Andrew Thomas: Another Amnesty in the Works

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Tuesday, February 26, 2013

When a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators announced plans in January 2013 to push new immigration legislation, Americans learned that the leaders behind this latest effort to deal with the nation’s broken borders would cross the political aisle. But it did not take long for them to realize that bipartisanship came at a price: amnesty for all illegal immigrants.
Coming together for this purpose was the so-called Gang of Eight. The members of the group were Democratic Senators Michael Bennet of Colorado, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and Charles Schumer of New York, and Republican Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona, and Marco Rubio of Florida. Their proposal was the most ambitious immigration package since the 1986 reforms known as the Immigration Reform and Control Act(or Simpson-Mazzoli Act).

The Gang of Eight’s proposal would allow the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in America to remain without fear of deportation. They would be required to register with the federal government and pay a fine and then would receive “probationary legal status.” This would allow them to remain in the country and work.

Click here to continue reading

 

Join Our Mailing List

Hospital Admissions Restrictions: The Statist Mentality

By Thomas Salazar

ArizonaA new bill proposed in the Arizona state legislature (HB 2293 or Hospital Admissions Restrictions) would require the “hospital admissions officer or representative” to be held responsible to the State of Arizona for seeking out whether or not a patient is legally present in the United States, if the patient does not have valid insurance. The problem is that immigration is the job of the federal government. The onus should not be on the state to insist that hospitals and their staff do the job of immigration officers. Hospitals are already burdened down by the overbearing regulations imposed by the Affordable Care Act. The last thing they need is to be inundated with more regulations.

Unfortunately, legislatures and bureaucrats do not consider this before they pass a bill. As Thomas Sowell states:

“The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices — paid by others.”

That price could be the need to hire new staff to meet these regulations if it becomes law. It could divert funds for staff and resources that could be going to help cover the cost of medical treatments. Moreover, this legislation could reduce the hospitals staff’s time and ability to efficiently help patients obtain the medical attention they need, because the staff will be wasting time probing patients for documentation to prove whether the patient is legally here in the United States.

This legislation also requires the hospitals to keep records. The proposed bill states,

“A HOSPITAL MUST SUBMIT AN ANNUAL REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT TO DOCUMENT ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION IN A MANNER AND FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE DEPARTMENT.  EACH REPORT MUST INCLUDE DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO DID NOT SHOW PROPER OR VALID INFORMATION AND THE NUMBER OF REFERRALS TO IMMIGRATION OR LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR BOTH, PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION.  THE DEPARTMENT SHALL TAKE ALL REASONABLE ACTION TO COLLECT THE DATA AND SUBMIT A REPORT ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 15 OF EACH YEAR TO THE GOVERNOR, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE CHAIRPERSONS OF THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.”

This to me is an overreach and beyond reasonable. The fact is that this does nothing to stop or curb illegal immigration. No one comes here to get sick or injured just to become treated in an American hospital.

Whose job is it, anyway, to enforce immigration? The resounding answer should be that it is not Banner, Integrity Health Care, nor any other hospital’s responsibility. These hospitals have trained staff who are there to help patients. Their staff members are not state or federal officers who are trained to enforce state or federal laws nor should they be treated or thought of as such. The goal of the legislature should not involve punishing hospitals by coercing them to modify their procedures and incur added cost, due to the failures of the federal government. More government regulation on business, nonprofits and individual citizens is not the answer to illegal immigration. Until the Federal government enforces our borders and passes immigration reform enabling more people to come here legally to work, there will be no real change.

These petty measures by our legislature do nothing more than cause problems and over regulate our businesses and organizations. In the end, this amendment hopefully will not pass because it sets a shameful precedent where the government can coercively demand private organizations to report on those who use their services. Therefore, let’s look beyond demagoguery and band aid bills that do nothing to fix the issue and oppose this bill.

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. Thomas was born and raised in Arizona. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

Doug Little Video. In His Own Words

By Russell Pearce

As most of you know I have endorsed Robert Graham for State Chairman of the Republican Party. I have been quiet as to any position Doug Little has taken.

However here is what, Doug Little says, “People leave the Republican Party because they can’t stand the tone. Because they don’t care about some of the extreme positions that certain people take. We have to change the message…I want people listening to what we have to say in an environment where people are not in their face about something like immigration or something about abortion or some other contentious or divisive issue.”

But, I must express my concerns when he talks about our “EXTREME” positions on “immigration, abortion, or other divisive issues (2nd Amendment, traditional values????). The reason people are leaving this Party is because we have failed to stand for what we believe. We elect folks only to have them violate their promises and their Oath of Office.

Those divisive issues are the same divisive issues our Founders stood for and fought for and they committed their lives, they fortunes and their sacred honor to defend these values and tried to protect those God given rights in a Constitution and a Bill of Rights from those who would attack us for those beliefs, what I call our core values. We have a solemn duty to protect them at all cost. Protecting the UnBorn is divisive? Securing our Borders from those who violate our laws and do harm to this nation and take jobs from Americans is divisive? Protecting honest law abiding employers from dishonest employers who have an illegal, immoral advantage by breaking the law … is divisive? Apparently defense of freedom, moral values and our responsibility to protect law abiding citizens from those who break the laws is divisive!!!

Campaigns are a good opportunity to vet and ask questions about candidates. I have endorsed Robert Graham for AZ GOP chairman. I believe Robert to be a Constitutional Conservative who stands up for what he believes in. He get’s attacked by the left which means he must be doing something right. I look forward to serving with him on the Executive Committee for the next few years, as we serve you,as I currently serve as 1st Vice Chairman.

Doug Little seems like a good man, but I was shocked to see him say in a debate this week, that Constitutional Conservatives should not stand up for what they believe in for fear of turning people off. I don’t see the point of having a party if it doesn’t stand up for its principles. Watch Doug Little for yourself and ask yourself if this does not concern you. These comments come right out of the left wing media’s pages attacking our core values.

YouTube Preview Image

Also, in a debate this week, Mr. Little shows little concern for President Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders in regards to the second amendment 23 executive orders in one sweep!! Mr. Little has also stated that he would not withdraw the United States from the UN!

YouTube Preview Image

Let’s elect someone who will stand up for our values, regardless of the consequences. Please vote for Robert Graham on Saturday.

Now, more than ever, we must take a stand to support our core values, against an administration undermining what this nation and this Party was built on and we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people. My fellow Patriots/Americans, this is why I belong to this Party. I believe we are the best hope for this Republic and in restoring and defending our core values. We cannot retreat, we must not surrender to the left. We must stay united, we must stay vigilant as a Party as Patriots as Americans.

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” –George Washington (1796)

Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen?

Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

Ted Cruz has just been sworn into office, and already rumors of a presidential run are swirling. Pundits are questioning if Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen eligible to run for president. Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970 of an American citizen mother and Cuban father.

Many incorrectly assume one has to be born in a U.S. state or territory to be a natural born citizen, but the term “natural born citizen” refers to whether the person was a citizen at birth or became a citizen through naturalization. The 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Ted Cruz was not born in a U.S. state or territory, so clearly he is not a birthright citizen under the 14th amendment. However, under federal law, he was still born a citizen, which makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen. One criteria for “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories” from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:

Ted Cruz natural born citizen

Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School in the U.S., as well as Rice University, so clearly she meets the residency requirements.

Natural born citizen defined

Our constitution doesn’t specifically define “natural born citizen” but is framed in English common law in effect at the time, and under English common law the term “natural born citizen” is understood to be a citizen at birth.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England, as amended by statute. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic. Blackstone’s commentaries was the most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.

However, Blackstone also recognizes natural born citizenship for subjects born abroad. English common law is comprised of precedents, court decisions, as amended by statutes.

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2 (passed in 1350). that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, passed just 12 months after our constitution became effective in 1789, undoubtedly reflects the understanding of “natural born citizen” in effect in that era, and states:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Is Marco Rubio a Natural Born Citizen?

Now that President Obama has been reelected, likely 2016 candidates are emerging, especially Marco Rubio, and undoubtedly the birther movement will question is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen? Is Marco Rubio eligible to be president? The alternative media started raising doubts when speculation began about Marco Rubio as a potential presidential candidate or VP running mate in 2012, and for sure birther speculation will increase as Marco Rubio is in the limelight as a likely 2016 presidential candidate.

Birthers will also likely ask the same questions about another potential presidential contender, Bobby Jindal, whose parents weren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents when Jindal was born.

Sadly, one likely reason Marco Rubio was passed over as Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick was the likelihood that Marco Rubio would have been constantly dogged by birthers. In my opinion, Rubio would have helped Mitt Romney immensely with Latino voters once they got to know him better, and low support among Latino voters likely cost Mitt Romney the election, along with his unfortunate self-deportation comment.

No amount of hard evidence can sway conspiracy theorists. If you disagree with them or confront them with hard evidence to disprove their theory, the immediately accuse you propagating disinformation as part of the conspiracy, almost a ‘no win’ proposition.

Anonymous e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the Democratic primaries, igniting the birther movement when conspiracy theorists picked up on the issue. Most prominent among birthers is author Jerome Corsi, who makes a living creating conspiracy theories to sell books. Who can ever forget the North American Union conspiracy, which claimed President Bush would merge the U.S., Canada, and Mexico without the approval of Congress? Corsi even claimed there was a new currency, the Amero, but just try to find one. You can buy Corsi’s book “The Late Great USA: NAFTA, the North American Union, and the Threat of a Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada” for a penny from Amazon.com. Corsi’s North American Union is so lacking in facts and ridiculous that Corsi shouldn’t be taken seriously, but he continues to be a popular author. The more outrageous his conspiracy theories, the more books he sells!

Is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen?

Marco Rubio is undoubtedly a natural born citizen. So is Bobby Jindal, and so is John McCain, though John McCain was born on a U.S. military base in Panama. All three were U.S. citizens at birth and therefore are natural born citizens.

At the time our constitution was adopted, citizenship was determined by English Common Law. Birthright citizenship was part of English Common Law, except for children born of slaves, who were considered slaves rather than subjects.

Opponents of birthright citizenship claim the framers of our constitution and authors of the 14th amendment meant something entirely different than what our courts have consistently ruled for over 100 years. The plain language of the 14th amendment is crystal clear, which explains why no court has sided with birthright citizenship opponents. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Opponents deliberately confuse “allegiance” with “jurisdiction”, claiming that children born of unauthorized immigrants owe allegiance to their parents’ home nation, not to the U.S., and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Black’s law dictionary defines jurisdiction as:

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient.

In layman’s terms, if a court or government can hold you accountable under laws, then you are subject to its jurisdiction. Applying common sense, virtually everyone present in the U.S., regardless of any allegiance to any foreign government, is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a non-citizen throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in violation of anti-littering laws, they can be given a ticket or arrested. That’s jurisdiction! If children born of non-citizens were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” then they would be immune to U.S. courts, could not be sued, fined, deported, etc. The legal status of their parents is irrelevant.

The only exception to birthright citizenship are children born on U.S. soil to foreign leaders, diplomats and their families, who have diplomatic immunity under treaty and international law, and cannot be arrested or sued in U.S. courts, and therefore are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a U.S. born child of a diplomat throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in front of a cop and the cop tries to ticket him for littering, they can claim diplomatic immunity under international law and U.S. courts cannot fine him for littering.

Another frequent argument against birthright citizenship is that the 14th amendment was merely intended to ensure that newly freed slaves would be considered citizens and not to grant citizenship to children born of unauthorized immigrants. Its true the purpose of the 14th amendment was to address citizenship of slaves. Under English Common Law at the time the U.S. became a nation, children born of slaves were not considered subjects or citizens, and the 14th amendment was needed to reverse the infamous Dredd Scott decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blacks could never become citizens.

The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men “are created free and equal,” is universally accepted and made the basis of all our institutions, State and National, and the relations of citizenship–the rights of the individual–in short, the status of the dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever.

But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed, many (perhaps most ) American communities have latterly sought to include him in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the superior race.

This confusion is now at an end, and the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, has defined the relations, and fixed the status of the subordinate race forever–for that decision is in accord with the natural relations of the races, and therefore can never perish. It is based on historical and existing facts, which are indisputable, and it is a necessary, indeed unavoidable inference, from these facts.

There is little doubt the purpose of the 14th amendment was to overturn Dredd Scott v. Stanford and ensure that Southern states respected newly freed slaves as citizens. However, transcripts of the Congressional debate showed that the status of children born of immigrants was vigorously debated. Some members of Congress wanted to exclude children born of Chinese immigrants, but when the vote was taken the 14th amendment passed.

Transcripts of debates in state legislatures that ratified the 14th amendment would no doubt show that citizenship of children born of immigrants was also considered. There is no grand historic misunderstanding! Congress did not intend to exclude the children born of immigrants from birthright citizenship. and a plain reading of the 14th amendment is crystal clear.

Prior to the 14th amendment, English Common law provided for birthright citizenship except for slaves. Upon independence, states passed reception statutes to implement and continue English common law except where it conflicted with state constitutions.

So just what did English Common law say about birthright citizenship when the constitution was adopted? The most authoritative text “An Analysis of the Laws of England” by William Blackstone, first published in 1765, and reprinted in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and 1783. An updated version of Blackstone’s authoritative text was published by Henry John Stephen in 1841, and reprinted until after the Second World War.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic. The most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century was William Blackstone. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due…

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. 

Since Obama’s election, another dimension to the birthright citizenship debate emerged, claiming that one is not a “natural born citizen” unless both parents were citizens.  Article Two of our constitution requires that our president be a “natural born citizen” but does not define that term:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

This conclusion is entirely consistent with Blackstone’s commentary on English common law:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

Blackstone also notes that children born abroad of diplomats are still considered natural born subjects:

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

As per Blackstone’s commentary, Americans such as John McCain, who was born of American citizen parents on a U.S. military base in Panama, who would have been considered a natural born subject of England under English common law. McCain was born in Panama on a U.S. military base, and thus subject to U.S. jurisdiction when he was born.

Ditto for Marco Rubio, whose parents were permanent residents of the U.S. when he was born. No doubt birthers will seek to delegitimize Marco Rubio’s citizenship by claiming one or both parents weren’t here legally, but it’s clear the legal status of one’s parents isn’t relevant to the child’s legal status. Ditto for Bobby Jindal, whose parents were not yet permanent residents when Bobby Jindal was born.

The  Congressional Research Service also notes:

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the  term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of  independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

So why on Earth are some groups trying to rewrite hundreds of years of history and legal precedent? Clearly the birther movement is behind the effort to redefine ‘natural born citizen’ to de-legitimize President Obama, who clearly is a natural born citizen. There’s also a subliminal message that Obama ‘is not one of us.’

Clearly there are also those who do not like Marco Rubio because he is Hispanic and the son of immigrants. By raising the issue of ‘natural born citizens’ some hope to derail any chance that Marco Rubio might become a presidential candidate.

With regards to immigration, there is clearly an effort afoot to generate hostility to groups that are perceived either as immigrants or recent offspring of immigrants. It’s also become acceptable in many quarters to hate unauthorized immigrants, blaming them for a range of social problems. By making an issue of birthright citizenship, now it becomes OK to also hate citizens who are perceived as benefiting from birthright citizenship. Most Hispanics are either immigrants themselves, or 1-2 generations removed, and sadly many Americans view all Hispanics as either unauthorized immigrants or ‘fake citizens’ who are citizens due to ‘misinterpretation’ of that pesky 14th amendment.

####

by Bob Quasius, founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans
Original link

Immigration Reform for the Sake of National Security

by Bob Price (re-posted with author’s permission – original link)

Immigration reform should be viewed as a matter of national security and not social engineering. Currently our immigration system is more about family reunification than it is about economic needs and national security. In fact, the current system is so broken that we have millions of undocumented people wandering around the country,  and we have no idea who they are, why they are here, or the history of their background. The current system must be reformed, not to pander to the voting block of one particular group or another, but rather because our national needs require it.

Many times groups try to label any attempt at immigration reform as amnesty. They dig their heels into the ground screaming “Amnesty, Amnesty” like it is some kind of honorable battle cry. The reality is, their blocking of immigration reform has actually granted a de facto amnesty to those who have entered the country illegally and those who entered legally but remained after their visas expired. Millions of people are allowed to stay without examination as to purpose or history. This is a dangerous situation to us all.

Furthermore, our current stance of increasing border security (which should continue) without correcting the problems of our broken immigration system have led to much lawlessness along the border and across the nation. While our borders have become more secure, we do not have any kind of guest worker program for people to come here legally, which has created a market for human trafficking and slavery. Instead of simply applying for a legal work permit, people who are starving for work to support their families are forced to engage in criminal behavior to come here. Not only do they spend thousands of dollars to human smugglers, they end up bringing their families because it is too difficult to come and go legally.

The revenue of human trafficking along our borders also helps fuel the armies of the drug cartels. A virtual civil war is going on along our southern border making parts of Mexico more dangerous than Iraq. Thousands of Mexicans are being killed because of this. Furthermore, once the human cargo has arrived in the United States, we have created more lawlessness as many unscrupulous employers will illegally hire these workers and improperly misclassified them as independent contractors, pay them sub-standard wages, steal wages from their workers and deprive the government of much needed tax revenue.

Most of the millions of people who are here and who come here illegally, do so without any evil intent. They come here seeking work and wages whereby they can support themselves and their families. But for those who do come here with criminal intent, our broken system enables them to hide in the shadows. Once they have committed crimes, they can simply change their names and disappear into the darkness, or they can simply move to another community and start over again. A reformed system should provide for a biometric identification system which would render annonymity much more difficult.

In addition to the national security needs of our nation, immigration reform is also needed for economic reasons. Despite the fact that our nation suffers from high levels of unemployment and underemployment, there is still a high and unfulfilled demand for manual labor workers. Our current education system is focused on sending people to colleges and universities for high-paying white-collar jobs. In the mean time, employers in the service, construction, agriculture and many other industries struggle to find workers.

Immigration Reform and Guest Worker Programs are not about providing cheap labor to employers. It is about providing workers who are willing to do the work. I remember hearing President Bush, in a State of the Union speech, say that we need immigrant workers to do the jobs American’s won’t do. I was angry – very angry. I thought that was a lie. But as I have studied this problem and talked with employers who want and can’t find legal workers in adequate supply, I have learned that it really is true. Groups like FAIR, the Center for Immigration Studies, and NumbersUSA claim that a guest worker program would create a slave-labor class of workers. The exact opposite is true. Our current broken system has already created a slave labor pool of unidentified workers who cannot compete in the open marketplace and who are afraid to report substandard wages and wage theft.

McAllen International Bridge between US and Mexico

Workers participating in a legal guest worker program would be able to compete in the open marketplace for jobs. If an employer attempted to abuse the worker’s rights either by paying substandard wages or comitting wage theft, the worker would be able to report the employer’s unethical and illegal behaviors as well as move to another job.

Immigration reform would also help legitimate employers in the marketplace. Under our current system, unethical employers are able to have an improper competitive advantage over companies who seek to follow the law. They do this by avoiding taxes through misclassifying workers as independent contractors, paying substandard wages and even stealing wages from a captive slave-labor market. In addition to unfair business competition, these unethical employers also place a burden on taxpayers. By misclassifying workers as independent contractors, they allow deadbeat parents to hide from the child support collection process thereby adding single parents not receiving child support to our welfare roles. Furthermore, by not providing workmen’s compensation and health insurance benefits to their “independent contractors”, workers who are injured on the job end up being dumped in emergency rooms adding to our expanding healthcare costs. Additionally, many of these employers hold these workers under hostile conditions where they are truly held as captors in a slave-labor market.

Border Security and Immigration Reform must both move forward. Not because it is pandering to one side or the other, but because it is the right thing to do for our nation’s security, social and economic needs. The current standoff plays into the hands of Democrats who want to keep the issue as a wedge issue to separate some conservatives from voting for Republicans. But more importantly, it is simply an ongoing amnesty for the people who are here and for those who illegally and improperly profit from this stalemate. We must continue to make the borders more secure, but we cannot wait until some date in the future to also address the issue of reforming our broken immigration system.

Barack Obama – The President of Shiny Objects

President Obama is a president of shiny objects. He deflects, distracts and distorts as his method of governing.

Here are two examples:

Back in the second week of June, Attorney General Eric Holder was under fire by the US Senate during testimony in the US Senate. There were calls for his resignation and contempt citations. The US Supreme Court was also due to release its ruling on Arizona’s SB 1070. And the Inspector General released a report on Secret Service misconduct. What did President Obama do? He issued the notorious deferred action order which basically told children born to illegal immigrants in the US that federal agencies would ignore existing law and put them into some vague legal limbo.

THIS WAS A DISTRACTION.

Fast forward to September 11, 2012 and four US citizens including an ambassador are murdered in cold blood while serving at the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. The President and his administration do everything they can to avoid using the word terrorism but it becomes very apparent that they and their willing accomplices in media (with the exception of FoxNews) finally get caught omitting and covering for candidate Obama right before the election. Suddenly and strangely, the head of the CIA self-outs himself as an adulterer and immediately resigns his position days before he is scheduled to testify before the US Senate on what really happened in Benghazi. Coincidence?

One thing is certain. Everyone’s attention has been shifted off the four murdered Americans on to a titillating and salacious sex scandal involving US generals and Pentagon housewives.

The lesson to be learned here? Keep your eyes on this president. His MO is to deflect, distract, distort, divide and deny.

Something Republicans Just Need to Learn

By Thomas Martin Salazar

Growing up my father (a Mexican national) taught me the importance of having three basic priorities that should govern my life. These priorities were to always place God first, family second, and work/school third above everything else. After the spanking the Republicans  received this last election day, it seems as if we as a party could benefit from considering these priorities, especially when it comes to the family.  I understand that not every Hispanic person is the same, nor is every Mexican American for that matter. But I do believe that these priorities are important and relatable to the Hispanic and Latino community. While the GOP tends to do a great job at defending religious liberty and is the most active in the defense of the unborn, it seems to neglect one of the most important priorities – family and fails miserably at communicating the third – work/education.

If Republicans wish to gain back the support of the Latino vote, especially that of the Mexican Americans in many southwestern states, then we need to end the rhetorical attacks on their families. Hispanics are not going to vote for any candidate whom they  think is going to deport their abuelita or go after their parents, husbands or wives.  They also will not support candidates of a party who want to end birthright citizenship. If we are to be the party of family values which I believe we are, then we must let go of our rhetoric and reach out in good faith to work towards some form of immigration reform just as George W. Bush tried to do. Conservatives seem to think and fear that Hispanics are inherently liberal. I disagree. The Democratic party does not hold our values; but neither do they pander to the immigration enforcement only crowd as republicans tend to do. I am not calling for open borders or lax enforcement. I am suggesting that we use our enforcement resources on the border and go after the criminals and the cartels, meanwhile, finding a humane way to keep families united and help build a better future for America and the Republican Party. When the Republicans finally embrace pro-family policies and cease the rhetoric that has been perceived as anti-Hispanic, then the door will be opened for further dialogue.

After we reach out in good faith, then we, as a party, must communicate better toward Hispanics and Latinos in general. We need candidates and organized groups to reach out and educate them on economic issues. Both employment and education are top priorities for many Hispanics, but if they do not see the connection from the policy played out in their daily lives, then we are failing to communicate.  Republicans must do a better job at explaining how raising tax rates and continued deficit spending will negatively impact them. While at the same time, Republicans need to articulately respond with fiscally sound economic policies that will lead to economic growth and rising incomes. Moreover, we need to defend the free market and explain how it is their inherent right as human beings, created by God, to choose how to spend and use their money. Republicans should also educate Hispanic voters on  the myriads of federal regulations and taxes that are inhibiting his or her ability to freely choose, by decreasing growth and upward mobility.

Furthermore,  we need to work harder at  defending educational choice for parents. We have an over regulated education system that sends billions of dollars to bureaucrats in the Department of Education, while spending on students and their classrooms  are both neglected. Moreover, Republicans can defiantly win on the issue of school choice. School choice is not a federal program; it is the right for parents to have the choice whether to send their children to public, private or charter schools or even homeschool if they wish. Parents should be afforded all options because each child learns differently and no one size fits all federal education program will meet those needs. We must oppose federal one size fits all cookie cutter educational standards and move  towards state rights  and parental rights. Education is a pivotal issue for each and every Hispanic mother and father. This goal will be hindered if  we do not reach out and clearly articulate to Hispanic voters our educational polices.

Thus, we must do better at articulating our values to the Hispanic and in particular  the Mexican American community. I do believe this goal is attainable and I am optimistic.  Just recently, conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity, came out in favor for immigration reform and the Speaker of the House,  John Boehner, said he is “confident”  that the Republican congress can reach a deal on an immigration reform bill. Again, we are the ones who need to reach out in good faith and restart the dialogue. Therefore, I pray that the GOP will heed these words and consider the three top priorities of this frustrated Republican: God, family, and work/education. If we do anything less, failure is inevitable.

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. Thomas was born and raised in Arizona. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

Pro-Immigrant Republicans React to AZ Election Results: AZ Turning Purple!

Phoenix, Arizona – National pro-immigration GOP group Cafe Con Leche Republicans today reacted to Arizona’s election results.

Nationally, the election results show the Republican Party needs to fundamentally change the way the GOP engages with Hispanics, who overwhelmingly voted for Obama, especially the tone on immigration. According to a Pew Research polls, 62% of Hispanics are center-right ideologically, yet Mitt Romney received 23%, barely one third of that. Just eight years ago President Bush received over 40% of the Hispanic vote.

Mitt Romney received bad advice and focused messaging to Hispanics on the economy and largely ignored immigration. However, as Marco Rubio said “It’s very hard to make the economic argument to people who think you want to deport their grandmother.

In 1994 California Gov. Pete Wilson jumped on the anti-illegal immigration Proposition 187 bandwagon to bolster his flagging reelection poll numbers. Proposition 187 drove legions of conservative Hispanics from the GOP, and the GOP has not been competitive in statewide races in California ever since.

Arizona has been the scene of some of the harshest rhetoric on immigration, and this week’s election results show many Arizonans, especially Hispanics, reject extremism on immigration, and while they want secure borders, they also want practical and humane solutions to our broken immigration system.

For a ‘deep red’ state, this week’s results show that extremism on immigration is hurting the Republican Party in Arizona. Normally Arizona’s U.S. Senate seats are ‘safe’ for Republicans because Arizona is a very conservative state, but Jeff Flake received a bare majority, just 50.01%, in his U.S. Senate race against a Democratic candidate with considerable personal baggage.

It is rare for Libertarian candidates anywhere to receive more than 1% of the vote, but in Arizona many Libertarian candidates received well over 1% in competitive three-way races, while the Libertarian presidential candidate received 1.29% in Arizona versus 0.9% nationally. Here are the Libertarian Party unofficial results in competitive three-way races in Arizona from the Arizona Secretary of State web site:

U.S. Senate 4.38%
Congressional District 1 – 5.88% (Republican Jonathon Paton lost to Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick, 48.49% – 45.54% due to Libertarian vote)
Congressional District 3 – 4.37%
Congressional District 4 – 3.7%
Congressional District 6 – 3.29%
Congressional District 9 – 6.35% (Republican Vernon Parker lost to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema, 47.81% – 45.71% due to Libertarian vote)
Legislative District 8 Senator – 4.9% (Republican Joe Ortiz lost to Democrat Barbara McGuire, 48.68% – 46.32% due to Libertarian vote)

Libertarian party values and positions are much closer to conservatives than liberals, and it is apparent many conservatives voted Libertarian in protest against the Arizona GOP’s heavy tilt into extremism in recent years. In Congressional districts one and nine, and senator from LD 8, it is apparent the Libertarian candidate siphoned enough votes away from the GOP candidate that the Democrat won the election!

It would be easy to attribute the Libertarian protest vote to other reasons, but in the 2010 election Libertarian Andrea Garcia won 9% of the vote against Russell Pearce, one of Arizona’s most notorious immigration extremists, the second highest ever for any Libertarian candidate in a competitive three-way race. Andrea Garcia was a GOP activist for many years, before moving to Mesa and finding an unwelcome climate in the GOP there, and switching to Libertarian.

Another Republican activist for many years, Blanca Guerra, left the GOP and ran as a Libertarian, in large measure due to the hostility she encountered. Blanca was one of Cafe Con Leche Republican’s founding members, and initially ran as a GOP candidate for CD 3 before leaving the GOP (and Cafe Con Leche Republicans) to run as a Libertarian. In reviewing election results for CD 3 over a period of years shows candidates with more extreme views on immigration lose by larger margins.

A welcome exception to Arizona’s trend towards purple is Bob Worsley’s election as Senator in LD 25. Bob Worsley is a conservative Mormon, who has been pastor in a predominately Hispanic Church, spent years overseas as a missionary in Latin America, and has sensible views on immigration and understands immigration and Hispanics. Not surprisingly, he won handily against his Democratic opponent, and also handily defeated Russell Pearce in the GOP primary.

It’s time for a wave of change in the Arizona GOP. Arizona is clearly turning purple, and a high percentage of Hispanics, Arizona’s fastest growing demographic is voting Democrat, despite generally conservative values. We’ve lately heard rumors that Russell Pearce may become Arizona’s next state chairman. In our opinion, electing Russell Pearce as Arizona GOP Chairman would be catastrophic for the GOP. If anything Pearce should step down as First Vice-Chair, as he is one of the most polarizing figures in Arizona politics today. It’s time to return the Arizona GOP to the Party of Lincoln, following Reagan’s “big tent” model rather than shrinking the GOP base into something more of a ‘pup tent.’

####

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have members nationwide, with chapters in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.

(original link)

National Pro-Immigration GOP Group: Time to Make Lemonade from Lemons

Original link

Marshall, MN – National pro-immigration reform group Cafe Con Leche Republicans today reacted to the presidential election debacle. Bob Quasius, president, said

Yesterday’s election results show it is imperative that the Republican Party improve Latino outreach or become permanently uncompetitive in presidential and many other races. Exit and election-eve polls put Mitt Romney’s votes among Latinos at 23%, although over 60% of Latinos are center-right, according to Pew Research.

Polls consistently show a majority of Republicans support immigration reform, including a path to legalization, and a PEW Research poll from May 2011 showed that even among staunch conservatives there is a 49/49% split on immigration reform. However, due to lack of engagement and outreach and shrill rhetoric on this issue from a small minority of Republican politicians, Democrats have been successful in unfairly framing the Republican party as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, particularly in states where there has been harsh rhetoric on immigration.

This trend started in California. Prior to proposition 187, Republicans were competitive in statewide races, but since Governor Pete Wilson jumped on the proposition 187 bandwagon, many Hispanics left the GOP and since then the GOP has not been competitive in statewide races in California.

Latino outreach improved during the Reagan/Bush years, and President Bush won over 40% of the Latino vote during his reelection campaign, proving that Latinos can be swayed to vote Republican with the right messaging and sensible solutions to issues of interest to Latinos like immigration.

However, since SB1070 and other harsh laws were passed, mass exodus of conservative Hispanics has occurred in Colorado following Tom Tancredo’s candidacy for Governor, in Arizona following SB1070, and in Nevada due to harsh rhetoric from Sharon Angle in the U.S. Senate race.

Cafe Con Leche Republicans initially supported Newt Gingrich, and one of our reasons is that Newt’s campaign recognized the importance of outreach to Latinos and a sensible stance on immigration reform, neither mass amnesty nor mass deportations but a solution that addresses our broken immigration system and seeks to strike a balance between accountability for illegal immigration, and the need to keep families together and avoid damaging our economy. Newt’s campaign reached out to us, and ultimately Cafe Con Leche Republicans provided five members of Newt’s national Hispanic leadership team.

When Newt dropped out of the race and Mitt Romney became the nominee, we decided to support Mitt Romney. Numerous attempts to connect with the Romney campaign’s Hispanic outreach proved fruitless. In our one year of existence, we’ve also had just one conversation with the RNC’s Latino outreach, and were left with the impression the RNC wasn’t interested in working with us due to our pro-immigration focus.

A common complaint among Latino Republican leaders is that RNC Latino outreach is dominated by a small clique of Latino Republicans from Washington DC and Florida, to the exclusion of others, particularly from the Southwest. We share the frustration of Latino Republican leaders from outside the DC/Florida clique that Mitt Romney received bad advice to largely ignore immigration, and some of Mitt’s rhetoric and association with immigration extremist Kris Kobach early in the campaign provided useful fodder for Democrats to frame Mitt Romney as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, which we don’t believe is the case.

It’s time to root out the small minority of immigration extremists from the GOP. That process is already underway, for example Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, has now twice been defeated by conservative Republicans who differed mainly by having sensible positions on immigration reform. We’d like to see Kris Kobach leave the party. Kobach is a top lieutenant to John Tanton, a notorious bigot and population control progressive, who once bragged how he manipulates Republicans. In a letter to a supporter, Tanton in 2001 stated:

The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.”

Our plan is to hire a lobbyist who will carry the following message to Republicans on Capitol Hill and to business leaders: Continued massive immigration will soon cost you political control of the White House and Congress, given the current, even division of the electorate, and the massive infusion of voters about to be made to the Democratic side. We are about to replay the Democratic hegemony of 1933-53, fueled back then by the massive immigration of 1890-1924.

It’s time for the GOP to recognize this pattern of manipulation, and fully embrace immigration reform based on free market principles, and not arbitrarily low quotas promoted by population control progressives like Tanton. Harsh rhetoric on immigration coupled with lack of adequate engagement with Latinos and race baiting by Democrats has resulted in very low GOP support among Latinos, and we ignore this at our own political peril.

The 2012 election served up lemons for Republicans, but with sensible changes in strategy and direction we can make lemonade instead. Already we’re hearing that party leaders have woken up and ‘smelled the coffee’ and we’re hopeful this situation can be turned around.

President Obama promised to pursue immigration reform during his second term. Due to President Obama’s history of immigration fakery and failure to put anything on the table during his first term, we have reason to doubt this promise, but he is welcome to surprise us. With the election behind us, we have put our partisan hats and boxing gloves aside, and we stand fully ready to work with President Obama and Democrats on immigration reform, which won’t happen without bipartisan support. We hope that President Obama will ‘hit the reset button’ in his relationship with Republicans in Congress, as the hyper-partisanship that has characterized the last four years has been a major stumbling block to governing our nation.

####

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have members nationwide, with chapters in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.

Support Your Local Sheriff!

A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Support Your Local Sheriff! 

 

Joe has always been there for us, now it’s our turn to be there for him.
Help get out the Republican vote!

Give the chronically unemployed something to do for the next 4 years.

 

When is enough, enough?

A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona
Tuesday, October 30, 2012

When is enough, enough?

As the AP wrote on 10/22/12, “A federal judge refused to order counties to accept new voter registrations without the proof of citizenship mandated by Proposition 200.” U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver rejected arguments by various groups that federal law requires counties to honor a national mail-in voter registration form that does not require applicants to prove they are citizens. Silver said the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act are simply a starting point. She said states are free to enact measures – including requiring proof of citizenship – to make sure those people who sign up to vote are in fact legally qualified to do so.

Monday’s ruling does not end the lawsuits filed by organizations ranging from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the League of Women Voters to the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. It simply denies them the restraining order they sought for immediate relief.

Frustrated with the moves by Democrat then-Governor Janet Napolitano and the U.S. Congress’ efforts to reward illegal immigration by granting aliens licenses, government benefits, amnesty and the right to vote, I wrote Proposition 200 and with the help of wonderful Patriots took our battle to the streets; and gathered well over the needed signatures of 122,612 registered voters to put “Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act” on the 2004 ballot.  In November of 2004 it passed over whelmingly by the voters of Arizona. 

The Arizona Taxpayers and Citizens Protection Act (Prop 200) requires three things:

1.      Proof of citizenship to register to vote.

2.      Photo I.D. When voting.

3.      Proof of eligibility to receive public benefits. 

 Remember the 100,000 illegal alien march?  There chant was “today we march, tomorrow we Vote”.  Prop. 200 gave us standards, so out of 100,000 protest marchers only 126 were able to register to vote.  Apparently this offended the pro illegal alien crowd to actually require some evidence or proof and so they have taken Prop. 200 to court 7 times and always lose. Their effort is a continuous endeavor to gain political control at any cost, even if it means further destruction of the Rule of Law. They continue to invent arguments, while the whole issue is about ‘illegal’ vs. ‘legal’ and giving rights and benefits to people who are not entitled under the Constitution or the laws.  The issue is about corruption by the left in political power, and the cheap labor crowd (Profits over Patriotism as I call them) while the citizens and taxpayers pick up the tab.

 The Illegal Alien Invasion:

  •         10,000 daily crossing our borders, hundreds of thousands of “illegal” aliens marching in our streets demanding “rights.” Motto: “Today we march. Tomorrow we Vote.”
  •         Billions of dollars in costs – Our state health insurance system, AHCCCS, paid out $200 million dollars in 2001, in 2002 the amount increased almost 600% to 1.2 billion! $2.6 billion annually to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens in the state of Arizona
  •         Crime ridden neighborhoods
  •         Over 9,000 killed every single year by illegal aliens. according to a Congressional report
  • $2.6 billion annually in Arizona to educate, medicate and incarcerate
  • Voter fraud

 There is currently a battle raging in our country that will determine whether our nation enforces its immigration laws and secures its borders or becomes a victim of its enemies. We are a nation built upon the “rule of law,” and either we stand up for the principles that our Founding Fathers gave us to ensure lasting liberty, enshrined in a Constitution that protects those liberties, or we destroy all that is sacred and the end result will be a nation that commits suicide.

 I am the author of Proposition 200 in 2004 to stop voter fraud and taxpayers from abuse and fraud, The Arizona’s Legal Workers Act to protect jobs for Americans (upheld by the Supreme Court by a 5 to 3 decision in 2011), and SB1070 in 2010 to remove illegal sanctuary policies and allow law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws, among many others. SB1070 is supported by over 70% of Americans and 11 of the 14 sections were found to be legal, Constitutional and common sense by the Supreme Court.

 I wrote all of these to protect Arizona jobs, taxpayers, the integrity of our elections, including as MVD Director in 1996 NO drivers license if not “legally present” in the United States, I authored Proposition 100, 102, 103 and 300 all passed by 75% of Arizonans in 2006.  It has been a long fight to preserve the rule of law and protect the taxpayers and citizens of this state.

 They say this initiative is divisive? Like its name says, it seeks to protect Arizona taxpayers and citizens. The only divisiveness our initiative could cause might be between those for whom laws matter and those for whom laws don’t matter.

 Our local, state, and federal officials steadfastly refused to protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws. No longer can we sit on the sidelines and be spectators to the destruction of the Rule of Law or the cost to our citizens in crime, billions in dollars, jobs taken from Americans.  Enough is enough.  We must hold our elected and appointed officials accountable. It is up to us to do something about illegal activity and the issues of voter fraud and theft of taxpayer dollars.

 The time has come to fight.

  •         Fight to keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance;
  •         Fight to keep God in our national motto;
  •         Fight to keep the Ten Commandments on public display;
  •         Fight to return prayer to the classrooms;
  •         Fight against abortion;
  •         Fight against pornography;
  •         Fight to secure our borders;
  •         Fight to preserve the rule of law;
  •         Fight to protect the taxpayers from wasteful and unconstitutional spending by the government;
  •         Fight for our God given rights as recognized by our Founding Fathers;
  •         Fight, fight, fight, and (in the words of Winston Churchill) never, never, never, never give up!

 May God bless continue to bless the United States of America

Former President of the Senate Russell Pearce

 
 
Join Our Mailing List

A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona
Sunday, October 28, 2012

 My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys

October 27, 2012  

                                                                                    

Press Release: Pinal County Republican Committee endorses Steve Smith for Speaker of the Arizona House and Andy Biggs for President of the Arizona Senate

Today the Pinal County Republican Committee unanimously drafted Senator Steve Smith to be a candidate for Speaker of the Arizona House and endorsed Andy Biggs by acclimation for President of the Arizona Senate. This endorsement of legislative leadership is unprecedented in Party history and was taken due to the deep concerns about the failures of the current legislative leadership. The PCRC thanks Sen. Al Melvin for his floor motion to make the endorsements as well as his well-reasoned recitation outlining the substantive case necessitating this action.
 
November 6, 2012 marks one of the most important election dates in the history of our nation. The American public will determine the election of the world’s leader as well as the makeup of our Congress and state legislature. While that date will be remembered by millions for decades to come, another critical election will occur on November 7 that will certainly determine the course here in Arizona and that election will be unnoticed by all but a very few – the election of the Arizona Legislature leadership teams.
 
Arizona now more than ever needs strong and principled leaders who will correct the course of our economy, secure our border, reduce government intrusion into our lives, halt the rise of public employee union influence and restore our primary and secondary education options for parents, students and teachers.
 
It is clear that Republican Precinct Committeemen and the elected county and legislative district chairmen have earned the right and the responsibility to give counsel to those officials we will elect on the issue of who will lead our legislative efforts for the next two years. Over the last two years, the current leaders of our legislature have been steering an erratic course. It is a stark reality that the policies and principles endorsed by the electorate have been thwarted at the sole discretion of the current Senate President and Speaker of the House.
 
During the last session of our legislature, some of the most egregious leadership actions include:
 Killed critically important immigration legislation
 Killed pension reform legislation
 Killed public employee union reforms
 Killed State Guard legislation
 
Outside of the legislative session, the Senate President and Speaker raised hundreds of thousands of dollars with the promise that the Republican Victory Fund would be used to help elect Republicans during the General election. However, a large portion of these funds were used in a Republican Primary to defeat a conservative Republican Representative. This irresponsible decision is now being compounded by further incredulous actions in the General Election.
 
Legislative Districts 8, 9, and 10 are the most competitive districts in the state and we have highly qualified candidates, including many incumbents, who are being pummeled by the Democrat Party while NO support is provided from the so-called “Republican Victory Fund.” It is increasingly apparent that the funds are being spent to help only those candidates that would be a friendly vote for the reelection of the current leaders.
 
Gratefully, Senator Andy Biggs has stepped up to the plate as a candidate for Arizona Senate President. Senator Biggs has a strong history of principled conservative leadership and will lead our state senate on a course consistent with our Constitution and our Party Platform, and we heartily endorse his candidacy for this position. However, as we have seen in Washington, the efforts of one house of the legislature can be totally destroyed without the concurrence of the other.
Before today, no one had stepped up to contest Representative Tobin for the position of Speaker of the House. It is with that in mind that the Pinal County Republican Committee called upon its favorite son, Senator Steve Smith, to be a candidate for this important position. Steve Smith’s conservative credentials are unsurpassed, having achieved the highest rankings from the PAChyderm Coalition, the Goldwater Institute and Americans for Prosperity.
 
President Biggs and Speaker Smith would labor side-by-side to pass legislation to protect Arizonans during these challenging times and their first priority will be the citizens of Arizona, not their own personal political careers.
 
The necessary actions by this body should demonstrate the magnitude of the problem and encourage others across the state to join us in making sure that the people’s voice will be loudly and clearly heard.

Stephen Kohut
Chairman, Pinal County Republican Committee

 

http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/10/28/31099/

Part Two: Kyrsten Sinema Addresses SB1070, the Border and comments by Gabriela Saucedo Mercer with Muslim Community

*Last week, Honey Marques published an article on Western Free Press entitled ‘Kyrsten Sinema associates tied to Hamas-linked CAIR and other MB front groups: Part 1’ which exposed the questionable backgrounds of two individuals who sponsored an event for Sinema’s campaign. This second part includes audio files and deals with the event itself wherein Sinema took the opportunity to discuss with members of the Muslim community matters of immigration, border security and to deliver criticism of Republican congressional candidate, Gabriela Saucedo Mercer, who is running against the CD-3 incumbent Democrat Raul Grijalva, over comments she made in a discussion regarding OTMs (Other Than Mexicans).

***

1948 is a year of historic significance. It is the year in which the nation of Israel gained her independence.  Interestingly, 1948 is also the security code publicly listed on the Sinema campaign event page for entry into the residential area for those who attended the September 29 campaign event hosted by Hassan Elsaad and Mohamed El-Sharkawy.  It seemed a premonitory coincidence.

Upon entering the home of Hassan Elsaad, one was welcomed graciously. When Kyrsten Sinema spoke, she largely discussed her formative years which served as the basis for her future career as an attorney and in the Arizona state legislature highlighting her work on domestic violence issues. Certainly, working on issues concerning the serious nature of domestic violence is noble; however, most of the room was filled with men aligned with organizations, such as CAIR, which support the implementation of Shariah Law wherein the rights of women do not exist. Does Ms. Sinema realize the irony in her statements?

Sinema then invited the audience to ask questions. The first question was from a gentleman regarding her position on SB1070, which is in the following audio file: SB1070 discussion

The following highlights are worth noting from Sinema’s commentary:

  1. Sinema’s omission of the threat of violence coming from a group of people, categorized as OTMs, crossing our southern border illegally.  Many of these individuals include radical Islamic extremists coming from terrorist sponsoring nations whose only intentions are to bring Jihad to America.
  2. Referring to illegal Mexicans as “migrants.”  We used to call them “illegal aliens.”
  3. Accusing Sheriff Joe of “…specializing in abusing people’s civil liberties.”  This is factually inaccurate and misleading. See recent article posted in Feds Close Criminal Investigation into Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
  4. Advising Muslims who happen to be without “papers” to seek legal advice - indicating they may be unlawfully profiled if detained for not having proof of citizenship or legal residency. This seemed a potential incongruity. Why wouldn’t they have “papers” if they are here legally? Furthermore, law enforcement cannot inquire about one’s identification unless there is a question raised. For example, identity can be questioned during a routine traffic stop wherein a driver fails to produce a license or registration. If someone is questioned at a crime scene, again, they simply need to identify themselves – something we all do every single day through business transactions, writing checks, using or applying for credit or jobs, etc.

SB1070 was passed and signed into law as a step toward discouraging illegals from unlawful entry into the state in the first place. It was also written to put pressure on the federal government to finally do the job it isrequired to do which is to protect our border. Our state law mirrored federal law. All Arizona did was reiterate that responsibility and hold the federal government accountable on its duty. If Ms. Sinema is looking to point a finger at who has put Arizona’s citizens at risk, she ought to point to the federal government’s negligence, which has put an undue hardship on our ranchers, Arizona businesses, our state’s economy, education and healthcare institutions, law enforcement, and taxpayers.

Toward the end of the audio clip addressing SB1070, Sinema also addresses Mohamed El-Sharkawy’s work with law enforcement in Phoenix to assist with “cultural understanding.”  In order to truly understand the nature of such “understanding,” it is important to note that part of CAIR’s mission is for the Islamic community to foster a relationship within our law enforcement communities for the purpose of sensitivity training.  As readers may recall, Marques’ article last week revealed that the FBI “…cut all ties with Hamas-linked CAIR at both the national and local levels across the nation as a result of the findings of a 15-year FBI investigation of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HFL), the largest Islamic charity in the U.S. at that time.”

It is troubling that our local law enforcement is willing to work with El Sharkawy and Hamas-linked CAIR despite the FBI’s legitimate disassociation with the group. One wonders if CAIR addresses concerns about OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) with local law enforcement.  Again, such concern was clearly absent on the part of Kyrsten Sinema, who failed to mention the real threat of terrorists among OTMs before launching into an attack on comments delivered by Republican congressional candidate Gabriela Saucedo Mercer on the subject. An audience member asked for Sinema to respond to Mercer’s comments and here is what she had to say: Response to comments by Saucedo Mercer

First of all, Sinema appeared to be clueless about the true nature of Mercer’s comments or who Mercer was. Mercer’s statements were on point with OTMs crossing the southern border at an alarming rate.  (See full version of Mercer video where she clearly speaks of OTMs  beginning at 7:27; she refers to OTMs coming from ‘special interest countries’ our government defines as terrorist sponsoring nations: WFP Interviews Gabriela Saucedo Mercer).

The issue of OTMs from countries of special interest was something Sinema never addressed in previous audio clips or when speaking about her position on Immigration Reform.  For such an important topic, why was this issue not addressed with the group of moderate Muslims at the event who share the same concern about radical Islamic extremists committing terrorist acts against this nation?

CAIR Arizona was also very critical and accused Mercer of discriminating against all Middle Easterners which is simply not the truth. Even the media were quick to conveniently edit Mercer’s comments out of context as seen in this outrageous report: CAIR-AZ Asks Governor Not to Back GOP Candidate

The issue of Islamic radicals entering the United States illegally, and legally, with the intent to do our nation harm has been well documented. We know that some of the 9/11 terrorists were in this country legally. Some even attended flight schools, took English courses and lived in Arizona cities. As recently as September 2012, three men of Middle Eastern descent with ties to Hezbollah (one an American citizen and two citzens of Belize) were apprehended in Mexico.

In fact, reports are available online detailing the significant rise in OTM’s from countries of special interest (countries sponsoring terror networks) coming through our porous southern border (255 Illegals From Countries That Promote, Produce, Protect Terrorists Along US-Mexico Border;  Judicial Watch Obtains New Border Patrol Statistics for Illegal Alien Smugglers and “Special Interest Aliens”Foreign Terrorists Breach U.S. Border).

The Washington Times reported the following OTM information last year:

“Department of Homeland Security statistics confirm that hundreds of OTMs are apprehended each year. An independent analysis of department data shows that the problem of OTM apprehensions on the southwestern border has been growing at an alarming rate. While overall apprehensions at the Mexican border have declined dramatically – 67 percent – from 2000 to 2009, apprehensions of OTMs have not declined. In fact, apprehensions of OTMs and special-interest aliens – those migrants who originate in countries that are known to sponsor terror – have jumped during the same period – 58 percent and 67 percent, respectively.”

Read more: SWAIN & SHARAD: Radicals lay siege to our border – Washington Times

The CRS Report for Congress titled Border Security: Apprehensions of ‘Other Than Mexican’ Aliens (Updated June 20, 2006) also validates the Washington Times piece as illustrated in the following:

Overall OTM Apprehensions
Figure 1 shows the overall number of OTMs apprehended by the Border Patrol
over the past nine years. The number of OTM apprehensions remained relatively
stable from 1998 to 2002, averaging almost 37,000 a year over the six-year time
period. Apprehensions increased by 33% from FY2002 to FY2003, and 52% from
FY2003 to FY2004. In FY2005, OTM apprehensions more than doubled from
FY2004, increasing by 119%. Indeed, over the last three years OTM apprehensions
have more than quadrupled, increasing by 343%. This trend is in stark contrast to
apprehensions of Mexican aliens, which have remained relatively stable over the
same period. Figure 1 illustrates the dramatic increase in OTM apprehensions over
the past three years.

Surprisingly, no further updates for the CRS Report for Congress (Border Security: Apprehensions of ‘Other Than Mexican’ Alienswere found on the expected government websites listing CRS reports and  TRAC Immigration.

For someone seeking a congressional seat, and as one who has served in the legislature of a border state, it is incomprehensible that Sinema would not take the opportunity to discuss the OTM threat to an audience clearly raising questions about her immigration views. Her naïve approach and simplistic remarks regarding a very serious, timely, and dangerous threat to our national security and sovereignty cannot go without sound critique. In fact, what is most revealing is what was not said at the event (including discussions of the attacks in Libya or the situation in Syria). Aside from the occassional acknowledgement of cartels described as “bad,” mean,” or “dangerous,” Sinema made their activity and presence on the border appear as a remote issue altogether separate from the popular narrative of the poor seeking a better life (as if breaking federal law and not honoring our immigration system somehow illustrates one’s pursuit of a better life). Perhaps if one’s goal is to see the Dream Act manifest nationally and cater to groups of people for political points instead of promoting assimilation into American life, then it is rather inconvenient to present sound truths and solid solutions rooted in the preservation of America’s heritage.

During the event, Sinema brought up her desire that all who wish to enter this country to achieve the American Dream be given the opportunity to do so, failing to note that that opportunity already exists in the form of legal immigration. To listen to Sinema’s comments, one  would think there were no present “path” to citizenship. Of course, we have had a process from the founding of this country whereby one becomes a citizen; it is rooted in shedding allegiances to the country of origin in order to adopt American values, laws, and language so as to assimilate and contribute to this great nation. It appears that some in attendance of this event view themselves as victims, and stated so; some choose to self-segregate, referring only to their community and desire to reinforce their own history and culture, which is being done through their own schools. Sinema also spoke of the school noted in the previous audio link.

There was an additional concern brought up by someone in attendance referring to “special needs” of their community being addressed by government officials: The community addressing congress. In the link, Sinema also mentions that Keith Ellison, the Muslim congressman from Minnesota, held a fundraiser for her recently. Please listen to full audio carefully to hear a man in attendance mention Ellison’s suggestion that they (in the Muslim community) pay a pilgrimage to DC as they do to Mecca.

Many in attendance have been in this country for some time. Some expressed their involvement in politics stemming back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Assuming they are citizens or here with legal residency, are they not afforded the same Constitutional rights as ALL Americans?  Once someone becomes a citizen of this country, they become the beneficiaries of the same rights that any other American enjoys including the freedom to practice their faith, vote, have a voice, and to enjoy the unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness – just as Gabriela Saucedo Mercer chose to do. Therefore, the Muslim community is not being disenfranchised. Self-segregating instead of assimilating is entirely their preference; however, it does not constitute as any sort of disenfranchisement worthy of a congressional ear.

The September 29 event would have been a perfect opportunity for Kyrsten Sinema to educate instead of fostering a mentality of victimhood within the community, reinforcing false narratives concerning major legislation, and failing to adequately address the mortal danger presented by the federal government’s negligence on border security and abandoning current immigration policy.

So what additional “special needs” are being demanded from the Muslim community when their civil liberties are already protected equally as with non-Muslims under our Constitution? Does Sharia Law now become part of that discussion of “special needs” (CAIR’s Sharia Fog Machine)?

The event for Kyrsten Sinema never became an outright discussion on Sharia Law; however, Arizonans should be concerned about candidates and sitting representatives sympathizing with and having support among groups (like CAIR) who advocate for the implementation of Sharia Law – at any level – for it cannot coexist with the Constitution of the United States.

 

See supported links below including extra audio from the September 29 event.

Audio:

Response to housewife comments, NRCC ads, being referred to as communist

Mohamed speaking about Sinema

Corey Harris speaks

Sinema identifies points of importance to her

 

Site links for more info:

DHS Funded Report Assesses Factors Related to Violent Extremism Among Somalis in Minneapolis-St. Paul

Southwest Border Violence: Issues In Identifying and Measuring Spillover Violence

Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress

Hezbollah: Background and Issues for Congress

Immigration Fiscal Impact Statement

HB 2582: Arizona’s attempt to stop Sharia Law in the state

Clint Bolick discusses upcoming book on Immigration Reform on AZPBS’ Horizon

ICYMI: Goldwater Institute extraordinaire appeared on Arizona KAET’s Horizon Wednesday night discussing his upcoming book on  immigration reform. Clint will be co-authoring this work with former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush. The book is scheduled for release next May.

YouTube Preview Image

Arizona Correctional Officers Endorse Sheriff Paul Babeu

Florence, Ariz. – The Arizona Correctional Peace Officers Association (AZCPOA) formally endorsed Sheriff Paul Babeu for re-election. The labor organization represents 2,500 correction officers throughout Arizona, and many reside in Pinal County with their families.

Kevin McClellan, AZCPOA president said, “Paul Babeu is a great leader, who has delivered results. Not only have the emergency response times improved, Sheriff Paul has increased neighborhood patrols, focused on training and new technology to help his staff do their jobs. We support and proudly endorse Sheriff Paul Babeu for re-election. Sheriff Paul understands the need to ensure our prisons and county jails are secure to keep the criminals behind bars and away from our families. This requires proper facility and equipment maintenance, new technology and continual staff training to ensure that we can meet any threat.”

Sheriff Babeu said, “I’m proud to earn the endorsement from our correctional officers who help keep Pinal County safe. Many correctional and detention officers live locally and they need to know they have our full support and deep appreciation as protectors of our community.”

Sheriff Babeu continued, “Our own Pinal County Jail recently received national accreditation for excellent security, health care, programing, facility maintenance, food services and the quality of staff training. We run the best Jail in Arizona and this is evidenced in our perfect 100% audit rating. We are the only Arizona Jail to receive these high marks and earn national accreditation. I’m so proud of our detention officers and civilian staff that are so disciplined and work hard to protect our families.”

Sheriff Paul Babeu was named America’s 2011 Sheriff of the Year, the first time an Arizona Sheriff has been recognized with this prestigeous honor by National Sheriff’s Association. He reduced his budget by 10% while decreasing response times to emergencies by 50%. As a police officer, Babeu was awarded two medals for saving lives, and served as President of the Chandler Law Enforcement Association. A retired Major in the United States Army National Guard, he commanded Task Force Yuma, which reduced illegal border crossings by 97%, and served a tour of duty in Iraq.

Sheriff Babeu has an Associates Degree in Law Enforcement, Bachelor’s Degree in History and a Masters of Public Administration. Babeu served for two years as the President of the Arizona Sheriff’s Association and is a national leader on fighting illegal immigration, violent Mexican Drug Cartels and fighting the Obama/Holder administrations’ Fast and Furious gun running program. Sheriff Babeu is a member of the American Legion, VFW, board member for the Arizona Peace Officers Memoral and National Organization for Victims’ Rights.

Rep. Ben Quayle Discusses Border Security on Fox and Friends

YouTube Preview Image