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/

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.’

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

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 benefits, means-tested benefits, education and other services from all levels of government in 2004.

Another flat tire on the straight talk express is his straw man defense. The first straw man McCain puts up is that "you can't round up 12 million illegals and send them home." The reality is, if you put tough sanctions on employers and landlords and cut off the benefits and services, they will go home on their own.

The second straw man McCain puts up is that these people are doing the work that Americans are "unwilling to do." In a free economy that depends on supply and demand, there is no job that will go unfilled at the right price.

The flood of unskilled or low skilled immigrants has driven down wages for these jobs. The big losers in this scam are the hardworking Americans on the lower end of the economic ladder whose good-paying jobs have gone away.

On the other end of the spectrum, McCain has voted repeatedly to increase the number of H1B visas, which allow employers to import highly skilled workers (supposedly when there is a shortage here). This allows firms to lay off American workers, reclassify their jobs and import foreigners who will work for less. McCain also has voted repeatedly against amendments that would require firms to advertise these jobs here or certify that they have tried to find Americans to fill these jobs.

In short, McCain has done everything possible to insure that big corporations and agribusinesses have a steady stream of foreign workers who will take our jobs for less pay. This depresses wages, puts Americans out of work and increases the demand on welfare and other public benefits.

Wake up America. We cannot afford to make this man president of the United States.

Posted: January 11, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Fellow Americans:

As a 60 year-old Hispanic woman from Colorado, I call upon each of you to take our national leaders to task for their incompetence and unwillingness to resolve America's problem with illegal immigration. We must take an active role beyond sending e-mails. We need to demonstrate enmasse against elected officials and businesses who promote the destruction of our country by breaking our established laws.

Two years ago, I addressed these points with my church family, pastor, and the head of a six-state region of the Central Latin American District Council who advocated that the 12 million-plus illegal aliens in our country be legalized. His reason: There were simply too many to deport. I disagree and state that America must close its borders NOW and put an end to all organizational efforts to force this problem down our throats.

This church advocate is merely another self-serving, special-interest minority in the same light as advocates for gay rights, atheism, legalized marijuana, global warming, and animal rights. They are all leading this nation to destruction through lawlessness, stupidity and immorality. They all represent a tiny group of people intent on forcing control, immorality or illegality down the throats of Americans, using the same training tools and ploys with such terms as ''survival, fairness, justice, equality, racism, bigotry, and love,'' which share the same objective – turning the good into bad and the bad into good.

Let me give you six biblical reasons for opposing the legalization of illegal aliens:

1. Greed & Envy: Illegal aliens are pouring into the United States because they ''covet thy neighbor's goods'' – God's 10th Commandment Ex. 20 and Deut. 5.

Mexicans comprise about 90 percent of the illegal aliens in question. They certainly are not aliens escaping a leftist regime, starvation, political annihilation, or religious persecution. They just want what we have without earning it. They are thieves and lawbreakers who think they are ''entitled'' to live like Americans without being Americans.

On the same scale, American businesses are advocating this invasion. These businessmen are greedy vultures willing to eat this country alive just to line their pockets regardless of the long-term consequences to this nation.

2. The United States is a sovereign nation: God Almighty owns all of the land; yet, He recognized the sovereignty of nations and determined where He wanted each of us to be born. The Bible says, ''And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings.'' Acts 17:26.

The United States has laws in place to deny or permit entrance to whomever it pleases. It has the right to physically enforce or bar entry to any invaders to this country. Unfortunately, we have a president and congress who are kowtowing to foreign governments like Mexico's Fox and Calderon for their own perverted interests in building a One World Order. Our government officials and illegal aliens are both guilty of lawlessness and God says, ''He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.'' Proverbs 17:15.

3. They are an economic drain: Illegal aliens are a financial drain on this country. They strain our hospitals, welfare system, schools, tax-paid housing, school lunch programs, and jails. Illegal aliens from third-world countries are the major source for the growing infestation of bedbugs and the return of such diseases as tuberculosis and leprosy previously thought eradicated in our country. Few illegals pay taxes or file returns except to get money back through the Earned Income Credit Act even though they haven't paid a dime into the system. Being a free-loader is wrong for the Bible says, ''For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.'' 2 Thess. 3:10.

4. They are a barrier to God's blessings on this country: The U. S. was formed as a Christian nation and, until recently, staunchly supported Israel. The result was God's uncommon favor and blessings upon America. We were living testimony of the truth of God's promise to Abram saying, ''I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'' Gen. 12:3.

When illegal aliens come here, they bring their religion with them. Unfortunately, Mexico and other Hispanic countries are predominately Roman Catholic, which is an idol-based religion. They worship Jesus' mother on a comparable, if not elevated, level to Jesus''You shall not make for yourself a carved image – any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God …'' Deut. 5:8-9. Christ. Their growing numbers in the U.S. means that Christians are losing ground to them and bringing about God's established curses on idolatrous nations who violate His 2nd Commandment –

5. Illegal aliens are rebellious: They thumb their noses at our laws, ordinances, and regulations. Consider the vast number of illegal aliens who drive unabashedly without driver's licenses, car insurance, license plates, and who don’t even know the rules of the road. They violate local ordinances by renting apartments or houses and then share them with multiple families. They blatantly use our facilities without paying for them because they don't want to or have to. God said, ''For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.'' 1 Samuel 15:23.

6. Mexicans are not the ''New Israel and the U. S. is not their Promised Land'': Church and bleeding heart sympathizers use the analogy that these aliens are like Ruth of the Bible. Ruth was a blessing to Israel; however, these illegal aliens are not a blessing to this country. Ruth was an immigrant who adopted the ways and laws of her new people instead of trying to make that nation like Moab – ''your people shall be my people and your God my God.'' Book of Ruth 1:16.

Americans are repeatedly told that they do the jobs that Americans won't do. What a LIE! Politically correct governments and businesses hire illegal aliens instead of Americans for various jobs, including city, county, state and federal jobs. These ''good folks'' simply accept a TIN number instead of a Social Security number and don't bother to check them out before hiring.

If illegal aliens want to become Americans, let them go to the back of the line and follow the right procedures for entry. Let them learn the language and make a personal commitment to leave their old country behind them instead of trying to make this country an extension of theirs. As God said, ''And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.'' Exodus 12:48. This scripture can be symbolically translated to say, he who wants to be an American needs to follow the laws and customs of the land!

Sincerely,

Shirley Ortega Beamer

Illegal immigration can't be ignored

The illegal immigration issue just won't go away. The politicians are hoping it will because they don't want to risk offending the Hispanic-American vote.

The illegal immigration issue is hugely important to the American middle class who are overwhelmingly opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Amnesty, or whatever term the politicians choose to call it, would amount to an insult to immigrants who came here legally and obtained their citizenship in the traditional manner, as did our ancestors. In addition it is the middle class who are paying for the illegal aliens who are receiving free medical care in the emergency rooms of our hospitals, free public education for their children, free police and fire protection, and welfare services.

What amazes me is how our liberal Democratic politicians are joining with President Bush in pressing for amnesty for illegal aliens. I can understand why Bush, ever the servant of the wealthy and big business, would welcome open borders and a never ending supply of cheap labor. After all, cheap labor means lower labor costs and fatter profits. But why do liberal politicians think that cheap, exploitable labor is good for this country? Are there any politicians out there willing to represent the middle class?

Before I vote for any politician in the next election, I want him or her to answer the following questions:

1. What would you like to see done about the problem of illegal immigration?

2. Should a truly effective fence be in place on our southern border before there is any talk about amnesty?

3. Should a law be passed forcing local police to cooperate with United States immigration authorities in deporting illegal aliens who are criminals?

4. Do you believe that "sanctuary cities" are good and proper havens for illegal aliens?