Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #1 

Illegal, let loose by sanctuary liberals, rapes 65 year-old woman -- previously deported 20 times

pic447.jpg

Amy Moreno (TruthFeed) is reporting that the time has come to hold these liberal monsters who run sanctuary cities accountable for the crimes they allow and invite into their cities.'

Enough is enough with the barrage of violent crimes and death happening to law abiding American citizens, while liberal city officials stand by and pat themselves on the back for being good little social justice warriors.'

These irresponsible morons have turned their cities into social experiments at the cost of American lives.'

An illegal, who was deported a whopping twenty times already, is accused of raping a 65-year-old woman.'

Portland Authorities released the man and did not alert ICE.'

The man then broke into the woman's Portland house, tied her up and raped her at knifepoint.'

Sergio Jose Martinez has a long history of criminal activity, including burglary and battery.'

It's sickening that liberals care so little for human life, they're willing to allow these violent savages to not only roam free, but provide them with a safe haven to prey on innocent Americans.'

From KGW.com:

A man accused of breaking into a 65-year-old woman's home, sexually assaulting her and stealing her car was arrested after allegedly assaulting another woman and running from police.

Sergio Jose Martinez, 31, was caught July 24 after officers chased him through a neighborhood.

According to court documents filed in March 2017, Martinez has a history of illegal entry into the United States. He has been a transient in the Portland area for more than a year and has been deported 20 times.

Martinez has at least five probation violations for re-entering the United States. His most recent removal was in November 2016, according to the March court documents.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged an immigration detainer against Martinez, asking authorities to notify them before releasing Martinez to allow ICE to take him into custody. The Department of Homeland Security said a detainer was requested for Martinez in December 2016, but he was released into the community and authorities did not notify ICE.

Earlier this year, Multnomah County leaders and Sheriff Mike Reese wrote a letter to the community saying, "The Sheriff's Office does not hold people in county jails on ICE detainers or conduct any immigration enforcement actions."

Twenty times? That's once a year since he was 11 years old.

This case demonstrates the lengths Democrats will go to increase Democrat voters and their sought-for permanent majority.

So people are injured. People are murdered. So what?

When it comes to the Left, the end always justifies the means.

And when it comes to adding insult to injury, I will guarantee you that in the next few days you will some lunatic Lefty write an editorial arguing that this poor guy is only committing crimes because he's a victim of racism.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #2 

This is why Trump is hunting MS-13

pic441.jpg

Truth Feed News is reporting that during Donald Trump's candidacy in the 2016 U.S. President election, much of the focus was on the problem of illegal immigration, especially the dangers of gang members from Mexico.

Trump spoke about the massive amounts of crime which were coming from illegal Mexican immigrants, specifically the notorious gang called MS-13.

Now that Trump is President, he's taking the steps to allow federal immigration officers and all police forces in America to crack down on illegal immigration and gangs, and he's taking aim at MS-13 by putting them front and center.

MS-13 is widely known as the most violent and feared gang in the Western world, and have used brutal tactics to dominate much of Latin America, and have spent the past decade carving out a strong foothold in the United States.

The gang actually revels in violence, and engages in acts so heinous that normal people could not begin to fathom.

The level of violence and depravity of this particular gang is unlike anything ever seen before from a cartel, and under Obama's weak leadership, they have thrived and run rampant on U.S. soil.

The gang goes back to the 1980's, most people agree that it started in California, and was comprised mostly of Central Americans.

According to many founding members, MS-13 was actually started by El Salvadorians in Los Angeles, and was initially not focused on criminal activity, but was instead a way to stick together and defend each other.

Over time, leadership changed, and the gang became involved in crime and violence, which eventually lead them to become the most feared gang on the street.

MS-13 has become a massive problem in the United States, and is responsible for a massive portion of drugs which enter the country. They're also established in human trafficking, bringing illegal immigrants into America, prostitution and sex trafficking, extortion, robbery, and auto-theft.

Most of all, however, MS-13 is known for their extreme brutality and violence, an area which they eclipse all other gangs.

In the gang world, might makes right, and the most violent and dangerous gangs usually control the most turf, and always demand more respect in general.

MS-13 has cornered the market on gang violence, and have outdone larger gangs for their creative and highly disturbing brand of it.

The gang is known for targeting anyone and everyone who crosses them in the slightest, brutally torturing and murdering them, and then torturing, raping, and murdering their family and friends.

These tactics have been highly effective in catapulting MS-13 into the ranks of much larger, more established gangs and cartels, and they have used their reputation for extreme violence to cement their legacy and keep the competition at bay.

As the gang continued to grow in America, largely under former President Obama's weak immigration policy and anti-police stance, so did the levels of violent crime and drugs.

Gang related murders have plagued areas MS-13 occupies, especially California, and drugs have flooded our streets and killed our native citizens.

Unlike Obama, however, President Trump has a long history of being vocal about eradicating this gang, going back before his candidacy in the 2016 election race.

Recently, Trump described that massive amounts of crimes that have been perpetrated by MS-13, calling them "animals," and calling for 10,000 additional ICE officers to help get these dangerous thugs out of our cities.

Trump has vowed to rid the streets of these brutal and savage criminals, and has encouraged law enforcement to arrest and deport MS-13, and the police are definitely doing their best to accomplish just that.

Recently, Trump has given ICE the green light to arrest and deport illegal aliens, with a special interest in MS-13.

The president has said many times that this gang in particular must be eradicated, and is working towards achieving that goal.

The battle against this deeply embedded foreign criminal enterprise will be a long one, but President Trump is not one to ever give up.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #3 

U.S. ICE officials focus on apprehending Obama's criminal UAC admissions

pic384.jpg

Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that many people might be familiar with the 2013/2014/2015 "Unaccompanied Alien Children" (UAC) crisis which stemmed from a specific Obama policy/construct to allow a massive influx of South American migrants to enter the U.S.

Despite most media reports to the contrary, a considerable number of those UAC's were teen and young gang members from South America, including MS-13 members. The aliens were granted entry by the Obama administration, supported by false assertions of refugee status and shipped to various regional locales.

Senator Ted Cruz, Media personality Glenn Beck and current NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch were part of the insufferable campaign to facilitate the influx.  We know this, because CTH investigated the origin and large-scale purpose of the entire program.  As time progressed it did not take long for many of these "UAC's" to begin reengaging in illicit criminal activity in their relocated areas.

[Click here for a background on how it began] Today Reuters is reporting DHS intends to specifically target these illegal UAC criminal gang members for deportation.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. immigration agents are planning nationwide raids next week to arrest, among others, teenagers who entered the country without guardians and are suspected gang members, in a widening of President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigrants.

The raids are set to begin on Sunday and continue through Wednesday, according to an internal memo seen by Reuters. The teenagers targeted will be 16- and 17-years-old.

The raids represent a sharp departure from practices during the presidency of Barack Obama. Under Obama, minors could be targeted for deportation if they had been convicted of crimes, but were not arrested simply for suspected gang activity or membership.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement that a person can be identified as a gang member if they meet two or more criteria, including having gang tattoos, frequenting an area notorious for gangs and wearing gang apparel.

The agency said it does not comment on plans for future law enforcement operations, but that it focuses on individuals who pose a threat to national security and public safety.

The memo instructing field offices to prepare for the raids was dated June 30. A Department of Homeland Security official speaking on background confirmed on Friday the raids were still scheduled to take place, though ICE could still change its plans.

Trump, who campaigned on the promise of tough immigration enforcement, has made deporting gang members, especially those belonging to the El Salvador-based Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, a top priority.  (read more)



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #4 

Holder says civil rights "under renewed threat"

Meghashyam Mali is reporting that in an address to the racist and anti-American National Council of La Raza convention in Las Vegas on Saturday, Attorney General Eric Holder told the Hispanic advocacy group that the gains of the Civil Rights era were coming "under renewed threat," and touted the administration’s efforts in protecting the rights of minority groups and immigrants.

"Many of you know this firsthand -- and have felt the impact of division, and even discrimination, in your own lives," said Holder in his address, according to prepared remarks released by the Justice Department."

The attorney general pledged that the activist group would "never have a more committed partner than the United States Department of Justice" and touted the administration’s record on those issues.

In particular, Holder highlighted the Supreme Court’s ruling last week striking down much of Arizona’s law targeting illegal immigration.

In a 5-3 ruling, the court rejected most provisions of the law, but let stand a key measure allowing police to check the legal status of those stopped on suspicion of committing unrelated offenses.

Holder said with the decision, the justices were "confirming the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate with regard to immigration issues."

But Holder, expressed concerns over the provision left standing. "We’ll work to ensure -- as the Court affirmed -- that such laws cannot be seen as a license to engage in racial profiling.  And we’ll continue to enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination, in order -- as President Obama has promised -- to "uphold our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants," he said.

Continue reading here . . .

Holder's statement, that he's working to "uphold our tradition as a nation of laws" is laughable.

And so is calling La Raza a "civil rights group" --
that's equally laughable.

La Raza's founding principles are contained in these words in "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan" (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan):
 
"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. … Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. … We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada."
 
That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says:

"For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing."

La Raza, the Aztlan movement, La Mecha are all about the Reconquista and Holder is hiding from Congress right there in the middle of them.

Is this a great country or what?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #5 

Marxist leaders oppose Arizona immigration laws

Trevor Loudon says this photo from 2010, and just reprinted in the Communist Party USA‘s People’s World, neatly captures the leadership of the opposition opposition to Arizona”s groundbreaking anti illegal immigration law SB1070.


Joe Bernick left, Eliseo Medina right

Joe Bernick is the long time organizational secretary of the Communist Party USA for Arizona. Bernick and his party have fought tooth and nail for decades increase illegal immigration, and to make it difficult to apprehend and deport illegals. Arizona is a stronghold of the party in the Southwest, because the communists view increased illegal immigration as an important tool in their plan to revolutionize American society.

Eliseo Medina is an executive vice president of SEIU, a leader of the US’s largest Marxist organization Democratic Socialists of America, and a former member of Barack Obama‘s Latino Advisory Council.

Medina is THE leading pro illegal immigrant activist in the country.

According to the Democratic Socialists of America website, Eliseo Medina is widely credited with playing a key role in the AFL-CIO‘s decision to adopt a new policy on immigration a few years ago, and was one of the organizers of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Bus Rides in 2003.

According to the SEIU website, Medina has played the leading role in uniting the Change to Win and AFL-CIO labor federations behind the immigration reform movement – to the complete detriment of their rank and file members.

Working to ensure the opportunity to pass comprehensive immigration reform does not slip away, Medina led the effort to unite the unions of the Change to Win federation and AFL-CIO around a comprehensive framework for reform. Serving as a leading voice in Washington, frequently testifying before Congress, Medina has also helped to build a strong, diverse coalition of community and national partners that have intensified the call for reform and cultivated necessary political capitol to hold elected leaders accountable. Medina has also helped strengthen ties between the Roman Catholic Church and the labor movement to work on common concerns such as immigrant worker rights and access to health care. ”

At the far leftist America’s Future Now! conference in Washington, DC on June 2, 2009, Eliseo Medina addressed attendees on the necessity of comprehensive immigration reform. The reason he gave though was little to do with helping illegals. it was all to do with securing more votes for the Democratic Party.

Speaking of Latino voters, Medina said “when they voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up”

So I think there’s two things that matter for the progressive community.

Number one, if we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants, that we’ll expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future…”

When you are in the middle of a fight for your life you will remember who was there with you. And immigrants count on progressives to be able to do that.

Number two.
“We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters”. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three?

If we have eight million new voters who care about …… and will be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle…

America’s two leading Marxists organization’s are doing everything they can do destroy any Federal or state opposition to illegal immigration.

Why? Because they also want to destroy America.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #6 

__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #7 
Secession may be the only answer. The Constitution is dead. And the Constitution was the 'contract' between the People, the States, and the Federal Govt that created the united States, later called the United States of America.
 
The Obamunist Regime refuses to enforce or abide by the Constitution and Constitutional Law. They are ruling by Executive Orders, "Policy", and bureaucratic dictates.
 
The Constitution is ignored, violated, null and void - dead! Therefor the Federal Govt of the United States of America no longer has a lawful foundation.

It is a dictatorship empowered only by the oligarchy of the liberal media, certain super-rich Elitists, and the Progressive/socialist wing of the Democrat Party. We might as well face the facts. Congress and SCOTUS are a mere charade of a Republic. The Executive branch and its bureaucracies operate on the will of the Usurper and his minions, not Law.
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #8 

this just in frrom Van Irion,

 

The United States Will Have to Change Its Name

The main-stream-media reported yesterday’s U.S. v. Arizona Supreme Court ruling as a partial victory for Arizona. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Court’s ruling destroyed the United States. This is not hyperbole. The United States quite literally no longer exists.

The name, “United States” describes a nation that consisted of several sovereign States, combined by a Constitution which granted limited powers to a central government. That nation no longer exists because the former States are sovereign no longer.

This is not just my assessment of the current situation, this is the assessment of Justices Thomas and Scalia. Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion reads like a new call to revolution. It begins by pointing out that States are sovereign States only when the States have certain abilities. One of those required abilities is to be able to determine who will be allowed within its territory, and who will not. Throughout history it has been agreed that any state lacking the right to exclude certain categories of people is not truly sovereign. Such governments are, themselves, simply subjects of some other sovereign government. The entities formerly known as “States” in North America are now simply subjects of the Federal government.

No precedent supports yesterday’s ruling from the Court. The court’s main opinion tries to make its ruling seem like normal application of preemption precedent. But the truth is that the Court has never applied its preemption precedent in any way remotely resembling U.S. v. Arizona. Keep in mind that Arizona simply wanted to enforce existing Federal law. Never before has the Court said that states can’t enforce Federal law, unless Congress explicitly prohibited State enforcement. The Court has occasionally prevented states from adding to or taking away from Federal law, but it has NEVER said that states cannot enforce Federal law when Congress doesn’t explicitly prohibit enforcement by the states. Imagine the Federal government telling states that they can’t arrest and prosecute bank robbers or drug dealers. Yesterday’s rulin g is even more absurd because Federal immigration law actually encourages state enforcement. This ruling is a new high water mark in the ever-growing Federal takeover of state sovereignty.

What we really have here is a President that disagrees with laws passed by Congress, so he actively refuses to enforce those laws. After this week’s ruling we also have a judicial branch that has joined the President by denying “states” the right to do what the President refuses to do. So, we have a Federal government eliminating the remnants of state sovereignty while separation of powers within the Federal government is also ignored. What role does Congress have if the Executive can actively refuse to enforce Federal law? The answer is none. In the past our brilliant system of government would have protected the citizens from such a breakdown within the Federal system by allowing State governments to pick up the slack, like Arizona tried to do. Now the Supreme Court has removed that check and balance.

We can no longer call our nation the United States of America because "States" no longer exist. Instead we now have 50 administrative departments of the Federal government. After yesterday’s ruling “State” borders are no more than boundaries marking the geographical extent of administrative departments. We are now the North American Federal Empire. Our Federal masters will probably have to raise taxes to fund changing the name of our nation on all the stationary.

Despite this unfortunate turn of events, there is still hope. Liberty Legal Foundation has made a difference. The amicus brief LLF filed with the Supreme Court in the U.S. v. Arizona case focused on one issue. That was the one issue that Arizona won.

The one part of the Arizona law that was upheld was the “States'” right to require all local law enforcement to check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants. LLF’s amicus brief pointed out to the Court that existing Federal law forbids the Federal government from telling any state or local agency that they can’t ask for immigration information on any individual. This point had not been clearly made by any party or other amicus prior to our brief. Our brief did not discuss the other issues raised by this case because the “State” of Arizona argued those other issues very well. We focused only on a point that had not been made by anyone else, a point that is very important to proper separation of powers.

The Supreme Court’s main opinion acknowledges the point we made in our amicus brief. Even better, Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion repeats our point, almost verbatim, on page one and two of his opinion. It seems clear that we got the attention of the Court and influenced its ruling. This is great news.

It is unfortunate that overall the Court took a huge step in the wrong direction. However, three justices dissented vigorously, and Arizona won the one issue argued by LLF. We must keep fighting. As bad as this ruling is for our nation, it is still possible to reverse this course by changing one mind on the Court. Our efforts are being noticed within the Court. We can restore our Constitutional Republic if we continue to contend for these Founding Principles with our fellow citizens and with the Courts. To that end, please share this message with your friends, family and social networks.

For Liberty,

Van Irion, Founder

LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #9 

Obama is now at war with state and local law enforcement



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #10 

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: "I'm not stopping anything"

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on FOX News today: "I'm not stopping anything. I'm going to continue to enforce those state laws regardless of what the federal government is trying to put pressure on me to satisfy all these activists, which by the way are in front of my building right now."
 
"Three and half years they've been in front of my building. So, I'm not going to bend to the federal government, especially when we still have state laws to enforce."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #11 

Originally posted by Longknife 21


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #12 

Obama White House to Arizona – Drop Dead …Update: Governor Brewer Unloads
 

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, June 25, 2012, 4:01 PM
   
Evidently, the White House didn’t like the immigration ruling today by the Supreme Court.  Homeland Security announced after the ruling that it is suspending agreements with Arizona police.

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.

Governor Jan Brewer unloaded on the Obama Administration following this announcement today.
FOX Nation reported:

“As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law.

“Of course, it is no coincidence that this announcement comes immediately on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the heart of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: SB 1070. It’s worth noting that 68 law enforcement entities in 24 states have functioning 287(g) agreements with the federal government. But it appears the only agreements eliminated today were those in Arizona, the state that happens to be on the front lines of America’s fight against illegal immigration. We are on our own, apparently.

“I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. The Obama administration has fought the people of Arizona at every turn – downplaying the threat that a porous border poses to our citizens, filing suit in order to block our State from protecting itself, unilaterally granting immunity to tens of thousands of illegal aliens living in our midst, and now this. Still, the disarmament of Arizona’s 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration.

More… Jonathan Paton, candidate for Congress in Arizona’s First District, released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the heart of SB1070, Arizona’s state-based immigration enforcement law:

After more than two years of legal attacks by the Obama administration on Arizona, the heart of SB1070 has been upheld.

Arizona law enforcement can now do their jobs when coming in contact with an individual who they suspect may be in the country illegally.

I voted for SB1070 because Arizona had to take action in light of the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws. No state deals with the impact of illegal immigration more than Arizona. It is more than past time to deal with this issue.

When elected to Congress, I will take my experience crafting state laws to address illegal immigration and force the federal government to take responsibility and secure our border.

There are about 45 comments already, just go to the Drudge Report and follow what they are saying.... if you want to

 

Originally posted by Claudia . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #13 

the people who are running the Country, Obama and Co, are committing TREASON, no if's and's or BUTS about it.  They have NO RESPECT FOR AMERICA, American Law or the Constitution, and they are now supplanting our Constitution with their own form of TOTALARIAN LAW designed by Barack Obama...... 

 

my thoughts but to me they are all DOMESTIC TERRORISTS!!!! and should be put before a firing squad... or at the very least, in PRISON at GITMO for the rest of their natural lives, especially since they so love living close to Communist regimes.

Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #14 
The Obamunists are saying that they have no regard for the SCOTUS decision and no intent of performing their duties under the Law.
 
SCOTUS says Law Enforcement can check immigration status of those detained for violations of other law. Illegals are then to be turned over to the Federal authorities, who refuse to take them.
 
Who is the worst violator of the Law here?
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #15 

Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police

Stephen Dinan is reporting that the Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change Barack Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.

Continue reading here . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #16 

Supreme Court rejects Obama stance on Arizona immigration law

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants on Monday, rejecting the Obama administration's stance that only the U.S. government should enforce immigration laws in the United States.

The nation's highest court, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, unanimously upheld the state law's most controversial aspect, requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop.

But in a split decision, the justices also ruled that the three other challenged provisions went too far in intruding on federal law, including one that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to work and another that requires them to carry their documents.

"Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration ... but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," Justice Kennedy wrote in a 25-page opinion.

Kennedy said the mandatory nature of police checks did not interfere with the federal immigration scheme, and found unpersuasive the Obama administration's argument that this portion of the law must be preempted at this stage.

He said it was improper to block that provision before state courts had an opportunity to review it, and without some showing that its enforcement conflicted with federal immigration law. Kennedy also left open the possibility for future constitutional or other challenges to the law once it goes into effect.

Continue reading here . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #17 

Supreme Court rules on Ariz. immigration law

 

The AP is reporting that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's crackdown on immigrants.

But the court said Monday that one part of the law requiring police to check the status of someone they suspect is not in the United States legally could go forward. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.

The court will not make a decision on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul on Monday.

It also made these rulings:

  • Struck down Montana limits on corporate campaign spending
  • Ruled out life in prison without possibility of parole for juveniles under 18

Monday is the court's last scheduled meeting until the fall, but it is unlikely to be the final session. As the justices leave the bench, Marshal Pamela Talkin will announce the court's next meeting.

Then, on the next-to-last day, Chief Justice John Roberts will say that its next meeting will be the last.

Such word could come Monday or, more likely, later in the week.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #18 

Why Obama strikes out in court

Ilya Shapiro says that as the world awaits the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare, there's a larger story that the pundits are missing: the court's rejection of the Obama administration's increasingly extreme claims on behalf of unlimited federal power.

This term alone, the high court has ruled unanimously against the government on religious liberty, criminal procedure and property rights. When the administration can't get even a single one of the liberal justices to agree with it in these unrelated areas of the law, that's a sign there's something wrong with its constitutional vision.

Let's take these cases in order:

First, in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the government sued a church school that fired a teacher for violating one of the church's religious tenets: threatening to sue over an employment dispute rather than resolving the disagreement internally. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claimed this violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because the firing was related to the teacher's health issues.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in January that punishing a church for failing to retain an unwanted teacher "interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs." Such interference, it concluded, violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.

 

In United States v. Jones, also decided in January, the government claimed the power to attach a GPS device to a suspected drug dealer's car and electronically monitor his movements, all without a warrant. This claim drew opposition not just from the ACLU and the Cato Institute, but from the conservative Rutherford Institute, the liberal Constitution Project and organizations ranging from the Gun Owners of America to the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

 

While the justices had differing opinions on why this action violated the Fourth Amendment—was it a physical trespass, a violation of privacy expectations, or something else?—all agreed it was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, last week the Justice Department was back in a lower court, using technicalities in Jones to claim again (United States v. Pineda-Moreno) that it could attach GPS devices without seeking warrants.

Third, in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the government denied the right of property owners to judicial review of an EPA order to stop building a house it claimed was in violation of the Clean Water Act. In March the court unanimously rejected that position. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion, called access to courts the least the government could provide in response to "the strong-arming of regulated parties" by government agencies. "In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property," wrote Justice Samuel Alito in a concurring opinion, the government's "treatment [of the homeowners] is unthinkable."

Later in March, the administration claimed in the ObamaCare case that the government could require people to buy something as a means of regulating a broader national market. And a month later in Arizona v. United States, the government said that a federal policy decision regarding immigration enforcement priorities could by itself trump state law—a position that seemed to trouble even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the president's own nominees.

More recently, the Justice Department has been suing states over voter-ID laws. Attorney General Eric Holder makes speeches claiming these laws herald the return of Jim Crow. Never mind that the Supreme Court has found them to satisfy the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, most recently by 6-3 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), where plaintiffs claimed that needing a photo-ID placed an undue burden on their right to vote.

The government's arguments across a wide variety of cases would essentially allow Congress and the executive branch to do whatever they wanted without meaningful constitutional restraint. This view is at odds with another unanimous Supreme Court decision, Bond v. United States (2011). Bond vindicated a criminal defendant's right to challenge the use of federal power to prosecute her. As Justice Kennedy wrote, "[F]ederalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake."

If the government loses in the health-care or immigration cases, it won't be because its lawyers had a bad day in court or because the justices ruled based on their political preferences. It will be because the Obama administration continues to make legal arguments that don't pass the smell test.

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
jhancock

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 69
Reply with quote  #19 

Why Obama Challenged Arizona's Immigration Law
American Thinker --Michael Bargo Jr.

When Arizona's state senate passed SB 1070, the Obama administration immediately sued and enjoined the state from enforcing parts of the bill.  As the issue is argued before the Supreme Court, political questions remain:  why did President Obama sue Arizona so quickly, and could the legal action have been politically motivated?

Clues to the politics of the issue are revealed by what Obama and other Washington Democrats have said regarding their prime mission during Obama's first term.  On October 19, 2011 Senate leader Harry Reid stated:  "It's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it's the public sector where we've lost huge numbers."  The significance of this statement is that it was made by the Senate majority leader at a time when the private sector was suffering the highest unemployment rate in many decades.  A week before Reid's comments, congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. suggested that we need $204 billion to bail out cities and states and that this task is so important that the president should declare a national emergency.  President Obama has said we need to "save" teacher jobs.

Clearly, these statements show that the focus of the Obama administration and his party is on public-sector jobs, and he has selected teachers' jobs as a high priority.

What does Arizona's immigration law have to do with teachers' jobs?  The answer to this question should connect the Democrats' mission statements to the Supreme Court challenge.  As it turns out, the answers are found in the traditional sources:  campaign contributions and political power.

In Illinois, the state where Obama once served in the state Senate, the two teachers' unions are the largest contributors to Democrats running for state offices.  In 2005-6, teacher unions contributed $4.5 million, in 2007-8 $2.95 million -- more than any other donors.  On the national level, of the ten largest all-time campaign donors, four are in the public sector, and the majority of their money goes to the Democratic Party; AFCSME gives only one percent it its campaign donations to Republicans.  The Democratic Party heavily depends on public-sector union campaign contributions at the local, state, and national levels.

The next step, the connection between teachers' unions and illegal immigrants, is that illegal immigrants are essential to the survival of public-sector jobs in cities such as Chicago.  And since Obama and his education secretary Arne Duncan are both from Chicago, it's useful to see how Chicago's teachers' unions stand to benefit from illegal immigration.

The benefit is simple and direct: just as Democrats get campaign money from the teacher unions, teachers get their money based on the number of students enrolled at their schools.  Each Chicago public student brings $14,900 from local, state, and federal sources.  Therein lies the connection: in older industrial cities such as Chicago, the only portion of the student body that is increasing is Hispanic.  The enrollment of white, African-American, and Asian students has been declining for decades.

Right now the only hope Chicago teachers have of hanging onto their jobs -- and the only hope Democrats have of receiving teacher campaign money -- is to pander to Hispanic students.  A University of Chicago study found that most white children born in the city leave within five years, while Hispanic children stay.  As a result, schools are closing down in black and white neighborhoods, and new schools are being built only in Hispanic neighborhoods, a neat political tactic enabled by the Voting Rights Act.  This legal demographic tool enables city wards to be gerrymandered into ethnic super-majorities to achieve the goal of maintaining "representation" for the minorities.

Logistical support for this population is provided through the matricula consular card and other benefits.  These benefits help keep the Hispanic population growing:  Mexican families have an average of 3.5 children, about twice as many as white taxpayers, and more than any other Hispanic group.  In Chicago, each illegal immigrant Mexican family brings $69,000 to public-sector jobholders; other illegal immigrant ethnicities, $59,000.  So if one were to maximize income from children, one would choose Hispanics, and Mexicans specifically, to bring in the most money to public-sector job holders.

Nationally, figures indicating the growth of Hispanic students are even more stunning.  Since Chicago's Sanctuary Policy started in 1985, now most Hispanics of school-age are born in the U.S.: while Hispanics are 14% of the U.S. population, one-fourth of all newborns in the U.S. are Hispanic, and one-fifth of all school-age children are Hispanic.  In California, one-half of the students are Hispanic;  in Chicago, 44%.  Only 8.8% of Chicago public-school students are white.  So the resource-maximizer of education in the big Democrat-run cities is not better school curricula or longer class days, but rather larger Hispanic population.  Legal immigration and births could never provide enough new students to keep the schools going.

Maintaining voter rolls and political power are also primary reasons for illegal immigration: Illinois has 490,000 illegal immigrants, enough to save one congressional seat.  Congressional district populations do not need citizens, only "residents", to support a representative.

A 1982 investigation by U.S. Attorney Daniel Webb found that 80,000 illegal aliens were registered to vote in Chicago.  From 1990 to 2000 the number of Hispanics of voting age in Cook County, IL increased 54% to 689,383.

So, illegal immigration is the strategy Democrats have enabled, through administrative corruption, to keep classrooms full, campaign money flowing, and congressional seats maintained.

The flow of illegal immigrants to Chicago is also encouraged by the city's Sanctuary Policy, a benefit-enabling policy first passed in 1985.  This act encourages the flow of illegal immigrants to the city.  Not all illegal immigrants are Hispanic -- Chicago also has a sizable population of Polish and other Eastern European illegal immigrants.  They arrive legally and become illegal only when they overstay their visas.  The vast majority of those arriving into Arizona are, however, Hispanic.

Think of illegal immigration as a type of make-work program, like the WPA in the 1930's.  Only instead of bringing workers into national forests to carve hiking paths, illegal immigrants are being encouraged and supported to go to metro areas where they keep teachers, social workers, school lunch vendors, and politicians in their public-sector jobs.  Without people, people programs and politicians cannot exist.  To paraphrase Eisenhower, a vast "illegal immigrant-entitlement complex" has been created.  Its goal is  to support the public-jobs infrastructure created by the Great Society programs.

For these reasons, Obama cannot stand by and allow any state, particularly Arizona -- which serves as an entryway for illegal immigrants -- to interfere with the flow of immigrants into the U.S. and Democrat-controlled cities.

I join my TOF friends and consider the persons mentioned above and those who aid and abet them to be "Crimigrants" regardless of party affiliiation!

Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #20 

IF those IDIOTS want to obliterate the word Illegal (as in against the LAW, from any law, in any form, doesn't NOT mean ONLY Immigrants )from the dictionary, then I suggest that we use:.......      for the persons who are running from and not obeying the laws that are on the books about not being rightfully legally following the Imigration Laws, they shoud be labeled and are:  ..... CRIMIGRANTS!!!!!!
bushido

Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #21 
You guys, we need to be more civil...we can no longer use the word "illegal"...although I didn't get the memo on what it is we should call them.

My vote would be: criminal immigrants...has a nice ring to it.
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #22 
The Obamunists are always crying and moaning about "FAIR", so let's be "fair" and adopt pertinent parts of Mexican Law to apply to illegals.
 
All those non-citizens demonstrating to protest immigration laws should be arrested and imprisoned until deported.  That is what would happen to non-citizens in Mexico!
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #23 

Immigration:  Mexico vs United States

 

FactReal has a summary of two excellent 2006 research papers exposing how Mexico discriminates against illegal and legal immigrants.

 

•  The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.

•  Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society
 
•  Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country
 
•  Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned

•  Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons

•  Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony

•  Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law

•  The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life

•  The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners

•  The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal
 ones, in the public sector

•  The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized

This one will have you tearing your hair out:

•  The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82)

Sources and amplification here . . .
 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #24 
If Kagan recused herself on this, she DEFINITELY should have recused herself from ObamaCare!
 
She should be impeached.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #25 

Stephen Dinan is reporting that Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.

The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.

The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.

“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.

The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.

 

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.

“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.

But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs.

Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrilli said adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination. He said Congress’s 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree.

“It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees,” she told Paul D. Clement, who argued the case on behalf of Arizona.

A decision is expected before the end of the court’s term this summer.

Only eight justices were present for the arguments. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she was the Obama administration’s solicitor general in 2010, when the law was being debated in Arizona.

 

Continue reading here . . .

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved