Racism Triumphs Over National Sovereignty

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk,” or simply a “Terry stop”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, “the exclusionary rule has its limitations.” The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

The Scenario

A man (or woman), of any race, robs a bank (breaking the law). In the act of getting away the person runs through a red light while being observed by a police officer. The police officer, aware of the bank robbery and aware this might be the suspect gives chase and pulls the driver, now guilty of breaking a second law, over to the side of the curb.

After arresting the offender, the officer suspects the person might not be a legal citizen and asks for the appropriate papers to substantiate foreign citizenship which itself has been a law for over 70 years.

So the question is, how can the request for the citizenship documents (required by law to be on the person) be an act of racism?

Furthermore, if asking for citizenship papers is racism, is it not also racism to arrest the offender for robbing the bank?

I’ll advance this notion; those who advance the argument Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 is based on racism are themselves racists.

Under Federal law, federal law enforcement officials are not prevented from asking anyone for citizenship papers and may do it without an established reasonable doubt. In fact, federal law enforcement officials may pull over anyone for any reason and ask for name, date and place of birth. However, Arizona state law enforcement officials are prevented by law from asking the same questions. In the first place, they must have legal reason for pull anyone over before obtaining a legal footing to ask any questions at all.

One final thing; the United State Constitution obligates states to protect the borders from foreign invasion. That means every state carries that obligation. Even Arizona.

So to the critics of this bill….. STFU or get out of the United States.

 

Obama’s Immigration Reform

Homeland Security Illegal Alien Czar Janet Napolitano

Last week, Obama ran off to China, leaving Attorney General Eric Holder back home to fade the heat for his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – the 9/11 mastermind – in Federal court.


Some are saying the trip and Holder’s controversy has been a carefully planned ruse to draw attention away from the up-coming health care debate in the U.S. Senate this coming Saturday. If true, that’s not all it did.


Few noticed last Friday’s announcement by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that the administration will seek to overhaul the immigration system early next year. She wants a tighter law to punish illegal immigrants and the employers who hire them, improved measures to encourage migrants to choose the legal route, and a “tough but fair” pathway for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country to legalize their status.



The last time such a feat was attempted, in 2007, President George W. Bush was abandoned by his party and suffered a crushing defeat in the Senate. There’s no assurance President Barack Obama will fare any better, despite his party’s Capitol Hill majority. Bipartisan cooperation in writing the new bill also is no guarantee of success.

To fend off conservative attacks that this measure would amount to nothing more than amnesty, Obama must put strong emphasis on the toughness of his proposed legalization procedures. Napolitano says that the legalization process could take years to complete and would involve rigorous procedures to verify that an applicant has no criminal background, has learned English and has fully paid back taxes and substantial fines for entering the country illegally.

Since illegal immigrants come here looking for work, she says, the bill will seek stiffer punishments for employers who hire them. Napolitano also promises tighter border enforcement, even though illegal crossings already have dropped significantly. The Border Patrol has grown by 20,000 officers, and more than 600 miles of border fencing has been installed, fulfilling two key benchmarks set by Congress in 2007.

Here they come...

Having supported the Bush plan, this newspaper believes that the Obama administration is on the right track, particularly with its decision to press the issue sooner rather than wait until after next November’s elections. The timing here shows admirable political guts.

There are upsides. Approval could generate support from an increasingly important Hispanic electorate. By drawing illegal immigrants out of the shadows, the new law promises to add workers to the tax rolls and increase American blue-collar labor’s competitiveness by ensuring that they won’t be undercut by cheaper illegal workers. If illegal immigrants don’t want to comply, their room to maneuver in the job market would diminish while their incentives to go home would jump dramatically.

The nation’s immigration system has limped along, broken for far too long, but there should be no illusions that fixing it will be easy. As Capitol Hill bouts go, this fight looks to be a bruiser.

 

An unjust exercise of authority or power

On the evening of April 14, 2009, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill police released pepper spray and threatened to use a Taser on student protesters when a crowd disrupted a speech by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo opposing in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.

Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.

Tancredo was brought to campus by a UNC chapter of Youth for Western Civilization, a national organization of students who oppose mass immigration, multiculturalism and affirmative action.

Inside the classroom, several student protesters screamed curses at Tancredo and Riley Matheson, president of the UNC-Chapel Hill chapter of Youth for Western Civilization.

“This is the free speech crowd, right?” Tancredo joked.

“Fascists are fascists,” Tancredo said. “Their actions were probably the best speech I could ever give. They are what’s wrong with America today. … When all you can do is yell epithets, that means you are intellectually bankrupt.”

UNC graduate student Tyler Oakley, who had organized the protest, said he regretted the broken window but not silencing Tancredo. “He was not able to practice his hate speech,” said Oakley. “You have to respect the right of people to assemble and collectively speak.”

ED:
A former congressman is invited to speak on a very important topic for all of us only to be shouted down by oppressive, emotionally immature, idealistic youth agitated by their professors to disrupt. Very nice.

Tancredo spoke about the shout-down on Fox News and said their professors were in the audience and incited and participated in the ensuing mini-riot.

So what are our professors teaching our youth? Is it that it’s acceptable to oppress free speech? Or perhaps it is to use emotion and violence as a tool of debate instead of engaging in intellectually driven dialog and – oh God – usher in real and meaningful change?

Folks, we are at a cross roads here. These kids – these morons taught by intellectually lazy professors bent on saving their tuition-driven salaries are our future. Some of them will even find their way into politics. These are our future leaders.

To know what this brings, we only have to look at the White House.

 

Mexican Immigration policy is built into their Constitution!

Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico’s constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.

Summary

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

• – Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
• – Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
• – Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
• – Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
• – Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
• – Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
• – Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
• – Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

The whole thing can be read here.