Monday, May 10, 2010

Politically Incorrect {troisième partie}

Before I go into soap box mode, I'd like to answer a few questions raised in the "Comment Box." In no particular order:

@Karen; I'll be back to my old wittiness soon. Thank you for the compliment.

@Senorita; Thank you for your volunteer work with those people caught in the political crossfire of the Failed American Immigration policy. I see and understand their position. But it is nothing new. The Irish, and Italian immigrants went through the same thing in the USA, when they came here legally. They came from a place that was so full of corrupted Law Enforcement Officials, they never trusted ours for decades after coming here.

1.  Police officials stating that "1070 will keep us from doing serious crime" is a not-so-veiled insinuation, that "Cops won't be able to respond to a rape or muder in-progress call, because they'll be shaking down Latino kids in the playground" (to use your analogy). THAT IS FEAR MONGERING.

2. My broad brush statement on LAW ENFORCEMENT Vs GUN OWNERSHIP, was not directed at Arizona law enforcement per say. But as a resident of California, despite what California law says, the police are outspoken about and unapologetic about their opposition to civilian firearms ownership. So while I will retract my statement as it pertained to Arizona gun laws, I stand by the statement that those people have an opinion. But they are trying to give validity to their opinion, under the color of authority. Something that Federal forces are forbidden to do.

3.  The point you raise about sovereign nations having rights that individual states in the USA don't have, is not as cut and dried as you state. The Supremacy clause does prohibit states from enacting laws that are contradictory to US Federal Law (Slavery would be an example). But the Arizona law is complimentary to US Law, and gives their police authority nto enforce said laws. Specifically because the FEDS won't do it.

4. All of the rest of my posts were in effort to reinforce my opinion that the Arizona law was not founded under a principle of RACISM. And that there were far more serious problems at the source. So allow me to ask the reciprocal. "WHY DO YOU CONTEND MY POSITION IS WRONG? Are you saying that it was a racist law? The SPIN-DOCTORS have been so successful at detracting from the point of contention, since President Clinton and her husband ran the country.

And now anytime someone has an opposing opinion that differs from the officials currently running The USA, they automatically throw down the RACE-CARD, or the TEA-BAGGER line. And I for one am damn tired of it. This country is at war. And an open border is a security concern of paramount importance. And The USA's failed immigration policy is directly to blame for every attack against US soil, since the end of WWII.

Are previous Administrations complicit in this situation? Yes, most definitely. But that is no excuse to ignore the thing now. And that is exactly what they are doing. For the record, I'm in favor of hardening both land borders of The US. Enemies bent on doing harm to America have been stopped at both.

5.  The article on false documents was intended to show that an entire sub-culture has evolved out of the US Failure to do the responsible thing, and "CLOSE THE OPEN DOOR."

6.  The CNBC NEWS has lately been running a series that documents the Mexican Drug Cartels hiring Illegals to tend and booby-trap Marijuana fields in remote areas of Southern California. And that doesn't even consider the Costs to Health care brought about by Illegals in this country.

Arizona Elected officials have openly stated that they hope to force the Federal Government to take action. And I believe it is a noble undertaking in the same league as "The civil Disobedience employed by the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

I will try to show that the policy of immigration law of Mexico is a very serious deterrent to having unwanted, useless, poor, unhealthy human burdens allowed into their society. And that it is far more draconian and harsh than the Arizona law. And how their hypocrisy is so incredible, as to be without credibility.




Please take note that the above videos are from before the Federal Government pushed heath care onto the shoulders of the Individual states. There's your supremacy clause Stoogepie.

And according to the New York Daily News:

It isn't just a border state issue,

Then the President of Mexico says this about Arizona:

And if you read the Policy on Mexico Immigration laws at Wikipedia, You will see this:

Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters.[1]  The Mexican government may grant this right to foreigners if they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Affairs not to invoke the protection of their own governments in any matters relating to the property they wish to buy. This is known as the Calvo Clause. This is generally done via a permit process. The 1917 Mexican constitution imposed restrictions on the purchase of land on those without Mexican citizenship. In particular, it prohibits direct ownership of real estate in what is known as the "restricted zone". This zone encompasses all land within 100 km of either Mexican land border and within 50 km of any Mexican coastline. Land 'purchases' in these areas can only be done via a mechanism called a fideicomiso, which roughly is a real estate trust, with a Mexican bank designated as the trustee and having possession of the land title. This mechanism was created to allow for foreign investment in these areas without violating the constitutional principle. The beneficiary of the trust, the foreigner, has all the rights to use, build and sell the property at its market buyer to any eligible buyer. These trusts have a term of 50 years and are renewable.[2]

Illegal immigration has been a problem for Mexico, especially since the 1970's. In 2006 Mexico detained more than 182,000 people who entered the country illegally, mainly from nearby Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, all being Central-American countries neighboring Mexico to the south. Smaller numbers of illegal immigrants come from Ecuador, Cuba, China, South Africa, and Pakistan. [3].

"The Law of Population" is to regulate immigration as to volume, structure, and distribution. This law was written to distribute immigrants across Mexico. [4] Immigration must be deemed appropriate, and assimilate to the national average and their proper distribution throughout the country.{article 3, section 7} Foreign nationals are restricted when the national interest so requires.{article 3, section 8} Immigration to urban population centers can be restricted to ensure effective delivery public services.{article 3, section 9} The immigration of foreigners is allowed according to their potential to contribute to national progress.{article 32} Foreigners are subject to approval concerning appropriate activities they will pursue, and the location of residence.{article 34} Immigrants nust be useful elements for the country and have the income needed for subsistence and persons under their economic dependence.{article 34} Foreigners may be denied entry for the following reasons, if: No international reciprocity, The national demographic balance is altered, It is deemed harmful to the national economic interests, he/she has violated national law or have a poor record abroad, deemed not physically or mentally healthy. For a foreigner to pursue other activities in addition to those that have been expressly authorized, requires permission from the Interior Ministry.{article 37} The authorities of the Republic, whether federal, local or municipal, as well as public notaries, are obliged to check if foreigners are legally in the country.{article 72} The judicial authorities are required to notify the Interior Ministry of defendants of foreign descent who are being prosecuted, and sentencing handed down.


And at one of my favorite extreme right wing news venues The NATION, has this to say:
Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home
by J. Michael Waller (more by this author)
Posted 05/08/2006 ET
Updated 04/12/2010 ET

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve
our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

    * in the country legally;

    * have the means to sustain themselves economically;

    * not destined to be burdens on society;

    * of economic and social benefit to society;

    * of good character and have no criminal records; and

    * contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

    * immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

    * foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

    * foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

    * foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

    * foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

    * those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

    * Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

    * Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

    * Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

    * The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

    * Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

    * A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

    * A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

    * Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

    * Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

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

    * Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

    * Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

    * Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

    * "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

    * Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

    * Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

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

    * A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

    * Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American
immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

This article was first posted at

And only in The USA could it be considered an insult to display the Flag! Or is it only California? I can't tell anymore.


And before you jump up about Cinco De Mayo being an Important Mexican Holiday. Read this:


And as a side note, I'd like to announce that my Son applied to, and was accepted into The Masters Of Divinity Program at THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BAPTIST SEMINARY!
And my daughter just finished her semester with all A's in her Psychology Major. One semester left and Y'ALL best beware.

Have a great day! I'll be at the doc's for a day or two. 



Ms. Anthropy said...

Congrats to Kyle and your daughter! You have a new look. I LIKE IT!

Anonymous said...

Hey! When did you change things??? I hope you are not sick! Good luck at the doctors!

My ADHD Me said...

Congrats to Thing 1 and Thing 2! Hope all goes well at the docs.

As for your post...I'll say it again..You Rock!!

Karen said...

Congratulations to your children! And hopefully we'll be seeing you sooner, not later. Good luck at the Dr's.

samurai said...

KW - I wanted to thank you for taking the time to spell out your view on this whole deal in AZ. You have done a far better job than i could/would have. God has given you a gift. May he continue to allow you to share it for many, many more years.

Congratulations to your children. Very good work sir.

a brother in Christ, by His grace, for His glory,

Anonymous said...

Set up 20mm motion detector fully automated (think terminator) gatlin guns at the border every 100 ft.

Heff said...

Ha ! I'm with BamaTrav on this one.

stoogepie said...

Thank you for this post.

1. I find this ironic. Someone states, "I have a concern about diverting our resources. We don't get any extra money or manpower, but we get a broad mandate and a threat of lawsuits from all sides that will strain our resources. Nonetheless, we will serve and protect as we are sworn to do." That's fear mongering in your opinion. However, a government official states, "There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life." In fact, crime has been steadily declining for a decade and Arizona's border cities are among the safest in the nation, but somehow that latter, wholly deceptive statement is not intended to generate fear?

Oh, and "shaking down Latino kids in a playground?" Well, I didn't say anything about Latinos. You made that very interesting addition. And that's not my analogy anyway. That's law. When Governor Brewer signed the amendment to SB 1070, she issued an executive order for police officers to receive training on how to implement the law. That training will be conducted by Lyle Mann, who runs the Arizona Peace Officers Safety and Training Board. Mann gave an example of legal police contact based upon reasonable suspicion under SB 1070: "Let's say there are some guys playing basketball in a park. The officer walks up and says, 'Hey guys. How's it going?' That's lawful contact [under the amended law]." So, that's Arizona's own example of reasonable suspicion made by a supporter of this law.

2. Understood. If you're from California, you might remember the debacle caused by Proposition 187, a law targeted at combating illegal immigration. It was found unconstitutional but then-Governor Pete Wilson wasted millions of dollars defending it in court before the law was abandoned. History repeats itself.

3. I think you are wrong about this. Is it your opinion that Arizona could sign a treaty with Mexico as long as it complemented federal law? No, it can't. Specifically, the doctrine of federal preemption arises from the Supremacy Clause and states that the federal government may preempt entire areas of law so that state are unable to tread upon the federal law at all. As the Supreme Court wrote in California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987), "In determining whether a state statute is pre-empted by federal law and therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, our sole task is to ascertain the intent of Congress." Period. One way to do that is to determine whether "Congress 'left no room' for supplementary state regulation." There are few areas of federal laws more comprehensive than federal immigration law, with its own courts, its own enforcement arm, and thousands of pages of laws and regulations updated daily. And I'm no legal scholar, but constitutional scholars have found dozens of places where the enforcement of the Arizona law conflicts with federal law (e.g., SB 1070(E) conflicts with both 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227, all of which define the parameters for arrest of an illegal immigrant, with the federal laws requiring a number of steps not found in SB 1070).

4. Why do I contend your position is wrong? Well, first, I think we agree about more than you think. I am all for the federal government controlling the flow of drugs and people into this country. But the Mexican cartels traffic their drugs through 195 cities in this country, not just Phoenix. I think we need to address that. I don't see how this law does that at all. Could it put pressure on the Obama administration to take action? Sure, but that's a very costly way to lobby for federal action if that is this law's intent.

stoogepie said...

Continuing, I think, in the end, that this law is nothing more than a way for Governor Brewer and others to win reelection. Brewer stated when she signed this bill that, "There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life." So this is supposedly all about the spillover of violence from the Mexican crackdown on drug cartels. Except that, as I have repeatedly demonstrated and provided citations for, crime throughout Arizona is down, not up. And what, for instance, does prohibiting solicitation of day laborers have to do with "the murderous greed of drug cartels?"

This is a calculated political move and nothing more. There have been three lawsuits filed challenging the law already, one of which is by a police officer. It is probable that the law will be enjoined before it is ever implemented (ninety days after passage). The state of Arizona will already have spent millions passing and defending the law, and will continue, undoubtedly, to spend millions more. The end result: a lot of wasted money and nothing done about illegal immigrants. But Governor Brewer and others facing tough opponents will win reelection. Again, it reminds me of Prop 187.

I think we need federal immigration reform and we need to police our borders, but I think these are two separate issues. That is, the Mexican cartels have nothing to do with most illegal immigrants already in this country. In 2005, George W. Bush, backed by John McCain (of Arizona!) and the US Chamber of Commerce, tried to reform immigration. In 2006, Bush said at a speech to the USCOC, "Some members of Congress argue that no one who came to this country illegally should be allowed to continue living and working in our country, and that any plan that allows them to stay equals amnesty, no matter how many conditions we impose. I appreciate the members are acting on deeply felt principles. I understand that. Yet I also believe that the approach they suggest is wrong and unrealistic. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program that requires every illegal immigrant to leave." I think he was right, but he was opposed by his own party and then, later in 2006, his party lost both houses during the midterm elections after which the government did nothing for two years. It's time to revisit that issue and I hope we'll recognize Bush's wisdom.

I hear you about the political labels. This country is starkly divided between political ideologies, with each side generalizing the other's views. All are guilty here. We really don't have a national dialogue anymore. We have political turf wars and mudslinging. We need dialogue.

5. Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

6. Yes, you were right about the Mexican cartels growing marijuana domestically. Thanks for pointing that out. Apparently, Mexican cartels are growing marijuana domestically from Miami to San Diego and have even leased vineyards in Washington State. Again, however, I wonder how SB 1070 addresses this problem since they use Americans for this work.

I don't think we disagree about whether or not something needs to be done about this. Yes, illegal immigrants are costly to American citizens. On the other hand, they (and, in particular, migrant farm workers) often work so cheaply that it's like taxpayers -- by picking up their health care and other costs -- are subsidizing businesses who use illegal workers. But I believe that SB 1070 doesn't address any of this. We need a federal response. If the federal government won't pass the laws to do it, let's fire them and hire new legislators.

Congratulations to your son and daughter! I hope all goes well at the doctors. And thanks again for having this back-and-forth with me.

Anonymous said...

Be safe and get well. Man, we need more men like you around here.

Heart2Heart said...


Congratulations on the wonderful news on the success of your two amazing children. I am sure that you have taught them well and can't wait to see what God blesses them with to do in their generation. This is what truly makes us all proud.

Second, congratulations for standing up for your beliefs. We need more people to not be so passive, and complain about things yet do nothing thinking it's "their" responsibility to handle things, meaning the government. Yet if we don't wake up and realize that we are the "their" and it's up to us to start taking action to make our country a better place. We elect these people and we can also fire them if they aren't serving our countries needs well enough.

Love and Hugs ~ Kat

Kelly Combs said...

Congrats to your kids. They must have their dad's smarts! :-)

Jaybird said...

Blessings to your two terrific kiddos!! Sometimes I wonder where our churches are headed and if they will even exist by the end of my lifetime. THEN I read wonderful news such as yours!!
Thank you so much for posting,
Jaybird (an ordained minister of music ......yep, from a Baptist school :^)