Thursday, August 19, 2010

Black Conservatives on 14th Amenedment.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Birthright Citizenship.

Concerning the 14th amendment, anchor babies and birthright citizenship, Michael Gerson has these words of wisdom [Republicans are ramping up the birthright battle]

"Today's dispute over birthright citizenship reveals the immigration debate in its starkest form. Usually, opponents of illegal immigration speak of giving lawbreakers what they deserve. But this does not apply in the case of an infant. Consider two newborn babies at, say, Parkland Hospital in Dallas. One is the child of citizens, the other of illegal immigrants. Critics of birthright citizenship look at the child of immigrants and feel . . . disturbed? Outraged? But why? Do they see a child somehow tainted by illegality? That hardly seems fair. A burden on resources? No more than any other poor child. An alien lacking allegiance? How could they possibly know? Why not a soldier, or an entrepreneur, or, as the Constitution specifically permits, a president?"

Hear, hear.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Reprieve for Yves Gomes.

Yves Gomes was 14 months old when his parents brought him to the U.S. to visit relatives.

Although here only on a tourist visa, Robin and Cecilia Gomes decided to remain in this country illegally. The 14th month old baby is now a 17 year old young man who has lived his live as an American.

His 15 year brother is in fact a U.S. citizen, having been born here.

To make a long story short, Yves' parents have been deported - the father to Bangladesh - the mother to India. It looked as if the boy would be deported as well, to a country he hasn't been to since he was an infant.

He has a reprieve and can remain here while his case is being looked into.

As pointed out in the Washington Post, Gomes situation is in sharp contrast to the story of Carlos A. Martinelly-Montano, who is charged with killing a nun and injuring two others in Prince William County while driving drunk.

Below, we have two videos which might be called the before and after videos.

I understand that Robin and Cecilia Gomes were here illegally and sadly, the decision to deport them was right. Their son, for all intents and purposes is an American and should be allowed to stay and become a legal citizen.

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Anchor Babies.

Some top Republicans - such as Senator John McCain- have begun looking into the issue of so-called "anchor babies" as it pertains to 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"The senators said their concerns arose from recent reports of a burgeoning 'birth tourism' industry, which helps expectant mothers abroad travel to the United States to deliver their babies. They also said that birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, could provide an incentive for people to enter the country illegally."

While in the U.S. House, current candidate for the Republican nomination as Governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal introduced the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009" :

Official Summary
4/2/2009--Introduced.Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is:
(1) a U.S. citizen or national;
(2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or
(3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Washington Post writer,Harold Meyerson sees the Republican push to change the Amendment as all Washington Post writers see anything Republicans do ....as being steeped in racism.

I, for one, do not see the proposal as being ultimately racist, though I do have a problem with this monkeying around with the 14th Amendment. On the face of it, the requirement that one parent be a U.S. citizen or green card holder seems OK, but it worries me. In today's environment, will the requirement soon become, both parents U.S. citizens or permanent resident?

I am a U.S. citizen (born in the good ol' U.S. of A.) though my wife is not. When that our son was born, my wife was here legally, but due to the overburdened state of affairs at the USCIS at that time, she had not yet received her permanent residence card. Legal, but no "green card". Would a difference in the 14th Amendment have jeopardized the citizenship of my child?

Many on the Right would probably say my worries are over nothing; I'm a citizen - so no problem. I'm not so sure about that. I'm not the only one I know who is in the same boat, so to speak. I know of several families where the father is American while the mother isn't. The mothers in question are all here legally, but like our situation, the official "green card" arrived after the birth of a child.

Something has to be done about illegal immigration but, let's not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Bloody Hands.

Consistent with their strong Christian values, the good sisters of the Benedictine Sisters of Virginia pray that the tragic death of Sister Denise Mosier does not become "politicized and become an apparent forum for the illegal immigration agenda".

In a statement from August 3, 2010, the nuns ask that we "re-focus [our] attention on the consequences of drinking and driving, and on Christ’s command to forgive."

Of course, it is right and proper that we do that.

However, in two articles [Nun's death rallies anti-immigration forces and Forgiven enough] it is implied that by receiving the nun's forgiveness the young, illegal immigrant responsible for the death of Sister Mosier should escape deportation. There is nothing in the nuns' statement that would suggest that Carlos A. Martinelly-Montano, 23, should not "experience the consequences of his decisions through our justice system."

One women is dead and two more are in critical condition because of Martinelly-Montano's decision to get behind the wheel of an automobile after drinking heavily.

As Corey Stewart, chairman of Prince William County's Board of Supervisors points out, there is certainly more than enough blame to go around. Stewart issued a statement saying that President Barack Obama, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and members of Congress "all have blood on their hands."

If convicted, this will not be Martinelly-Montano's first drunken driving conviction. There have been two before - one in 2007 and another in 2008. Had the authorities deported Martinelly-Montano after his first conviction (as they should have; he is here illegally, after all) Sister Mosier would be alive today.

Martinelly-Montano's family may very well believe that "He had a bad drinking problem, but he's a good man," but that belief really changes nothing. According to a Washington Post article,

"The family entered the United States illegally in 1996, when their oldest son was 8, they said, and spent more than a decade as undocumented immigrants. In 2007, the parents, their daughter and their oldest son got work permits from the Department of Homeland Security, they said, even though they had been in the country illegally. Anthony Guerrieri, a spokesman for the temporary employment agency that hired Martinelly-Montano in April, said in an e-mail that the suspect 'successfully cleared the . . . employment verification process and upon hire, was eligible for employment in the U.S.' "

The system is broken and innocent people are suffering and dying because of government officials bowing down to goddess of political correctness.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

OK......Let's Be Honest.

Below, I've included a copy of a photo which I received in an email recently. In the photo, we see a gathering which appears to be some sort of demonstration. The people in the photo appear to be Hispanic and though we see a few American flags, there are no Mexican flags in sight. The lack of Mexican flags seems a bit out of place for a demonstration of Mexicans in the U.S..

In the forefront, we can read one sign very plainly. It reads;

"Give us free health care jobs - no taxes
house food you owe us America !
We will shoot more policemen in Arizona until we get free!"

I've looked at this photo over and over and it's my opinion that it has been photoshopped. I honestly believe that the sign the man is carrying had something else written on it originally and what we see is the handiwork of someone with limited ability in doctoring photos.

First of all, the lighting is odd. Although it is difficult to make out the faces of the three men in the front, due to poor exposure, the lighting on the sign is very clear and bright.

Blowing up the photo, the lettering shows pixelation that is more consistent with someone having added the lettering to a preexisting photo. On close inspection, the lettering does not look as if it was painted onto a life sized poster.

If this photo has been doctored, as I expect it has, it does not help either side in the argument over illegal immigration. Both sides need to approach this situation honestly - with no manipulation of images or distortion of facts. We all need to speak the truth.



Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Happy Birthday, Mr. President. Here's Your Cake.

Thanks to Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, I was able to send a "birthday cake" to the President.

Actually, I sent more than one (I have more than one email address, after all).
You can send one too by going to here.

Send in yours right away!!!!!!

happybirthdayfromaz.com.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Lady Gaga Slams SB1070.

At her July 31 concert in Phoenix Arizona, that well known authority on immigration reform, Lady Gaga told her audience,
"I got a phone call from a couple really big rock and rollers, big pop stars, big rap artists, and they said, 'We'd like you to boycott Arizona . . . because of SB 1070"

In an Aug 1 article, Larry Rodgers of The Arizona Republic quoted her as saying,

"I said, 'Do you really think that us dumb (expletive) pop stars are going to collapse the economy of Arizona?'"

Well, she's right about her being a "dumb (expletive) pop star".

She claims that her decision not to boycott the State of Arizona was because she felt she could be more effective protesting the State while performing there.

I'm sure the money had quite a bit to do with her decision.

According to Rodgers' article, Lady Gaga went on to tell a story of a boy who was "suffering" because "his house was raided because of a parking ticket or something".

The photo on the left shows Gaga sporting what looks very much like a jail-house tattoo, protesting SB1070, on her forearm. No word on the scribble on her bicep.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Border Sheriffs.com

From BorderSheriffs.com:

Arizona is a state that has seen an invasion of illegal immigrants continue unabated for years. Illegal immigration has taken its toll on Arizona in the form of billions of dollars spent on social services, education and prison costs.

Much more devastating, though, has been the human toll it has taken. Human and drug smuggling, kidnappings, drop houses and the murder of immigrants and American citizens are just some of the byproducts of our porous border.

After years of begging the federal government for help, Arizona finally had enough and decided to do something about it. The result is the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, better known as Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (SB1070).

The Legacy Foundation is disappointed in the lawsuits brought by the ACLU and the US Department of Justice against Sheriffs Babeu, Dever and the state of Arizona. The Sheriffs needed financial resources to engage lawyers who believe in SB 1070 to make their best arguments for them. Legacy is happy to be able to provide this support, but needs donations from people passionate about the issue in order to do so.

Your donation through Legacy's
"BorderSheriffs.com" project will be used to pay for the legal defense of SB1070 on behalf of Pinal County Sheriff Babeu, and Cochise County Sheriff Dever.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Bishops Praise Court Injunction on Arizona Law.

Four Roman Catholic Bishops, from dioceses in states bordering Mexico, have issued a joint statement praising U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton's temporary injunction of certain portions of Arizona's recently enacted immigration law (SB 1070).

The four signatories of the letter are - (pictured, from top to bottom) Bishop James Wall of Gallup, New Mexico,Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix,Auxiliary Bishop Eduardo Nevares of Phoenix and Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, Arizona.

The letter begins;

"We, the Roman Catholic Bishops in Arizona, commend Judge Susan Bolton for enjoining some of the more problematic provisions of SB 1070."

I have to ask the four Bishops, just what exactly are the more problematic provisions of SB 1070? That question is not addressed in their letter.The law gives Arizona's law enforcement officers the authority to enforce Federal statutes already on the books - which are, sadly, not being enforced by the Federal authorities. What portions of the law, I dare ask, are contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

They write;

"As bishops in our respective dioceses, we know that in practically every parish there are families that have been living with the fear and anxiety generated by SB 1070 that they might be torn apart. The situation of these families might be that one parent is a citizen and that the other is not in our country legally. Or, the situation might be that some children in the family are citizens and that a brother or sister is not here legally."

Ironically, this follows a few sentences later;

"Illegal immigration is bad for our nation. It is not good for us to not know who is entering our country."

If, as they say, illegal immigration is bad for the nation, why aren't we allowed to enforce our immigration laws? I understand that some families may be "living with fear and the anxiety" of the possibility of some family members being deported but, we're talking about people who have thumbed their noses at the legal immigration process and now we are expected to continue to look the other way.

You suggest a process for persons who have entered our country illegally to pursue legal status. This process, you assure us, must not be amnesty. It isn't amnesty, we're told, if there are "proportionate consequences".

What are these "proportionate consequences"?

Paying fines, learning English, and going to the "back of the line" to seek citizenship.

How does one determine the proper amount for a fine? Will it be as high as the fees that legal immigrants must pay for visas, change of status applications, applications for permanent residency and the application for citizenship? Many of these illegal aliens entered the country illegally because they could not afford to pay for the initial applications. Many would now be "living with the fear and anxiety generated by" the inability to pay the fine. Are they then to be deported or will they be given another "free pass"?

"Our nation needs a program that would allow needed workers to enter the country legally. This program must include protection of worker rights."

In these days of 10% (and higher) unemployment rates, do we really need an influx of more immigrants willing to work for substandard wages?

"The tragic consequences of the failure of our nation's political leadership to enact reform of our immigration system have included the deaths of thousands of people.
Migrants -- women, men, children in desperate circumstances -- have died trying to enter our country. U.S. citizens have died because of crimes committed by drug smugglers, people smugglers and weapons smugglers."


Sorry, but no; the tragic consequences you mention are not the result of our political leadership's failure to enact reform of our immigration system - they are rather the result of our political leadership's failure to enforce the laws we already have.

To read the Bishop's letter as published on the zenit.org website go to Bishops on Injunction of Parts of Arizona Law.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Propaganda Video Removed.

On Monday, I posted a video which I first saw on Creative Minority Report showing the depths Houston Votes had sunk to with propaganda to scare Latinos into voting for Democrats.

In the video ad, a policeman approaches an Hispanic young man, questions him about his place of birth and asks for "documents" to prove he is here legally.

In a comment for that post, Al said,
"Maybe I am missing something but what does the "fill out theirs" mean."
I was going to take a look at the video again to see if I could explain what the "fill out theirs" statement on the video means. It was then that I learned that the video had been removed from the vimeo website.

It was removed about five hours after I posted the video. I doubt that my obscure blog played any role in it's removal; many more people read Creative Minority Report.

At any rate, the ad stepped on someone's toes and was taken down.......so far, I haven't been able to locate a copy anywhere else. I'll keep looking.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Propaganda Video from Houston Votes.

Houston Votes propaganda video from Curiosity Shoppe on Vimeo via Creative Minority Report

A PSA encouraging people to register to vote.



Directed, Produced and Edited by Curiosity Shoppe

Director of Photography, Shane F. Kelly

Color, Stuck On On





Sunday, July 25, 2010

This Is No Laughing Matter.

Here's another video from Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Arizona Sing-A-Long.

This video has been out for awhile, but I feel it's worth sharing never the less.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Arizona Latino Republican Association Opposes DOJ Law Suit.


From Fox News .com, the Arizona Latino Republican Association (ALRA) will become the first Hispanic organization in the country to actively oppose the Department of Justice's lawsuit against the state of Arizona's new immigration law.

In it's article on the same story, the tucsoncitizen.com reports, "ALRA supports Arizona’s right to defend its border from unlawful entry. Securing the border will help to restore order to a dysfunctional immigration system and provide the United States and Mexico an opportunity to develop a bilateral immigration policy for the 21st century".

ALRA member and Arizona State House Representative Steve Montenegro said, "The voters of Arizona and across the country support the rule of law and the hypocrisy of the Department of Justice suing Arizona to prevent laws from being enforced is readily apparent to everyone.”

The Democratic Party chooses to fan the flames with identity politics and cries of "racism" at every turn and their ploy concerning the issue of immigration is no different than their favored response to everything. But, as Rep. Steve Montenegro, (R-Ariz) told Fox News,
"America is a not a race. The United States of America is not the color of your skin, it is the way you think, the way you see life."

Monday, July 19, 2010

Neo-Nazis Pouring Gas on the Fire.

It's being reported that members of the neo-Nazi, white supremacist National Socialist Movement are "patrolling" Arizona's border with Mexico.

"Progressive" bloggers, such as Jack Dunning have already attempted to use this as proof that Arizona's new immigration law is based in racism. Naturally, Dunning's logic falls short.

What folks like Dunning fail to recognize (and acknowledge) is the similarities between the National Socialist Movement and the values of the so-called "Progressives".
A look at the 25 POINTS OF AMERICAN NATIONAL SOCIALISM reveals several points which fit perfectly with the Left wing agenda. One would be hard pressed to find much, if anything, with fits with the ideology of the average Tea Party supporter.

Among several Leftist views, the National Socialists "........demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens." and "the activities of the individual must not clash within the framework of the community and be for the common good."

The group advocates "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts)" as well as "the passing of a law instituting profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises" and "the creation of a livable wage".

In short, the group is, as it's name says, socialist .

And as is typical of Leftist groups, the National Socialist Movement wants restrictions on Freedom of the Press.

For far too long, the Left has tried to link these racist groups with the Right. Groups like the National Socialist Movement are the "ugly step-sisters" of the Left wing; they have no friends on the Right.

Jo from Florida.

I received this in an email and I felt it was worth sharing.

video

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

An Example of ABC's Propaganda.

ABC news gives yet another example why fewer Americans are relying on the - so-called - mainstream media for their news.

It this video, we see ABC accurately reporting that 6 in 10 Americans support the Arizona immigration law and oppose the Obama administration's law suit. However, rather than show us the 6 in 10, ABC choose to show protests by the minority who don't agree with the Arizona law.

People will be more impressed by what they see over the spoken word. Far too many will see this politically slanted video and erroneously believe the protesters to be in the majority.

I believe we can rightly call this video, not objective journalism, but rather political propaganda.



Monday, July 12, 2010

Forty Days in the Desert.

Since June 13 of this year, a group has gathered at the corner of Roeser Road and Central Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona to pray the Rosary as part of a campaign called "Forty Days in the Desert".

According to the website arizona1070families.com, the purpose of the Rosary is to "develop a solution for the Arizona and National Immigration Debate".

Unfortunately, it seems as if these people are praying that the Blessed Mother will support them in their law breaking. Their "solution" would be for those now classified as illegals be granted amnesty. One need only read the notes on the group's Facebook page to see what solutions suit them.

In the notes for July,11 the 29th day of the Rosary, there is this regarding Arizona's governor Jan Brewer,
"Governor Brewer, please do not let your legacy be the extreme end of the immigration debate. You have the momentum to use your words and your actions to help shape immigration on a national level. Immigration reform must not be used to punish families. Please, do not let people remember you as the Anti-Mexican Governor; we know you are better than all this rhetoric."

So, enforcing Federal Immigration law is "the extreme end of the immigration debate". Brewer is called "the Anti-Mexican Governor" because she is against illegal immigration. It goes on "we know you are better than all this rhetoric". Sadly, if anyone is spouting rhetoric, it's the "Forty Days in the Desert" group.

The recurring theme of the group's postings is "FAMILIES MUST NEVER BE SEPARATED. Not by policy, politics or punishment!"
These families are separated because someone in the family choose to break U.S. immigration law by entering the country illegally. I wonder why this very same group hasn't prayed that the Mexican government improve the lives of it's citizens so they each person living in that country can take care of his or her family in the country of their birth. It appears that it is the policy of the Mexican government to get as many people as possible into the United States by whatever means necessary. That is the "easiest" solution for that government, though it can hardly be called the best solution for the people of Mexico or the United States.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Georgia Governor's Race.

Polls are showing that Karen Handel is closing the gap with John Oxendine in the upcoming Republican primary for the Georgia Governor's race.
Just how much this is the result of Handel's recent endorsement by Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer is anybody's guess. At any rate, Brewer's endorsement doesn't hurt. Quite a few Republican's in Georgia want legislation passed in Georgia similar to Arizona's new immigration law.

The Georgia primary is on July 10. Unless something changes my mind, I'll probably vote for Handel. However, even if Oxendine wins the Republican nomination, I'll pick him over former Governor Roy Barnes any day of the week.

Friday, July 9, 2010

Musical "has-beens" Speak Out.

For those who may have missed it, musical has-beens, Hall & Oates canceled a performance in Phoenix in protest over Arizona's new immigration law. I would begin my own boycott of the duet, but frankly, who listens to their music today any way?

I wanted to read more on their "protest" but an Internet search for "Hall and Oates" didn't get many results on their decision last month to cancel their July, 2nd performance. However, putting daryl hall and john oates "has beens" into Google was more successful.

As far as I know, Hall and Oates have yet to write a protest song dealing with the Arizona law. Perhaps they can learn this....uh..... "song" from Talib Kweli, entitled "Papers Please". It should go over well on their upcoming "Do What You Want, Be What You Are Tour 2010".

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Mexico Arrests Alledged Killer of Consulate Employee.

Mexican police have arrested Jesus Ernesto "the Camel" Chavez, who they believe is the mastermind behind the March 13th murders of Lesley Enriquez who worked for the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez, her husband, Arthur Redelfs and Jorge Ceniceros who was married to another consular employee. Enriquez, who was four months pregnant, accompanied her husband and baby daughter to a birthday party held at the consulate. As the three left the party in their white SUV, a Suburban began following them. At the same time, Ceniceros and his two children, ages 4 and 7, left the consulate in a white Honda Pilot. He was followed as well.

In the end, all three adults were gunned down in their vehicles. Ceniceros' children were wounded while Enriquez' daughter was unharmed.

According to news reports, "the Camel" claims to have been ordered by gang members living in the United States to arrange the killing. The gang members were angered because Enriquez was helping members of a rival gang obtain visas to travel to the United States. The killers were told that Enriquez would be in a white SUV; unsure of which white SUV she was riding in, the killers decided to kill the passengers of both vehicles.

Chavez' story has several holes in it. First of all, the U.S. consulate claims that Enriquez was not involved in the issuing of visas. Secondly, why would gang members need visas? Obviously, they would certainly know how to get into the United States illegally.
There is also speculation that the motive for the killings may have been because Arthur Redelfs was a guard in the El Paso jail.

Of course, we in the United States have no need to worry that such violence will spill over into our country......as both Obama and Janet Napolitano tell us, the border has never been more secure.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Obama's Misplaced Priorities.

As expected, the Obama administration has filed a law suit against the State of Arizona over it's controversial new immigration law.
Obama has decided to carry through with the suit, in spite of the fact that a majority of Americans approve of Arizona's attempt to step in where Federal officials fear to go.

Four days ago, 21 members of rival drug gangs were killed in a massive gun battle 12 miles from the Arizona border. While this may be the worst case of violence erupting near the border between Mexico and Arizona in years, it certainly was not the first incident.There's no wonder why the good people of Arizona want the Federal government to secure the border.

An objective reading of Arizona's new legislation reveals the law to be no more "draconian" than current Federal regulations.

In 2006, Mexican President Felipe Calderon promised to use thousands of troops and federal police to control the drug related violence in his country. More than 23,000 people have been killed in Mexico by drug violence in the mean time. President Obama's response is certainly not comforting. More than 4,300 people have been murdered in recent years in Ciudad Juarez, which borders El Paso, Texas - including an assistant attorney general for the Mexican State of Chihuahua and one of her bodyguards just days ago.

Rather than increase troop levels in Afghanistan, Obama might do well to consider putting more "boots on the ground" on the United States/Mexico border.







Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Napolitano - Obama in Agreement over Border.

In a cnsnews.com article from April 29, 2010, it was reported that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that, the United States’ southwest border is “as secure now as it has ever been.”

Again, on June 28, 2010 she was reported as having said the same thing before an audience in Washington, D.C.. However, in the later article, she was quoted as saying,

“It’s 1,960 miles across that Southwest border. It’s some of the roughest, toughest geographical terrain in the world across that border. And so, the notion that you’re going to seal that border somehow is something that anybody who’s been involved in the actual doing of law enforcement--the front office work or the front line work of the law enforcement--would say, ‘You’re never going to totally seal that border.’”

The Homeland Security Secretary isn't the only one sending out mixed messages concerning the security of our border with Mexico. In his July 1, 2010 speech on comprehensive immigration reform, President Obama said,

"So the bottom line is this: The southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years. That doesn’t mean we don’t have more work to do. We have to do that work, but it’s important that we acknowledge the facts. Even as we are committed to doing what’s necessary to secure our borders, even without passage of the new law, there are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders. But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work."

And this, from the same speech,

"To begin with, our borders have been porous for decades. Obviously, the problem is greatest along our Southern border, but it’s not restricted to that part of the country. In fact, because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors, large numbers avoid immigration laws simply by overstaying their visas."

So, the bottom line is, as far as this administration is concerned ....... our border with Mexico will never be secure, but, hey, it's been this way for 20 or 30 years so what's the big deal?

To get an idea just how "porous" the United States border with Mexico is, take a look at the videos found on the secureborderintel.org website. There, you'll find several videos taken from cameras hidden along the border. Sadly, these videos aren't nearly as funny as the ones from the old Candid Camera T.V. series.

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Shirley Tan


Normally, when reading a news report brings questions to mind, further research on the particular subject of the news report can bring about an enlightenment of sorts - questions are answered.

Unfortunately, this wasn't the case with the story of Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado. It was in the video posted below that I first learned of the lesbian couple. Both women were born in Philippines; Mercado is a U.S. citizen -Tan is not. As it turns out, Tan faces the very real possibility of deportation.

After watching the video ( found on restorefairness.org) I did a Google search on the couple and came upon an article in the Huffington Post and Tan's June 3, 2009 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. These two sources left me with more questions than answers.

The couple met and subsequently fell in love after Tan was brought to the United States by her father on a tourist visa more than twenty years ago. As Tan tells her story, she returned to Philippines after her visa expired and continued her "relationship" with Mercado via long distance phone calls.

At some point, Tan reentered the U.S.; eventually applying for asylum in 1995. Although Mercado was an American citizen, being lesbian, she could not petition Tan on a fiancee or marriage visa.
According to Tan, she was unaware that her application had been denied and that a deportation letter was sent in 2002 until her arrest in January, 2009.

Due to the efforts of California Senator Dianne Feinstein, Tan's deportation has been put on hold until 2011.

According to Tan's testimony, she and Mercado have been in this relationship for 23 years. Tan gave birth to twins 12 years ago.....no mention in the testimony as to the identity of the boys' father; obviously, it isn't her partner. Under what circumstances did Tan become pregnant? This may not seem relevant to her immigration status, but I bring this up because of parts of her testimony before the Senate.

In order to come across as simply a typical, loving family, Tan mentioned the family's involvement in their local parish, Good Shepard Catholic Church in Pacifica, California. Tan, also, makes mention of the fact that she is an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion in her church. This is the question I have after reading Tan's account; how can a woman in an active lesbian relationship (the two were "married" in California) - particularly one who became pregnant in a most un-Catholic way - become an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

No doubt, Tan and Mercado will continue to use Progressives, such as Feinstein, to bypass the law and remain in the U.S.. She may escape deportation from this country though I cannot understand how she can continue to avoid "deportation" from the Catholic Church.


Two Moms Fight to Stay Together from Breakthrough on Vimeo.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Archbishop Charles Chaput on Immigration.

As a devout Catholic, I find that, whatever the issue, Denver's archbishop, Charles Chaput usually finds the most sensible solution to any particular problem or controversy. Reading his May 05, 2010 column in the Denver Catholic Register, I believe the Archbishop hits the proverbial nail on the head regarding illegal immigration.

In the above mentioned column, Chaput makes three salient observations;

"First, illegal immigration is wrong and dangerous for everyone involved. There’s nothing “good” about people risking their lives for the mere purpose of entering the United States. There’s nothing “good” about our nation not knowing who crosses our borders and why they’re here, especially in an age of terrorism, drugs and organized violent crime. There’s nothing “good” about people living in the shadows; or families being separated; or decent people being deported and having to start their lives all over again, sometimes in a country that they no longer—or never did—know.

Second, the new Arizona law, despite its flaws, does unintentionally accomplish one good thing. Thanks to Arizona, the urgency of immigration reform and the human issues that underlie it—deported breadwinners; divided families; the anxiety of children who grew up here but do not have citizenship—once again have moved to the front burner of our national discussions. Our current immigration system is now obviously broken. Congress needs to act.

Third, no credible immigration reform will occur if the effort becomes an exercise in partisan maneuvering. Both of our major political parties got our country into our current immigration mess. Both parties bear responsibility for fixing it. Neither will solve it alone. Unfortunately, the recent national health-care debate compromised public confidence in some of our key federal lawmakers. Having pushed through a deeply flawed national health-care bill in the face of serious concerns and widespread public displeasure, Congress now faces an equally hard task with an equally volatile issue. This will require a transparency, patience, spirit of compromise and bipartisanship rarely seen in Washington in the best of seasons, and too often completely missing in the recent health-care debate."

All of us, Catholic and non-Catholic as well, can learn quite a bit from the Archbishop's measured approach. Unfortunately, our country lacks a political leader with similar wisdom.

Immigration Reformation.

Unquestionably, the Immigration system in the United States is in desperate need of repair. Democrats, Republicans, Progressives and Conservatives all agree that "something must be done", but, sadly, just what that "something" is has yet to be agreed upon.

It certainly doesn't help matters when President Obama asserts that Republicans are being excessively partisan on the issue and that the Republican's insistence on "border security first" is actually delaying the reform the U.S. immigration system needs.

According to one CBS news report, (source)

"Obama also wants to create a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States; critics call that amnesty, which Obama denies because he would ensure that immigrants must first acknowledge that they had broken the law, pay fines and back taxes, perform community service and learn English.
"

Admittedly, as President Obama notes, the United States cannot deport 11 million illegal immigrants; however, if we do not secure the border, that 11 million number will soon become 12...13.... 14 million.

With this blog, I will explore the issue of immigration ......both legal and illegal. Looking for answers, I hope that I won't be "excessively partisan" with my approach. I will (I hope) objectively look at the solutions proposed by both the Right and the Left as well as non-political groups -such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Being married to an immigrant, this issue is of particular interest to me. I would like to believe that my thoughts on this will be of interest to others as well.
Simple Layout by Village Idiot Savant