberty itself who were hospitalized at the time of the restricted inquiry, were also excluded from the final report and not considered as part of the evidentiary record. The investigation was completed in just ten days. The National Archives in College Park, Maryland includes in its files on casualties from the Liberty copies of the original telegrams the Navy sent out to family members. The telegrams which called the attack accidental, were sent out June 9, the day before the Navy court of inquiry convened .

When Senator McCain was asked to reopen and conduct a proper investigation into the USS Liberty's attack he stated that he wasn’t going to do anything about it because the “matter was thoroughly reviewed.”

Senator McCain also collaborated with ultra liberal Senator Ted Kennedy to attempt to provide amnesty to nearly 40 million illegal aliens, mostly Mexican.

When the Constitution was established, the United States government did not have a empire builder foreign policy. The United States military was for defensive purposes only. As a matter of fact, the U.S. is not to have a "standing Army" and all the documents evidencing the intent of the authors of the Constitution, warned against becoming involved in foreign entanglements. The U.S. had zero foreign based military forces and certainly did not approve of, envision, or condone having babies and raising families on foreign based U.S. military installations. The intent of the authors of the Constitution is exactly opposite the policy twentieth century U.S. government has pursued.

The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8, vests in Congress the power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." "Naturalization" is NOT synonymous with "Natural Born Citizen."

In order to come to a Constitutional definition of "Natural Born Citizen," one must look to the common meaning and understanding of the phrase at the time it was written.

The Constitution has been called a "living document" by liberal progressives who think they know better than the authors of the Constitution and want what they want with disregard for The Supreme Law of the Land. In one way, and one way only, is the Constitution a living document. The authors of the Constitution gave a specific process to add to or subtract from the Constitution and that is by amendment. The Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress nor the President of the United States are granted the authority to define or change the Constitution in any way, they only have an obligation and duty to obey it.

There were no foreign based US military forces at the writing of the U.S. Constitution, therefore, it is impossible that the intent of the Constitution was to have babies born to civilian wives of military personnel be considered "Natural Born Citizens." The only authority the government may lawfully exercise, through the U.S. Congress, is to declare these children to be "naturalized Citizens" at birth based upon the U.S. , Congress's authority "establish an uniform rule of Naturalization." I must reiterate, not the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court nor the President of the United States is "authorized" to define or change the meaning, definition, or intent of "Natural Born Citizen" as prescribed by the authors of the Constitution.

The original "intent" and therefore meaning and definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is one free white man being delivered through natural progression of a pregnancy, born within the geographical boundaries of one of the several States of the union, and later the District of Columbia. This is very clear and simple and what it means is born HERE.

In the Fourteenth Amendment the eligible group allowed Citizenship was expanded from free white men to "All persons." This would have been better stated “all people” to avoid the bogus recognition of a corporation being a "person.” This would have been better as it would have clarified the meaning as intended, which is having rights of people but lacking any of the liabilities. One cannot imprison a corporation, but that is for a later article.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 actually defines "natural born citizen" by stating, "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."

One’s wishes of what one feels things should be must yield to facts of law and one must accept the way things are according to the law until such time one is able to change the law.

There are two types of Citizenship in the United States, Natural Born and Naturalized. The fourteenth amendment defines "Natural Born Citizen" as persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It goes on to explain that there exists a dual Citizenship that includes the United States and of the State in which on lives. This in itself serves to demonstrate that Natural Born Citizen being born in the United States means within one of the several united States of America.

People may feel that it is not right that John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States of America, however, this is a fact of law. "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. There are two types of Citizenship in the United States "Natural Born" and "Naturalized." Congress has authority to make rules as to how to become a "naturalized citizen." There is no such authority granted to Congress, the Court, or the President to define "Natural Born Citizen."

Given the fact the United States official and long term military enclaves presence within foreign nations was not authorized and in fact was cautioned against by the authors of the founding documents of this nation including but not limited to the Constitution it is not only unlikely but impossible that the authors intended anyone born outside the several States of the United States, for any reason, to be considered "Natural Born Citizens" of the United States. This position and fact is second witnessed and verified by the fourteenth amendment, section 1 where it states clearly the two forms of United States Citizenship and defines Natural Born Citizen as "all persons born...in the United States...".

Some will attempt to argue the point that U.S. military bases are under the jurisdiction of the United States and the fourteenth amendment mentions that. The fourteenth amendment states, "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." The word "and" means "as well as" being born in the United States. Being born only under the jurisdiction of the United States, as some misguided military people would like to imagine, is not good enough. Some would like to believe that because the "United States" has a Status of Forces Agreement with a foreign government that military bases are somehow "sovereign" U.S. territory. If you murder a Panamanian citizen in Oregon you will be arrested by Oregon police, go through the Oregon courts and be imprisoned in Oregon, and now some other state maybe, but still within the U.S. If you murder a Panamanian citizen on a U.S. military base in Panama you will be arrested by Panamanian police, go through the Panamanian courts and be imprisoned in Panama. So much for "sovereignty."

All this discussion is nothing more than hot air and a waste of time that is off point. The point is that one cannot build a viable position on a non-existent foundation. In this case the foundation is the Constitution and the intent of the authors, NOT Status of Forces Agreements and worthless arguments by military men who would like to have babies on foreign soil, calling them natural born Citizens and have them run for President some day.

The authors of the U.S. founding documents counseled against becoming entangled in foreign wars. They also had a distinct distaste for colonial empire building. So now we are to believe that it was their intent to designate the prodigy, born on foreign soil, of the American centurion colonizing for the empire as a Natural Born Citizen?

The fourteenth amendment states "born or naturalized in the United States," that is IN the United States. At the time of the writing of the Constitution it was properly written as united States of America as the word “united” was describing the condition of the States not a proper name of a thing. The Congress can direct that persons may be "Naturalized" "in" the United States to mean embassies, military bases or wherever else they decide. That is what they are authorized to do. However, they are NOT authorized to redefine what "Natural Born Citizen" means. It means what it meant to the authors of the Constitution. The US did not have foreign military bases at the time the Constitution was authored. Therefore "born on a US military base in a foreign country" is NOT what they meant by "Natural Born Citizen."

The intention of the authors of the Constitution was that no person born outside the geographical boundaries of the several States of the United States of America be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America. Animus ad se omne jus ducit - It is to the intention that all law applies. Animus moninis est anima scripti - The intention of the party is the soul of the instrument. 3 Bulstr 67 - Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.

There are consequences to disregarding the Constitution and the intent of the authors of our founding documents. There are consequences to following a course of empire building by military might. There are consequences to being born on foreign soil as a son or daughter of a centurion of that empire building military. You are not Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States of America.

You may think it's not fair. You may feel it's not right. You may think because military and government "experts" tell you a military base in a foreign country is actually the United States that it's okay for John McCain to hold the office of President of the United States. You are nevertheless wrong and so are they, no matter how long they have told the falsehood and believed in error. communis error no facit just - A common error does not make law. -Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.

The position stated in this article is based only upon the Constitution and the intent of the authors of the founding documents of this nation. The only authority on this matter is the Constitution and the intent of the authors. Argumentum ab authoritate est fortissimum in lege - An argument drawn from authority is the strongest in law. Co. Litt. 254.-Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.

If you don't like the law, by all means work to change it, however, until such time that it is changed John McCain III is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President of the United States of America.

http://www.theamericanvoice.com/

Violent Mexicans Attack Border Patrol

I received this in my email and I found it very interesting, it did not have a link to its original author but I thought I would post it anyway, for the people that think we are being too hard on the illegal aliens that Invade our country….. JUST READ THIS!!!

American working in Mexico

From the other side of the fence…

Received the following from Tom O’Malley, who was a Director with S.W. BELL in Mexico City:

‘I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist Visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working Illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.

‘During that six months our Mexican and U.S. attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a ‘FM3'. It was in addition to my U.S. passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara’s was the same, except hers did not permit her to work.

‘To apply for the FM3, I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies):
1. Birth certificate for Barbara and me.
2. Marriage certificate.
3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.
4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.
5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.
6. A letter from the St. Louis Chief of Police indicating that I had no arrest record in the U.S. and no outstanding warrants and, was ‘a citizen in good standing.

7. ‘Finally, I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our ‘I am the greatest person on Earth’ letter. It was fun to write.

‘All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations, and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.

‘Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours, accompanied by a Mexican attorney, touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times at each location, and we remember at least four locations where we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government’s actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by U.S. Customs in Laredo, Texas. This meant we had rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid.

‘We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

‘We were required to get a Mexican driver’s license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and fingerprint equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our U.S. license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was to never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

‘We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The company’s Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. I t was about twenty legal size pages annually.

‘The FM3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees.

‘Leaving the country meant turning in the FM3 and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.’

‘It was a real adventure and if any of our Senators or Congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico.

‘The Mexican government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their capitol or government offices, but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The U.S. Embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican military surrounds the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on U.S. or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.’

Posted by Arizona Resistance

Commentary: This email was sent to me last week. Although the buyout occurred early last year, it’s surprising how many Americans are unaware of it. I guess it’s just another example of the crumbling of America that the mainstream media propagandists were told you didn’t need to know about.

I encourage you to click on the links provided below. You will see maps and “doing business as” names all over the country that are CEMEX owned. Chances are if you have had a cement truck out to your house or jobsite in the last year, the money you paid for it went straight to Mexico.

I know one small concrete plant in my area that only has a few trucks. Because they’re NOT owned by CEMEX, I can tell you I will do all I can to see that they get a whole lot busier.

Cemex, a huge Mexican owned company which manufactures, concrete, cement, asphalt, and concrete pipe, has bought out the Rinker Group and is now one of the largest suppliers in the world. This aquisition resulted from a hostile takeover and gives Cemex over 100 locations in Arizona alone.

A Mexican company is now the largest supplier of ready mix concrete and cement in the USA !!

Our global economy at it’s best. Thank you Global George and your CFR friends !!

See article:
http://www.concreteconstruction.net/industry-news.asp?
sectionID=718&articleID=512442

Now we find out, from a very reliable source who lives on the Arizona border and is employed in this industry, that Cemex will not allow any of its locations to bid on any construction project which relates to border security on the Arizona/Mexico border !!

Could this practice be a result of pressure from a Mexican government doing its best to ensure the easiest possible access for millions of illegal aliens streaming across the border into Arizona?

Could it be the influence of the Gulf Drug Cartel, which is also based in Monterrey, Mexico? Certainly they have the money, power, and incentive to interfere with our efforts to secure the border.

Whatever the reason, it certainly will have the approval of John McCain. That lying worm.

This practice is wrong and needs to be exposed. Cemex belongs at the very top of all boycott lists.

Look at all their locations in Arizona alone:
http://www.rinkermaterials.com/locations/States/locnS
T_AZ.shtml

While you’re there, take a look at Florida. The profit from every sale they make goes back to the elite in Mexico who could care less about their working class, and we keep hearing how poor Mexico is.

Please pass this on and encourage a boycott of these Reconquista invaders.

Danny Smith

American Freedom Riders

Illegal Immigration!

Here are some statistics provided in a post from one of my favorite forums:

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year.
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers.
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report.
12. The National Policy Institute, “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.”
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.

The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States”.

Total cost is a whooping… $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1561<
/a>

Despite the conventional wisdom holding the free flow of illegal immigrants across America's southern border is beneficial to the economy, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found the cost of illegal immigration outweighs the benefits, thus creating a net fiscal drain on the U.S. economy.

When the costs of illegal immigration are tallied against the benefits, most studies, including the NAS study, show there is, at minimum, an $87 billion fiscal loss. Such a loss is attributed to the following factors: 30 percent of those in federal prisons are illegal immigrants, in Los Angeles 95 percent of all warrants for homicide target illegal aliens, and diseases once all but eliminated from U.S. soil, like drug resistant TB, syphilis, and leprosy, are now reappearing in urban centers.

Read More

Racist Mexican, Cuauhtémoc Morfin Chicago, 23 of January.- Leaders of the Mexican community in Chicago reported today that they will ask president Felipe Calderon for his support in diverse common actions that will undertake to show the importance of their social and political presence in the United States.In a first meeting to define the approach that the President will do during his next visit to Chicago, the leaders agreed to give priority to the theme of the defense of the immigrant community before the defamatory climate and the pursuit that lives itself in diverse groups.Counselors of the Institute of the Mexicans Abroad (IME) and common representatives considered the convenience to take the initiative and to propose forms of defense against that anti-immigrante climate, said journalists and sources of the meeting.

Read More

Sonoran officials slam sanctions law in Tucson visit SHERYL KORNMAN Published: 01.16.2008

A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to say Arizona's new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora - Arizona's southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money.

The law, which took effect Jan.1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don't have valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension or loss of a business license.

Its intent is to eliminate or curtail the top draw for immigrants to this country - jobs. The Mexican delegation, members of Sonora's 58th Legislature, belong to the National Action Party (PAN), the party of Mexico's president, Felipe Calderón. They spoke at the offices of Project PPEP, a nonprofit that provides job retraining for farmworkers and other programs.

The lawmakers were to travel to Phoenix for a Wednesday breakfast meeting with Hispanic legislators.

They want to tell them how the law will affect Mexican families on both sides of the border. "How can they pass a law like this?" asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano Gamez, who represents Nogales.

"There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona," she said in Spanish.

"Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems" it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs, she said.

"We are one family, socially and economically," she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona. Amparano said the Mexican legislators are already asking the federal government of Mexico for help for Sonora.

Rep. Florencio Diaz Armenta, coordinator of the delegation, represents San Luis, south of Yuma, one of Arizona's agricultural hubs, which employs some 28,000 legal Mexican workers. "What do we do with the repatriated?" he asked. "As Mexicans, we are worried. They are Mexicans but they are also people - fathers and mothers and young people with jobs" who won't have work in Sonora."

He said the Arizona law will lead to "disintegration of the family," as one "legal" Mexican parent remains in Arizona and the other returns to Mexico.

Rep. Francisco Garcia Gámez, a legislator from Cananea and that city's former mayor, said the lack of mining jobs there has driven many Mexicans to Arizona to find work. He said they depend on jobs in Arizona to feed their families on both sides of the border.

Gov. Janet Napolitano, in her State of the State speech Monday, said the new law needs some modifications, including a better definition of what constitutes a complaint. Barrett Marson, director of communications for the Arizona House of Representatives, said Speaker Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, "has some concerns about how the law will be administered and applied."

He said the speaker sought testimony from the business community last fall "to get ideas about how to make following the law easier. In the end, that's what he wants - compliance, but make it as easy as possible to do." Marson said Weiers is "waiting for the governor to come out with her idea of what she wants to do" before he makes his own recommendations.

Has the U.S. Government completely abandoned a major part of America, the Southwest, to anarchy and lawlessness? FSM Contributing Editor Andy Selepak reviews Chris Burgard’s movie, “Border”, which illustrates how the destruction of America really is at hand. Can we still fight back? Andy has answers.

Film Exposes U.S. Border War

By Andy Selepak

Can a new film help derail the current push for amnesty for illegal aliens? Chris Burgard’s new movie “Border” is so good that it could dramatically affect the public debate. But because you can’t expect the major media to cover this shocking and poignant film, the challenge will be to make sure millions of Americans get a chance to see it. It tells the story of a war—a war just as important, if not more so, than the one in Iraq.

On April 23, 2007, as part of the Hold Their Feet to the Fire rally of 2007, an event designed to pressure the U.S. Government to protect and defend our borders, the Federation for American Immigration Reform held a screening of “Border” at the Union Station Phoenix Theatre in Washington D.C. At the screening, the courageous director, Chris Burgard, spoke, and national radio talk-show host G. Gordon Liddy delivered the opening remarks.

Before the movie began, Burgard told the capacity crowd that it took two years to make the film, and that he drew his inspiration to produce the documentary from reading Liddy’s book, “Fight Back!: Tackling Terrorism Liddy Style.” Burgard told the audience that Liddy’s book provided him with the confidence to believe that citizens can fight back against their government and win. He funded the entire film out of his own pocket.

Message to Congress

During his opening remarks, Liddy said the film is designed to inspire people to get Congress to protect our borders. And it can be done. Simply put, he said, “If our government wants to close the border, it can close the border.” Congress has passed a bill to build a security fence along the border—and President Bush signed the bill. But, at the same time, Bush and the Democrats are pursuing what they call “immigration reform,” in the form of H.R. 1645 in the House and a companion bill, sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy, in the Senate. But both bills have little to do with reform, and everything to do with amnesty for illegals, by rewarding those who have broken our laws with citizenship. H.R. 1645 even has some elements suggesting an effort to merge Mexico, the U.S. and Canada into one North American entity, with a common identity card for citizens of all three countries.

Liddy said that some Republicans don’t want to do anything about the problem because they want to provide cheap labor for Big Business. At the same time, according to Liddy, Democrats want open borders because they are looking for votes. In fact, Liddy claimed that illegals who attended pro-illegal immigration rallies in the U.S. have been rounded up by Democrats afterwards and registered to vote.

His claim, which sounds sensational, is true, as many states don’t have citizenship requirements for voting in U.S. elections.

Politics aside, Liddy told the crowd that parts of the film they were about to see were “very disturbing” in portraying the human misery and suffering in the border area.

Human Misery

Indeed, the film showed grotesque scenes of dead bodies of illegals either killed by bandits and human traffickers, known as coyotes, while crossing the border, or left to die in the desert. The film also shows what are called “rape trees” where the underwear of young girls are left hanging in trees after they have been gang-raped by coyotes, bandits, and other illegal immigrants.

Yet, the film is balanced in that it includes interviews with illegal immigrants and illegal immigrant advocates. There is, for example, an interview with illegal immigrant advocate, Ray Ybarra, an “Ira Glasser Racial Justice Fellow” with the ACLU. However, instead of supporting his position, Ybarra instead chooses to smear those opposed to illegal immigration, calling the Minutemen racists and insisting that the next Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, will be a Minuteman.

Congressmen such as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are in the film, making the case for protecting the border, but no Democrats would appear on camera. Burgard tried to meet with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), now the Speaker of the House, but she would not schedule a meeting, and when Burgard showed up at her office, the door was locked even though his assistant had just spoken to someone in Pelosi’s office.

The power of the film is that it shows the lawless nature of the border area. But it also includes some startling and staggering information. According to the film, an estimated 100,000 girls are trafficked into the U.S. across the border each year to work as sex workers, and the average age of these young girls is between seven and 12-years-old.

The Cost of Illegal Immigration

The film also discusses how illegal aliens are bankrupting the California healthcare system because of the law mandating that no one can be turned down at a hospital emergency room regardless of citizenship or health insurance.

In the film, an illegal alien named Angel tells how he paid $600 to have his right hand re-attached in a California hospital, but the procedure actually cost the hospital hundreds of thousands of dollars. When illegals like Angel can’t pay, the cost falls on the hospital, and to make up that cost, Americans with health insurance are forced to pay extra fees to cover the hospital’s losses. This is why, when hospitals have too many illegal patients to remain profitable, they simply close.

Rising healthcare costs and closing hospitals are not the only health effects of the porous borders. The film also discusses how deadly communicable diseases once wiped out in the U.S. are returning, brought into America by illegals. One such disease is leprosy, which was thought to only occur in remote parts of the world. According to the film, in the past 40 years there were 900 reported cases of leprosy, but in the past three years alone 7,000 cases have been reported.

But the movie is far more than personal stories, interviews, and disturbing facts about illegal immigration. Burgard and his crew also went down to the border and spent time with the Minutemen organization, including going out on patrol along the border. In one scene, using night-vision cameras, Burgard and his crew are stationed at a border crossing and witness well-armed paramilitary soldiers escorting drug mules across the border. The film says drug cartels are no longer sneaking drugs into the U.S. in large shipments, which can be more easily detected. Instead, drugs are being brought across the border by drug mules in 30- to 50-pound backpacks.

Citizen Patriots

The film shows that the Minutemen, labeled racists by the open-borders lobby and vigilantes by President Bush, are Americans who love their country and want to help the Border Patrol agents. They believe they are doing as the Founding Fathers intended, by standing up and defending their country.

In this context, it is a war. And it is a war as real as the one in Iraq. The difference is that the federal resources devoted to protecting our borders are miniscule, compared to the costs of Iraq.

Interestingly, most of those interviewed in the film do not blame the illegals themselves, and instead place blame on the coyotes, bandits, Mexican drug cartels and drug runners, as well as the U.S. and Mexican governments.

The film demonstrates in graphic terms how illegal immigration has left the Southwest United States a wasteland, even a landfill, where jugs of water, backpacks of personal belongings, and food supplies have simply been discarded at gathering points for illegals along the border.

Sadly, the message of the movie is that the U.S. Government has completely abandoned a major part of America, the Southwest, to anarchy and lawlessness. A viewer gets the impression that the destruction of America is at hand.

To a complete round of boos by the audience, the film shows President Bush talking about “immigration reform” in his 2006 State of the Union address while Congress gives him a standing ovation. The audience sees Bush grinning after delivering this remark, and the film has a freeze frame of Bush standing there smiling, even though there is absolutely nothing to be happy or satisfied about.

The unspoken implication of the film, in the current political and security climate, is that Bush may go down in history as the president who may lose two wars; one in Iraq and the other on our own southern border.

Ironically, President Bush fights Congress for funds for our troops in Iraq, saying that the U.S. can’t surrender in the Middle East, but it seems he wants to raise the white flag on our very own southern border, where the stakes are just as high. He fights the Democrats on Iraq but wants to strike a deal with them on immigration.

Losing the Other War

Why is Bush so concerned about Iraq and so seemingly unconcerned about defending and protecting his own country? Is it worth saving Iraq if we lose American sovereignty in the process?

An objective observer might respond that we can save Iraq while assuring America’s survival. But this President seems to have no intention of doing both. Under these circumstances, viewers of the film are left with an almost helpless feeling that the war for our sovereignty is lost and that the open-borders lobby has won.

The movie closes when the audience hears from a Minuteman who says he is not giving up, that he will continue to do what is right, and that it is “Time to put pride back in America.” This statement received a huge response from the audience. It is the Minuteman’s response, along with the uplifting background music, that gives the audience hope.

Burgard continues this feeling of hope in the film by saying, “We the people are waking up and we want our country back.” That statement was also met with loud applause.

The film closes with three simple words in white lettering on a black background: “Pay Attention. Participate.”

After the film, Burgard stood in front of the audience and reminded them that this is “not the story being told by the mainstream media or the federal government.” That is why the film needs to be seen by millions. And that is why Accuracy in Media will continue to cover illegal immigration as the major issue that it is.

You can visit the official film website here.

Remember: “Pay attention. Participate.”

The rest is up to you.

Mexico was America’s first girlfriend. Her fiery black eyes, her music, her food, all cast a spell over America, and America can’t shake her off. Ask Marty Robbins about her. Remember "Feleena," El Paso," "Devil Woman," and all that inimitable sentiment over a Mexican girl?

But now she’s fat, pregnant, and wants to move in!

Mexico is claiming her rights. She belongs to America, and to everything America has. She says America is the father of her baby.

It’s a pickle. Most Americans can’t muster enough outrage, or even resentment, to kick her out. The Minutemen ask, "Why is the American government completely indifferent to the border crisis?" Why can’t American see the disaster of mass immigration?

Charm, in a word. Mexico is beautiful. She’s the most romantic country in the western hemisphere. And even John Wayne’s Alamo (1960) paid tribute to her pride. The great Santa Anna took off his royal, feathered helmet before the sole survivor of the Alamo, an embattled woman, when she walked out before him in her humble dignity. The Mexican understands pride.

And the Mexican understands work. The Mexican can out-work anyone. Certainly in the Southwest, Mexicans plant and pick the fruits and vegetables, they do all the yard work in the cities, all the roof work, and much of the construction. The financial greed of the white capitalists is not to be blamed on the Mexican worker. The illegality of the Mexican’s presence is the crime of careless capitalists.

Mexicans wouldn’t be here if someone wasn’t paying them. The benefits they finagle out of the willing, liberal government are not their fault. They’re being used, but they’re the beneficiary. Why should they resist?

America is certainly acting like the father of the Mexican bas.tard. America never married the Mexican girlfriend, but the government will not denounce her, nor put her out.

The Americans who resist her seem like jealous siblings. They are the true sons and daughters of America. They don’t want the Mexican moving in, even if he is a half-brother or half-sister. The mother is an unwed woman. This insults the pride of the true American.

This "move-in" is not legitimate. It’s not legal. Yet, it is based on deeper emotions and the law of common sense. If America is the father, then the woman has a right. Many, many Americans cannot in their hearts feel that illegal immigration is criminal.

So Mexicans usurp the airwaves. In Oklahoma City, the oldest and most famous radio station, WKY, known as Super Talk 930, has now become completely Mexican. Owned by Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, the station since January, 2006 is broadcast in Spanish. All Mexican, all the time. The pregnant Mexican girl has certainly moved into Oklahoma City. If anyone’s upset, the media’s keeping it quiet.

Oklahomans, for all their famed "Bible-belt" conservatism, are managed by grand liberal and crooked patriarchs. Citadel bought WKY in 2003, after Citadel itself was bought out in 2000 by Frostmann Little & Company (a private equity firm) for $2 billion. Corporate radio is the end of local radio, so they say. Corporate radio is Mexican radio, at least in Oklahoma.

Whether into our ears, our eyes, or into the house next door, the Mexican move-in seems perfectly natural to many people. The dark side—gangs, criminals, drugs, as well as the decomposition of the economic infrastructure of states and cities due to the "welfare" abuse by illegal Mexicans, has yet to tarnish that glorious stereotype of a simple, beautiful, romantic Mexican girl.

Media protest from people like Lou Dobbs (CNN) simply shows that media does not influence the public when it needs to most. The federal government and corporate America have their own agenda. Local INS federal officers often disdain reported suspicion of some Mexican immigrant. I was told directly, by an INS federal officer, "Unless some crime has been committed, every person within these borders has the right to be here and move about freely." The officer tried to make me appear bigoted and racist for even calling. I committed a hate crime for wanting to investigate the appearance of illegal immigration.

The government doesn’t consider immigration a serious crime. Real crime is murder, robbery, assault, or rape. Unless illegal Mexicans are committing real crimes, they’re "legal."

But the responsible American knows that Mexico’s bas.tard child is not his.

The Mexican girl is lying.

It’s her child, and her responsibility. Her beauty merely blinds America’s judgment.

America needs to exercise some old-fashioned self-discipline. Put her out.

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 Poblacion, 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 without 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 is a compilation of live, recorded statements by elected U.S. politicians, college professors, and pro-illegal alien activists whose objective is to take control of our country "by vote if possible and violence if necessary!"

The first 15 audio clips above demonstrate the "Pro-Mexico, Anti-America" agenda of "Pro-Immigration" activists and politicians. Rather than encouraging new immigrants and illegal aliens to assimilate into the American culture, they instead seek to "set up a nation within a nation"; one that they can control by keeping immigrants out of the mainstream. They seek "raw political power" with the goal of open borders. Many helped to found and still support such openly racist, anti-American organizations like MEChA, LA RAZA, MALDEF and the Southwest Voter Registration Project. Their goals are to re-take the American Southwest, not by war, but rather by uncontrolled migration. If you think it's not a problem in your state, it will be eventually, as you become a citizen of "MEXAMERICA".

The below audio clips are from archives distributed by the California Coalition for Immigration Reform. THE AMERICAN RESISTANCE assumes no responsibility for possible errors in recording, attribution, or transcription.

Instructions: Click on "R" to listen to the clip via RealAudio in any browser.
Click on "W" to listen to the clip via Windows Media Audio in Internet Explorer. Click on "T" to read the transcript of the audio clip.

# SpeakerTime Medium 1Armando Navarro, Professor of Ethnic Studies, University of California at Riverside1:18 R W T 2Art Torres, former California State Senator and currently Chairman of the California Democratic Party1:13 R W T 3Jose Angel Gutierrez, Professor, University of Texas at Arlington and founder of La Raza Unida Party1:31 R W T 4Bill Richardson, former U.S. Congressman, U.N. Ambassador, U.S. Secretary of Energy, and currently Governor of New Mexico0:48 R W T 5Mario Obledo, founding member of MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund)1:03 R W T 6Mario Obledo, given the U.S. Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor0:49 R W T 7Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council Member0:52 R W T 8Joe Baca, former California State Assemblyman, now U.S. Congressman & member Hispanic Caucus2:31 R W T 9Antonio Villaraigosa, former Speaker of California State Assembly1:52 R W T 10Gloria Molina, one of the five Los Angeles Country Board of Supervisors1:45 R W T 11Vicky Castro, a recent member of the Los Angeles Board of Education1:43 R W T 12Ruben Zacarias, former Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District1:24 R W T 13El Presidente Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico1:31 R W T 14Augustin Cebada, information minister of the Brown Berets, foot soldiers of the "Aztlan" movement2:25 R W T 15Fabian Nunez, elected Speaker of the California State Assembly in 20035:08 R W T 16Larry Elder, Los Angeles KABC Radio talk show host 0:35 R W T 17Tom Tancredo, current Colorado U.S. Congressman and active opponent of illegal immigration0:45 R W T 18Gray Davis, former Governor of California0:18 R W T 19MEChA chants, from MEChA's 1996 annual conference at Cal-state University at Northridge1:23 R W T


"We call things racism just to get attention. We reduce complicated problems to racism, not because it is racism, but because it works."

--- Alfredo Gutierrez, political consultant, as quoted by Richard de Uriarte, The Phoenix Gazette, March 14, 1992 (quoted in The ProEnglish Advocate, 1st quarter, 2002).

Monday, January 14, 2008



PRESCOTT - "I'm one politician who knows where the border is," commented Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as he spoke at the Yavapai Republican Men's Forum at the Hotel St. Michael in Prescott Monday.

Arpaio was here to talk about the new immigration law that went into effect on Jan. 1.

"We have a new employer sanction law to address the illegal immigration problem," he said. "I am a big supporter of small business, but you do have to check out someone's status before you hire

him.

"I have 160 of my officers trained to enforce the federal immigration law," he continued. "Using the state and federal law, if these officers come across anybody in the course of their duties, they have the authority to ask where people are from. If they are illegal, throw them in jail. When we arrest someone and take them to jail, we give them a crash course in English."

He joked that he teaches the illegals to say "God Bless America" and makes them listen to religious songs.

"I'm hoping the Civil Liberties Union will sue me," Arpaio said.

Over the past several months, Arpaio said of the 30,000 people he has processed through the jail, 8,200 people are illegals.

"We investigate them," he said. "Police don't ask, so we ask. We determine their identity."

He stressed that instead of building fences along the border, the country should "put the illegals in jail as soon as they come across." He explained that, if illegals cannot send money back to their loved ones and cannot work, they might not bother to come here.

Arpaio does not like hearing excuses.

"We don't have enough prosecutors; we don't have the manpower," he said. "The bottom line is the feds and the police don't want to lock up illegals. It is frustrating at times. I'll do all I can to put them in jail. It is the role of the sheriff to serve the people."

He asked for help.

"Please follow the new regulations and routine. Show you did everything you could to follow the law. We want to do it right," he said.

Arpaio spoke of his famous tent city.

"We have 2,000 inmates living in those tents," he said. "It's nice in the summertime. I take the media through and the temperature reads 148 degrees. People cannot believe it. But we have people fighting for our country and they are living in tents. As long as I'm sheriff, we will have those tents."

He boasted of his cost per meal per inmate, which averages about 40 cents a day.

"We serve them brunch at 11 a.m. consisting of a bologna sandwich and donated orange," Arpaio explained. "They have a hot meal at dinner. Usually, it costs $1.50 per meal times three."

Arpaio also spoke of his chain gangs, which include women, and making inmates wear pink underwear.

"They hate pink," he laughed. "When I leave office, I will be known as the pink underwear sheriff."

He mentioned the multitude of lawsuits and "garbage" he has put up with in his 15 years as sheriff.

"I took some heat in the last election, but I'm still around. I would've never taken this job if I had to report to a bureaucrat. I will do my best and keep fighting."

He ended his speech on a cryptic note.

"You will be shocked in about three weeks," he said. "When you find out what Maricopa County is doing with the illegals, you will be shocked and angry. It is very disgusting what you are going to find out about your state government."

Have voters lost their minds?

John McCain has come back from the dead and, despite a second place finished in Michigan, now leads all other GOP candidates in the national polls.

Have voters lost their minds? Do they suffer from collective amnesia? Have their brains been taken over by space aliens?

After McCain combined forces with Ted Kennedy to try to ram an amnesty bill down our throats, he was Public Enemy No. 1!

McCain hasn't changed his position, nor have we. Illegal immigration is at or near the top of almost every national or state list of GOP voter concerns.

What are voters thinking? Obviously, they are not thinking at all.

McCain is a war hero. He is strong on national defense issues. We all admire him for that. He has railed against runaway spending and those earmarks that legislators slip into bills in the dead of night. That, too, is commendable. However, his dogged determination to reward people who have broken into this country and make a mockery of the rule of law should cause any thoughtful voter to eliminate him as a candidate for the job as the nation's chief executive.

After McCain tumbled in the polls in the early going, he did soften his stance. He now claims that he's heard us and that he will secure the border first (before giving all those illegals amnesty). If you fall for that one, I've got a bridge in Rudy Giuliani's state I'd like to sell you!

There is no "perfect" candidate for president. Compromises have to be made. However, the one quality we should require of any candidate who gets our vote is honesty. McCain built his campaign around that. However, his rhetoric on amnesty has shot the wheels right out from under his "Straight Talk Express."

If you allow those who break into this country to stay, that is amnesty! A few years ago, that's what McCain called it. Now he is trying to finesse this issue by calling it a path to "earned citizenship." Straight talk? That's enough to make a Clinton blush!

The idea that you will allow someone who breaks into this country simply to pay a fine of $5,000 to become legal is an affront to law-abiding immigrants who have patiently stood in line. It is also an affront to hard-working taxpayers who have to pick up the tab for a plethora of welfare services the amnesty recipient would eventually be able to tap. Furthermore, if the amnesty recipient gives birth here, the benefits immediately begin to flow through that child.

Would you pay $5,000 to receive $30,160 in benefits per year for the rest of your life? That's a no brainer!

A study by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation found that is exactly what the average low?skill immigrant household received in just one year from direct be