Arizonans Losers Again

This is a banner week for the U.S. Supreme Court.

First up, the recent political decision on the Arizona immigration case and the provisions of SB 1070, Arizona's tough "anti-illegal immigrant" bill which challenged the federal government's authority with respect to the ramifications to my former home state over its failure to secure our southern borders.

With the number of foreigners escalating particularly after the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's to the point where it is estimated there are literally millions of foreign Mexican and South Americans making it a "national" concern.

Except for those in the upper 48 apparently, including D.C.

Even after passage of the Secure Fence Act back in 2006, and the much ballyhooed passage of the bill which provided for a centralized database for employers to check the immigration status of potential employees.

The flow hasn't stopped significantly, but unless something isn't done soon, those numbers will eventually simply increase...a bad or good economy makes no real difference, although a bad economy makes the hiring of illegals and the drug trafficking and auto thefts in most border states skyrocket.

Problem is the government, state and federal,through their own governmental contractors, are probably the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor.

And, so very many are making a killing keeping those southern borders unsecured for the cheap foreign labor our open borders provide - not to mention how much the courts and lawyers make throughout the country on all those criminal and "civil rights" cases which are heard in our local and federal courts.

Illegal immigration, while being a jobs killer, is definitely an economic stimulus for the politicians, lawyers, and large and small businesses that profit off their labors.

As a former long term Arizonan, what was interesting to me is just how ludicrous this entire Supreme Court case actually was to begin with.

I mean, even the one provision the Court upheld was politically motivated.

The provision that enabled local law enforcement officials to require proof of citizenship be provided in the event any individual is stopped and suspected of being in the country illegally.

Since there is a U.S. District Court case pending until the Supremes decision was rendered which is directly challenging that provision on "civil rights" grounds, that was hardly a "win" for Arizona - although Arizona's Governor sure seemed to publicly whitewash and call the Supremes' decision a win for Arizona due to their upholding that provision (at least until one of their fellow brethren on the bench in the U.S. District Court strikes that one down).

It was really a win for Mexicans throughout the land, and the government of Mexico, truth be told.

The Supremes' upheld the rights of foreigners over those of Americans.

SB 1070 in and of itself was a rather political move by the Arizona legislature to begin with.
During President Bush's final days in office, he used one of those Executive Orders to grant "free pass" visa waivers with only 48 hour security checks to foreigners from over 35 different countries.

Visas for Mexican visitors haven't been required for literally decades.

So upon those "stops" just how would any officer prove in a court of law that an undocumented Mexican was in the country illegally, if there are no visa requirements anymore?

What seems more than clear was that this case was politically motivated, and was the biggest winner for the lawyers who also get their legal fees paid gratis for any deemed "civil rights" action they might bring.

And if the U.S. District Court doesn't overturn the "show me your papers" provisions of that law, I just wonder how many Arizona lawyers will be licking their chops over all the potential cases they will now have for decades to come?

What a travesty...and the passion plays go on...and on...while the Americans and Arizona citizens aren't even an after thought.

I mean, people are commerce, are they not?

Foreign or domestic.

And isn't it clear that crime certainly does pay?

As far as the Constitutional questions...

I have read and reread the U.S. Constitution numerous times, and the only power I actually see granted to the federal government in this respect is that they are to provide a "process for naturalization," and to provide the federal courts for any crime committed by a foreigner in this country before they finalize the naturalization process.

So just where is it written that it is the federal government's sole job to dictate immigration policies, or their enforcement?

Since, after all, it is the state's that petition the federal government for all those green cards each and every year by Resolution?

This just keeps getting worse and worse...just whose rights was that Constitution written in order to protect?

Americans...or foreigners?

Since, of course, being Mexican or South American, or Latino is not a race at all.

Simply a nationality

Mr. Obama's Dream Isn't Dreamy to Mainstream Americans

In the last few days it has been apparent that this is an election year, and the political landscape is getting more and more slippery by the minute.

The latest news on the election front is the announcement by Mr. Obama that his stance on illegal immigrant enforcement activites will take a more compassionate view. He is a dreamer, and the Dream Act is once again being milked for those crucial foreign votes.

The sins of the fathers are not to be used against the children of foreigners who entered this country illegally, without going through the immigration process as set forth by Congress. Mr. Obama has mandated through another Executive Order that Congress has no authority in this matter, only the president does.

Where in the Constitution that power is accorded the president has escaped me, although I have read it through several times (it is a rather short document, after all, unlike the immigration provisions, or any other Act of Congress this past century, at least.

It is important, after all, to garner those foreign votes.

The will and positions of Americans on this contentious issue, especially in this current economy, does not bear consideration.

As one who formerly grew up and lived in a border state, and has been repeatedly victimized by the policies of Washington on this issue and my state of residence on several occasions within the past twenty years, makes such a position rather hard to swallow.

As it appears is also the case with many other Americans, whether border state residents, victims or not.

I was even victimized once again in a non-border Western state, by the current economic conditions irrespective of the border issue.

After having left my home state of Arizona in early 2007 after the National Guard had been called out in order to secure Arizona's borders, and also a victim of the mortgage mess and crisis in the Western states particularly, I eventually ended up in another Western state after having to move from a Southern state where I had extended family after one of the major hurricanes for health reasons.

It took me approximately seven or eight months to be able to regain my health, during which time I was living in weekly rental rooms, which was all that I could afford due to the ramifications of my exit from Arizona and expenses thereafter in subsequent moves, medical expenses, and costs of gasoline and related expenses.

When I was well enough, I attempted to seek work in a busting economy in my former field of experience and expertise - leisure travel and tourism (an industry which pretty much was wiped out after 9-11, and all those TSA regulations and requirements which have turned many Americans against traveling very far for their recreation, if they could afford it).

During this time I ran through my savings (the equity I had gotten out of my home due to a forced move, a home I had lived in for over 12 years which was originally on a 15 year note, for which I had in those 12 years paid for twice with the interest) and three months "emergency" stash.

Eventually, I found it necessary to apply for food stamps in order to get food. A position that in my wildest dreams I never hoped to find myself.

I walked into the state offices (this is a federal program, but administered by the states) to pick up my application.

On the television in the office there was a video of the Disney movie, Jungle Book.

And the song, "The Bare Necessities" was playing on a loop over and over again.

I guess this is an example of the federal (or state) government's sense of humor.

Or maybe it was for the children of those food stamp recipients in order to discourage their children from asking for an I-phone for their next Christmas gift. You know, the ones which are advertised on the television around Christmas time to hook those kids into begging for the latest technology.

The office was crowded, although the applications were lying on a table so I didn't have to wait in line.

I looked it over.

The first page astounded me.

While as an American I was to provide documentation of my income, residency status (although a federal program), social security number, expenses and the like, it was stressed in bold letters that no proof of citizenship was required nor social security number for foreigners.

My benefits were cut off after one month due to the fact that my paperwork wasn't in order, and I was accused by one of the government officials when I went to the office again of not returning their call when they called to obtain further information. Rather loudly, I might add.

All representatives at the offices were minority race employees, and I would have to say that as a white, older American woman my application was reviewed far more closely than that of any of the minority members seeking assistance, although my case worker was a minority member and was very cordial and later apologized privately for the mix up.

But in the end it really didn't matter.

Within a month or two of receiving my card, I ran out of cream for my coffee one morning so decided to walk to the corner store since it was snowing out that morning.

I got on my boots, gloves and coat (and for a former desert dweller this was a lengthy process) and headed out to the store.

My weekly rental was on a rather busy street, so although not living in one of the "nicer" areas in this metro community, a community where walking and biking are promoted as a benefit of living there, it was just a short walk and wasn't really all that cold outside.

I hadn't gone more than a few blocks when I noticed one of those portable taco stands parked in a vacant lot, with three young men standing outside the little mobile home/restaurant.

I started walking past the cart when one of the young men stepped in front of me and asked if I had a few dollars to spare so that he could get something to eat.

I said, no I really didn't since I myself found I needed food stamps and only had about six dollars in cash with me anyway.

With that, he grabbed my purse. I grabbed back. The strap broke, and he was off across the vacant field.

At that moment in my life, if it hadn't been snowing, and I hadn't been over fifty, I would have taken off across that field to get my purse since it had all my identification, including my needed social security card in it, my children's pictures, and my food stamp card.

I don't think the Dream Act is what America needs.

How many more tens of thousands of those kids will also be looking for work when they graduate from those state colleges, and also cannot find adequate employment in addition to the literally millions of generational Americans now in that position?

Dream on, Mr. Obama.

Luis Ramirez Case Demonstrates Criminal Justice System Gone Awry

The highly publicized ongoing "hate crimes" case in the death of Luis Ramirez at the hands of a group of white American football players/teenagers in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, a mostly blue-color small town northwest of Philadelphia, appears to this writer to demonstrate how the American criminal justice system has truly lost its way.

Primarily also due to the inconsistent reporting also that has occurred throughout the nation on the case.

With the first inconsistency being just whether or not the victim was a 25 year old American citizen of Mexican descent, or an illegal immigrant.

Sources in the news media have portrayed him as both, and his initial trial was in state court in which the teens involved were convicted of criminal assault in the beating death of Mr. Ramirez, who they encountered in a park where the victim was out with his 15 year old girlfriend late one evening.

Apparently, the group of teens had had too much to drink and were spoiling for a fight, and from all reports insults were hurled prior to the eventual encounter in both directions. I wonder if the proprietor of the establishment who sold those kids the alcohol has also been brought up on charges, since they were, after all, 16 and 17 at the time of this incident and apparently it occurred after a football game.

The teens were also charged with "ethnic intimidation" under state laws at the time of their trials, but apparently those charges were either dismissed or they were found not guilty on those counts.

Much, of course, has been made that an "all white" jury was involved in the state action, and apparently there are also charges that local authorities were involved in some cover-up of the investigation then thereafter, some of whom are scheduled to be brought up on those charges at some later point in time (although this incident occurred more than two years ago).

The community, of course, has been adversely impacted as this is a town that is a magnet for the claimed "Hispanic community" due to the draw of jobs in the agricultural and industrial (factory) sectors. Of course, Pennsylvania's major industrues are in the coal/steel/industrial sector, with many during this recession also hard hit and out of work.

The uncertainty of this young man's immigration status as reported in the media does bear scrutiny as the prosecution in the subsequent federal case has also inconsisgtently been reported as under the "hate crimes" bill recently signed by Congress (about the same time as this incident occurred, it appears, but that also bears scrutiny). Even more strange is that the federal case is actually being prosecuted against the teens as a violation in affording the victim fair housing under the "Fair Housing Act."

Say, what?

Apparently, since the state dismissed the charges against the teens under the state provisions for "ethnic intimidation" the federal government is barred from then bringing an action under the "hate crimes" legislation passed in 2008, or it was an ex-post facto law in any event passed after this particular incident. Or to then proceed and charge the teens with violation of the federal Hate Crimes Act would, in effect, be double jeopardy since the state prosecutor or the jury had dismissed those charges at the state level.

But now prosecuting them under the "Fair Housing" Act?

MALDEF, a federally funded "educational" group, of course, is involved in the prosecution of the case. Another group that stands to benefit from any and all actions which can in any way be deemed a "civil rights" matter - apparently whether brought on behalf of an actual American citizen or not, since the status of this man's citizenship has been reported, at least in the Boston papers, as an "illegal immigrant."

Although one of the Washington news sources reports him as an "American, of Mexican descent."

But I guess if MALDEF is involved then he must be a Mexican-American. Or the federal statute providing for those legal fee awards makes no distinction, since the words "civil rights" are being used quite liberally by the federal prosecutors for this now Fair Housing case.

A tragic incident, and while the state has actually got the technicalities correct in at least the fact that "ethnicity" just may have been a factor, the federal government is using the "racial" discrimination label - when Hispanic is not actually a "race" at all any more than being of German, Irish or Russian descent.

I wonder when those cases will be brought under the Fair Housing Act?

Alcohol and teens do not mix, but then neither do hormones and teens.

When I was growing up in Arizona during even the grammar school years, the "big tree" outside the schoolyard was famous as the site where any and all fights between the pre-teen boys occurred. Although they were equally matched in most cases, at least one-on-one.

But instead of charges of "bullying" as would occur in any other such incident due to this young man being outnumbered at the outset, and by a group of high school teen football players at that, we are charging them under the Fair Housing Act, after they were already convicted of criminal assault?

It seems to me this new "hate crimes" legislation is going to result in an increase in our adolescent jail population also progressively, and of course our deficit for all those legal fees to all these special interest groups on the illegal immigrant gravy train, when if our borders were secured and then the immigration process also then simplified and made less costly for all those from poorer countries especially who wish to immigrate such cases as these just might also progressively decrease.

I just wonder also, will the ACLU be there for the next European-American young male who is beaten by some Mexican gang members in one of the border state neighborhoods in order to protect their civil rights?

I guess that question is rather rhetorical, since the Fair Housing Act doesn't apply to that "ethnic" group.

And with all the demonstrations and unrest that the illegal immigrant and border situation has resulted in these past few years, and actually since the Reagan amnesty in the 1980's as reported in the media night after night, and being used by the politicians for political purposes most of all each and every election, and in this ever spiraling economic tsunami with more and more Americans continuing to be homeless and jobless by the month, is it any wonder that such a mentality would filter down to especially the adolescent males in a small mining town in Pennsylvania.

I mean, this does appear to be another case of federal negligence at the eventual cost of the public at large, and increasing the tensions over this issue.

This community, far from the border, it also has been reported has been "at war" ever since this incident took place.

Which does not excuse what obviously occured and the "mix" of the circumstances, alcohol, and hormones which eventually led to the death of this young man, but is it any wonder?

And call me somewhat a formerly "overprotective" mom of teens, but just what was this 25 year old young man doing with a 15 year old girl out in a park late at night anyway who it was reported also was a father and had children?

The Fair Housing Act violations seem a stretch, since I wonder if those teens even knew about the Fair Housing Act.

And I wonder what MALDEF's bill will be eventually for this one, since there is also a "Justice" Department lawyer involved in prosecuting this case?