Reflexiones Día del Padre: el futuro de nuestros niños en América – República O Presidencia Imperial

Inmigración: Debate Obama la Presidencia – Imperial de Obama al Departamento de Justicia de El Desafío de Arizona Immigration Law.    

Ley de Extranjería. Para una revisión detallada de las leyes de inmigración en Arizona y la historia de las leyes de inmigración de los Estados Unidos, véase: http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from- ficción-se-que-cansados-de-ser-mintió-a /   

Justicia de Obama Departamento ha confirmado que presentará una demanda contra la ley de Arizona de Inmigración.  Una revisión detallada de la ley se puede encontrar en el sitio arriba.                             

JAMES MADISON

 Como este escritor ha declarado en anteriores posts, el desafío de la Administración se producirá un error.

El propósito de este artículo no es revisar la constitucionalidad de la ley de Arizona, sin embargo, me referiré brevemente a las tres razones del estado será la ley de Arizona encontró que Constitucional.

1). “equal La ley de Arizona no viola la Enmienda 14 ª de la Constitución, ya que no viola derechos de cualquier individuo a la “igualdad de protection” under the law. protección “ante la ley. La ley de Arizona prohíbe específicamente la discriminación por perfil racial. La ley no permite ningún agente del orden público “parar o detener a” una persona y pedir su identificación.  La ley ordena a la policía para interrogar a un “sospechoso” bajo investigación por la violación de algún delito, que no sea un delito la inmigración, sobre su estatus migratorio, si el sospechoso no puede identificarse durante el interrogatorio.  La ley enumera 11 tipos diferentes de identificación que se establece la presunción de la ciudadanía legal o de residencia legal.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

THOMAS JEFFERSON2).  La ley no viola el artículo 6 de la Constitución, ya que no violan el Gobierno Federal ‘s derecho a legislar leyes de inmigración del 

país. La ley de Arizona no “usurpar” el derecho del Gobierno Federal para establecer cupos de inmigración o la emisión de documentos de inmigración. El Gobierno Federal tiene el derecho exclusivo de determinar el número de los inmigrantes al País cada año y el número de inmigrantes se concedió la ciudadanía cada año. El Gobierno Federal tiene el derecho exclusivo de establecer requisitos específicos para aquellos que buscan la ciudadanía y los criterios de “deportar” a los que han entrado en el país.  La ley de Arizona no usurpar el poder reserva para el uso exclusivo del Gobierno Federal.

Las notas de la ley de Arizona que Arizona agentes del orden público tienen “jurisdicción concurrente y la responsabilidad” con la Ley Federal funcionarios encargados de hacer cumplir la ley federal de inmigración, algo que se señala en la Ley Federal de los estatutos de inmigración. Específicamente, la ley exige que todos los de Arizona del Estado de Arizona agentes del orden cumplan con las disposiciones de la Reforma de Inmigración Ilegal y Responsabilidad del Inmigrante de 1996, la última “ley integral de inmigración” aprobada por el Congreso de los EE.UU.. La ley de Arizona no usurpar la Federal derechos Gobierno; los mandatos de cumplimiento del estado de Arizona Ley con los estatutos aprobados por el Gobierno Federal.

Me referiré brevemente a señalar aquí, que el artículo 6 de la Constitución reserva ciertos derechos para el Gobierno Federal. Artículo 6, se reserva los derechos para todos los tres poderes del Gobierno Federal; El Ejecutivo, el Legislativo y el Judicial. The Obama  Las acciones actuales de la Administración de Obama son un intento de usurpar las facultades constitucionales otorgadas a los poderes legislativo y judicial de nuestro gobierno. La Administración Obama cree en una Presidencia Imperial “en lugar de una” República Constitucional “. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c . htm   

3).Cuando los Tribunales de revisar la constitucionalidad de cualquier ley dada, la determinación de la constitucionalidad no se basa en

BEN FRANKLIN

 la posibilidad de que un individuo puede cometer un acto de “abuso de autoridad”.

Misfeasance is defined as: a). Abuso de autoridad se define como: a).  un agravio, real o supuesta, que surja de o que consiste en la acción afirmativa. b). el ejercicio ilícito de un legítimo actuar normalmente, el ejercicio abusivo y perjudicial de la autoridad legítima. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misfeasance

Inconstitucional se define como: no autorizada por o incompatible con la Constitución. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unconstitutional

Ejemplo: El límite de velocidad en frente de mi casa está a 25 millas por hora. No hay nada “inconstitucional” sobre esta ley o la creación de una milla 25 horas un límite de velocidad.  Si un agente de la policía tira más de un conductor negro, porque son de color negro y no porque exceso de velocidad se, este funcionario ha cometido un acto de discriminación racial El perfil racial es un acto de mala conducta que se castiga tanto en los tribunales penales y civiles, sin embargo, la ley límite de velocidad es constitucional y no hay duda de que la ley límite de velocidad es constitucional. Ninguno!

Varias secciones de la Ley de Arizona prohíben la discriminación racial. La ley de Arizona es constitucional. Si alguno de Arizona Aplicación de la ley oficial comete un acto de “perfiles raciales” hoy, en régimen de la nueva ley de Arizona o de otros leyes, este funcionario es culpable de “mal desempeño” y ha cometido un delito, tanto civiles como penales. El perfil racial es ilegal en Arizona hoy, la nueva ley de Arizona no cambia ese hecho, y lo confirma. http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/the-immigration-debate-mr-president-apologize -to-the-estado-de-arizona-infidencia-is-not-inconstitucional-obama-raza-Balter en jefe /

Imperial Presidencia de Obama

La Administración Obama sabe la Ley de Arizona que se Constitucional.

El desafío de la Administración de Obama de la ley es, sin embargo, sus raíces en una cuestión constitucional importante. La Administración Obama está tratando de subvertir nuestra Constitución y crear una presidencia imperial.

Presidencia Imperial vs República Constitucional

Los Estados Unidos es una República Constitucional. Una República se define como “un estado en el que descansa el poder supremo en el cuerpo de los ciudadanos con derecho a voto y se ejerce por los representantes elegidos directa o indirectamente por ellos.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republic

En nuestra República Constitucional elegimos a nuestros representantes y gobiernan con nuestro consentimiento. En nuestra Constitucional nuestra República del Gobierno Federal se divide en tres ramas iguales, Ejecutivo, Legislativo y Judicial. Cada una de las ramas tiene sus propios derechos y sus deberes o responsabilidades. La responsabilidad primera de estas, un “deber” compartida por todos los miembros de todas las ramas de nuestro Gobierno, es el “deber” de “proteger y defender nuestra Constitución”. Nuestra Constitución también establece que no a un derecho específico otorgado al Gobierno Federal se reserva para los gobiernos de los estados individuales.

DEATH OF GENERAL WARREN AT BUNKER HILL

Imperial se define como: como, o en relación con un imperio, emperador o emperatriz. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Imperial

Un emperador se define como el soberano o supremo gobernante de un imperio masculina: como en los emperadores de Roma. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Emperor

Los emperadores fueron gobernantes autocráticos: una autocracia es una forma de gobierno en el que una persona posee un poder ilimitado. An t autocra es una persona (como en un emperador) sentencia con autoridad ilimitada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

Un solo gobernante con poder ilimitado y la autoridad ilimitada. Poder y la autoridad tomar de la

THE BOSTON TEA PARTY

 gente que no se concedió por el pueblo.

Bajo Régimen Imperial todos los derechos y las libertades civiles pertenecientes al Emperador. Nuestra República se funda en la creencia de que los derechos fundamentales pertenecen a los ciudadanos de la República y son “inalienables” de que esos derechos fundamentales no pueden ser transferidos a otra persona o quitado por el Gobierno.

el intento de Obama de eludir la Constitución y crear un Presidencia Imperial

De acuerdo con nuestra República Constitucional el derecho a crear y aprobar leyes recae en el Legislativo. Nuestra Corte Suprema ha dictaminado que el Congreso de los EE.UU. tiene el derecho exclusivo de aprobar leyes que establecen cuotas de inmigración o los límites y que todas las cuotas de inmigración “y” limitaciones “establecidos por el Congreso son vinculantes para el Poder Ejecutivo y los estados individuales. El Tribunal Supremo también ha declarado que los estados individuales tienen una “jurisdicción concurrente” para hacer cumplir nuestras leyes de inmigración federales. Para hacer cumplir las leyes federales de inmigración, para no volver a escribir.  La ley de Arizona no intenta reescribir las leyes aprobadas por el Congreso, de hecho, la ley de Arizona exige la aplicación de la Ley Federal de Inmigración 1996 – Reforma de Inmigración Ilegal y Responsabilidad del Inmigrante de 1996.

El presidente Obama y varios miembros de la Administración Obama cree en el concepto de “fronteras abiertas”.

La administración de Obama apoya una “amnistía” para los extranjeros ilegales.

Una política de “fronteras abiertas”, la eliminación de las cuotas de inmigración. Bajo una política de “fronteras abiertas”: cualquier migrante, de cualquier país, tendría libertad para entrar y vivir en los Estados Unidos una vez que cruzaron nuestra frontera.

Este artículo no se debate si debemos adoptar una política de “fronteras abiertas” o de la subvención sin embargo, un adicional de “amnistía”, el tercero una “amnistía” en los últimos 30 años, antes de asegurar nuestras fronteras.

Este puesto se nota el intento de la Administración de Obama para usurpar el poder otorgado por la Constitución a los Poderes Legislativo y Judicial y crear una presidencia imperial.

Cuando la Administración Obama afirma que quieren “una reforma migratoria integral” de la Administración significa que quieren una política de “fronteras abiertas” con una “amnistía” para los que actualmente dentro de nuestras fronteras ilegalmente.

La inmensa mayoría de los estadounidenses son diametralmente opuestas a esa “política de fronteras abiertas” o la aplicación de un adicional “amnistía”.

De acuerdo con nuestra República Constitucional, la aplicación de ese cambio en nuestras “leyes existentes” tendría que ser iniciado por nuestro Congreso, no la administración de Obama o el Poder Ejecutivo.

Una propuesta para adoptar un “política de puertas abiertas” o un programa de “amnistía” sería derrotado en las dos Cámaras del Congreso de los EE.UU..

La Administración Obama quiere aplicar dos políticas de inmigración, pero no tiene el poder constitucional para hacerlo, dos políticas fuerte oposición de la rama legislativa y la mayoría de los estadounidenses.

Prevenir la Constitución de forma unilateral la aplicación de estos cambios, la Administración de Obama ha adoptado políticas e ignoró las leyes existentes en la Administración de intento de implementar un “de facto” de fronteras abiertas y un programa de amnistía. (“De facto”: realmente existente, sin autorización legal). http: / / dictionary.reference.com / explorar / + de facto )

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR - PICKETT'S CHARGE - GETTYSBERG

La Administración está voluntariamente en su defecto para asegurar nuestras fronteras. La Administración se niega a enviar los recursos adecuados para asegurar nuestras fronteras y ha llegado siquiera a implementar el 1200 la Guardia Nacional había prometido a nuestros estados fronterizos. Al adoptar estas medidas la Administración de Obama ha pasado a usurpar (para usar sin autoridad o derecho) facultades otorgadas al Congreso por la Constitución. La Administración Obama no puede conseguir un programa de amnistía “o una política de” fronteras abiertas “pasó por el Congreso que la Constitución exige, por lo que la administración de Obama está adoptando extra constitucionales (no autorizada por o basado en una constitución, más allá de las disposiciones de una constitución) medidas para lograr políticas que no pueden obtener por la Constitución. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extraconstitutional 

el intento de Obama de eludir la Constitución y crear un Presidencia Imperial 

De acuerdo con nuestra República Constitucional el derecho a crear y aprobar leyes recae en el Legislativo. Nuestra Corte Suprema ha dictaminado que el Congreso de los EE.UU. tiene el derecho exclusivo de aprobar leyes que establecen cuotas de inmigración o los límites y que todas las cuotas de inmigración “y” limitaciones “establecidos por el Congreso son vinculantes para el Poder Ejecutivo y los estados individuales. El Tribunal Supremo también ha declarado que los estados individuales tienen una “jurisdicción concurrente” para hacer cumplir nuestras leyes de inmigración federales. Para hacer cumplir las leyes federales de inmigración, para no volver a escribir.  La ley de Arizona no intenta reescribir las leyes aprobadas por el Congreso, de hecho, la ley de Arizona exige la aplicación de la Ley Federal de Inmigración 1996 – Reforma de Inmigración Ilegal y Responsabilidad del Inmigrante de 1996.

  

WORLD WAR I - AMERICAN DOUGH BOYS

El presidente Obama y varios miembros de la Administración Obama cree en el concepto de “fronteras abiertas”.

 

La administración de Obama apoya una “amnistía” para los extranjeros ilegales.

Una política de “fronteras abiertas”, la eliminación de las cuotas de inmigración. Bajo una política de “fronteras abiertas”: cualquier migrante, de cualquier país, tendría libertad para entrar y vivir en los Estados Unidos una vez que cruzaron nuestra frontera.

Este artículo no se debate si debemos adoptar una política de “fronteras abiertas” o de la subvención sin embargo, un adicional de “amnistía”, el tercero una “amnistía” en los últimos 30 años, antes de asegurar nuestras fronteras.

Este puesto se nota el intento de la Administración de Obama para usurpar el poder otorgado por la Constitución a los Poderes Legislativo y Judicial y crear una presidencia imperial.

Cuando la Administración Obama afirma que quieren “una reforma migratoria integral” de la Administración significa que quieren una política de “fronteras abiertas” con una “amnistía” para los que actualmente dentro de nuestras fronteras ilegalmente.

La inmensa mayoría de los estadounidenses son diametralmente opuestas a esa “política de fronteras abiertas” o la aplicación de un adicional “amnistía”.

De acuerdo con nuestra República Constitucional, la aplicación de ese cambio en nuestras “leyes existentes” tendría que ser iniciado por nuestro Congreso, no la administración de Obama o el Poder Ejecutivo.

Una propuesta para adoptar un “política de puertas abiertas” o un programa de “amnistía” sería derrotado en las dos Cámaras del Congreso de los EE.UU..

La Administración Obama quiere aplicar dos políticas de inmigración, pero no tiene el poder

WORLD WAR II - D DAY - G.I. JOES - OMAHA BEACH

constitucional para hacerlo, dos políticas fuerte oposición de la rama legislativa y la mayoría de los estadounidenses.

Prevenir la Constitución de forma unilateral la aplicación de estos cambios, la Administración de Obama ha adoptado políticas e ignoró las leyes existentes en la Administración de intento de implementar un “de facto” de fronteras abiertas y un programa de amnistía. (“De facto”: realmente existente, sin autorización legal). http: / / dictionary.reference.com / explorar / + de facto )

La Administración está voluntariamente en su defecto para asegurar nuestras fronteras. La Administración se niega a enviar los recursos adecuados para asegurar nuestras fronteras y ha llegado siquiera a implementar el 1200 la Guardia Nacional había prometido a nuestros estados fronterizos. Al adoptar estas medidas la Administración de Obama ha pasado a usurpar (para usar sin autoridad o derecho) facultades otorgadas al Congreso por la Constitución. La Administración Obama no puede conseguir un programa de amnistía “o una política de” fronteras abiertas “pasó por el Congreso que la Constitución exige, por lo que la administración de Obama está adoptando extra constitucionales (no autorizada por o basado en una constitución, más allá de las disposiciones de una constitución) medidas para lograr políticas que no pueden obtener por la Constitución. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extraconstitutional 

La Administración Obama debe impugnar la Ley de Arizona, no porque la Administración considera que la ley sea inconstitucional, sino porque la administración teme que otros Estados aprobar leyes similares. La Administración Obama debe desafiar la ley de Arizona porque los intentos de las administraciones de Obama para aplicar “de facto” la amnistía y las políticas de fronteras abiertas se verá frustrado por los Estados, cuando los Estados se mueven para hacer cumplir las leyes aprobadas por el Congreso por la Constitución.

La Administración Obama se ve como una presidencia imperial – con el presidente Obama como el autócrata omnipotente – que poseen un poder ilimitado, la autoridad ilimitada y sin restricciones por limitaciones constitucionales. Un autócrata libre de ignorar su juramento de “proteger y defender la Constitución”, libertad en la aplicación selectiva o ignorar las leyes de la tierra como le plazca, libertad para aplicar sus políticas sin el asesoramiento o el consentimiento del Congreso o el pueblo estadounidense.

Prólogo:

La antigua Roma que comenzó como una República. Al igual que los Estados Unidos, la República de Roma fue fundada tras el derrocamiento de la monarquía. La República romana se basaba en una Constitución, que honra los principios de separación de poderes, de la necesidad de un sistema de frenos y contrapesos en el Gobierno. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

Guerra de Corea - marines en Inchon

El fin de la república romana fue provocada por los dirigentes romanos que “la transición” de Roma, los líderes que “una transformación fundamental” de Roma de una República a un Estado Imperial Un estado gobernado por emperadores autocráticos. Los emperadores eran hombres que subvierte la Constitución romana por su propio poder, para su beneficio político propio. El Emperador usurpado los poderes otorgados al Senado romano y la Asamblea Legislativa y después de consolidar su poder se proclamaron dictadores perpetuos (Julio César http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic ), Suprema Majestad (Augusto), César Imperator Maximus Naughtius Pretencioso Stroppius Homosexius Nero Augusto (Nero, http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nero ) y Calígula (Cayo Julio César Augusto Germánico, http://www.roman-emperors.org/nero.htm ).

Dictador: una persona que ejerce el poder absoluto, un gobernante que tiene, sin restricciones el control absoluto en un gobierno. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictator

Mi generación estaba muy familiarizado con un dicho (en realidad es un título del libro), “Auge y caída del Imperio Romano”. Roma se levantó como una República y Roma cayó porque era “una transformación fundamental” en un imperio autocrático gobernados por déspotas. Déspota: un rey o gobernante otros con poder absoluto, ilimitado; autócrata. o cualquier tirano opresor. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/despot

Es irónico que la batalla que viene de Estados Unidos, una batalla que determinará si el país seguirá siendo una República Constitucional o ser “transformado fundamentalmente” en una presidencia imperial, se pelearon por la cuestión de la inmigración ilegal, y muy especialmente, la inmigración ilegal en el Estado de Arizona. verdadero objetivo del Presidente, una usurpación extra constitucional de las competencias conferidas al Congreso, se está disfrazado de una falsa “asunto de derechos civiles”. Una cuestión falsa, el Presidente está explotando para obtener el apoyo político entre los hispanos y su base de extrema izquierda. El Presidente es culpable de “hostigamiento raza” como se traslada a su esatblish Imperial Presidencia. El segmento hispano de su base tiene vínculos muy estrechos con nuestro vecino del sur, México. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/obamas-race-baiting/

VIETNAM: INSERCIÓN DE TROPA – “HOT LZ”

México, el país que dos veces tuvo que luchar para escapar del despotismo de los emperadores. (En 1821, cuando México declaró su independencia de España (la Independencia de México) y en 1867 al final del Segundo Imperio Mexicano).  México lucharon de nuevo, por tercera vez, para liberar al país de otro gobernante autocrático (Porfirio Díaz) durante la Revolución Mexicana (1910 – 1920). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mexican_Empire                                                                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution

¿Cómo puede el País de México, un país que ha probado la violencia del régimen autocrático 3 veces

AMNESTY - OPEN BORDERS

 en los últimos 150 años y tuvieron su Revolución hace menos de 100 años, el apoyo o aplaudir la “transformación fundamental” de América en lo que ellos, los los mexicanos, quieren huir. México ha rechazado la regla imperial tres veces, sin embargo, México apoyaría la “transformación fundamental” de la República a Estados Unidos a una presidencia imperial.

Es el propósito de venir a América sus raíces en el deseo de compartir en el sueño americano, a abrazar la República que representa o es el objetivo de “transformar radicalmente” Estados Unidos, transformar la República en otro imperio, un imperio gobernado por un imperial Presidencia, una Presidencia Imperial, donde un hombre o una mujer con autoridad normativa ilimitada y un poder ilimitado?

Recuerde estas dos cosas: 1). Nunca ha habido un dictador “compasivo” o “déspota”, y 2). Los dictadores no son ni liberales ni conservadores, sino que son primero y siempre, los dictadores. 

¿Cómo puede el País de México, un país que ha probado la violencia del régimen autocrático 3 veces en los últimos 150 años y tuvieron su Revolución hace menos de 100 años, el apoyo o aplaudir la “transformación fundamental” de América en lo que ellos, los los mexicanos, quieren huir. México ha rechazado la regla imperial tres veces, sin embargo, México apoyaría la “transformación fundamental” de la República a Estados Unidos a una presidencia imperial.

 

Es el propósito de venir a América sus raíces en el deseo de compartir en el sueño americano, a abrazar la República que representa o es el objetivo de “transformar radicalmente” Estados Unidos, transformar la República en otro imperio, un imperio gobernado por un imperial Presidencia, una Presidencia Imperial, donde un hombre o una mujer con autoridad normativa ilimitada y un poder ilimitado?

Recuerde estas dos cosas: 1). Nunca ha habido un dictador “compasivo” o “déspota”, y 2). Los dictadores no son ni liberales ni conservadores, sino que son primero y siempre, los dictadores.

IRAK 1991 - F15E

 

The Immigration Debate: Obama’s Justice Department to Challenge Arizona Immigration Law – Obama’s Imperial Presidency

The Immigration Debate: Obama’s Imperial Presidency – Obama’s Justice Department to Challenge Arizona JAMES MADISON Immigration LawFor a detailed review of Arizona’s immigration law and the history of America’s immigration laws see: http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/

Obama’s Justice Department has confirmed that it will file a legal challenge to Arizona’s Immigration law. A detailed review of the law can be found at the above site.

As this writer has stated in previous posts, the Administration’s challenge will fail.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

The purpose of this post is not to review the constitutionality of the Arizona law; however, I will briefly state the three reasons the Arizona law will be found to be Constitutional.

1). The Arizona law does not violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as it does not violate any individual’s rights to “equal protection” under the law. The Arizona Law specifically prohibits racial profiling. The law does not allow for any law enforcement officer to “stop or detain” an individual and ask for their identification. The law instructs law enforcement officers to question a “suspect” under investigation for the violation of some crime, other than an immigration crime, about their immigration status, if the suspect cannot produce identification during questioning. The law lists 11 different types of identification that will create a presumption of legal citizenship or legal residency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause                                                          

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

2). The law does not violate Article 6 of the Constitution as it does not violate the Federal Government’ s right to legislate the country’s

BEN FRANKLYN

 immigration laws. The Arizona law does not “usurp” the Federal Government’s right to set immigration quotas or to issue immigration documents. The Federal Government has the exclusive right to determine how many immigrants will enter the Country every year and how many immigrants will be granted citizenship every year. The Federal Government has the exclusive right to set specific requirements for those seeking citizenship and criteria for “deporting” those who have entered the Country. The Arizona Law does not usurp any power preserved for the exclusive use of the Federal Government.

The Arizona law notes that Arizona Law enforcement officers have “concurrent jurisdiction and responsibility” with Federal Law Enforcement Officials for enforcing Federal Immigration law, something noted in the Federal Immigration statutes. Specifically, the Arizona law mandates that all Arizona State Law Enforcement officers comply with the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the last “comprehensive immigration law” passed by the U.S. Congress. The Arizona law does not usurp the Federal Government’s rights; the Arizona Law mandates state compliance with the statutes passed by the Federal Government.

I will briefly note here, that Article 6 of the Constitution reserves certain rights to the Federal Government. Article 6 reserves those rights for all three branches of the Federal Government; The Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. The Obama Administration’s current actions are an attempt to usurp the constitutional powers granted to the legislative and judicial branches of our government. The Obama Administration believes in an “Imperial Presidency” rather than a “Constitutional Republic”.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause                                                                http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm       

3). When the Courts review the constitutionality of any given law, the determination of constitutionality is not based on the possibility that some individual may commit an act of “misfeasance”. 

THE DEATH OF GENERAL WARREN AT BUNKER HILL

Misfeasance is defined as: a). a wrong, actual or alleged, arising from or consisting of affirmative action. b). the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; the wrongful and injurious exercise of lawful authority. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misfeasance

 Unconstitutional is defined as: unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unconstitutional 

 Example: The speed limit in front of my home is 25 miles per hour. There is nothing “unconstitutional” about that law or setting a 25 mile an hour speed limit. If a law enforcement officer pulls over a black driver, because they are black and not because they were speeding, that officer has committed an act of racial profiling. Racial profiling is an act of malfeasance which is punishable in both the criminal and civil courts, however, the speed limit law is constitutional and there is no question that the speed limit law is constitutional. None!

Multiple sections of the Arizona Law prohibit racial profiling.  The Arizona Law is Constitutional. If any Arizona Law Enforcement Officer commits an act of “racial profiling” today, under either the new law or other existing Arizona Laws, that officer is guilty of “malfeasance” and has committed both a civil and criminal offense. Racial profiling is illegal in Arizona today, the new Arizona Law does not change that fact, and it confirms it. http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/the-immigration-debate-mr-president-apologize-to-the-state-of-arizona-misfeasance-is-not-unconstitutional-obama-race-baiter-in-chief/

Obama’s Imperial Presidency

The Obama Administration knows the Arizona Law to be Constitutional.

The Obama Administration’s challenge to the law is, however, rooted in a significant constitutional question. The Obama Administration is attempting to subvert our Constitution and create an Imperial Presidency.

Imperial Presidency vs. Constitutional Republic

The United States is a Constitutional Republic. A Republic is defined as “a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republic  

BOSTON TEA APRTY

In our Constitutional Republic we select our representatives and they govern with our consent. In our Constitutional Republic our Federal Government is divided into three equal branches, Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary. Each of the branches has its own rights and its own duties or responsibilities. The first such responsibility, a “duty” shared by every member of every branch of our Government, is the “duty” to “protect and defend our Constitution”. Our Constitution also states that any right not specifically granted to the Federal Government is reserved for the governments of the individual states.

Imperial is defined as:  like, or pertaining to an empire, emperor or empress. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Imperial

An emperor is defined as the male sovereign or supreme ruler of an empire: as in the emperors of Rome. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Emperor

Emperors were autocratic rulers: An autocracy is a form of government in which one person possesses unlimited power.  An autocrat is a person (as in an Emperor) ruling with unlimited authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

A single ruler with unlimited power and unlimited authority. Power and authority taken from the people not granted by the people.

Under Imperial Rule all rights and civil liberties belong to the Emperor. Our Republic is founded on the belief that basic rights belong to the citizens of the Republic and are “inalienable”: that these basic rights cannot be transferred to someone else or taken away by the Government.  

CIVIL WAR - PICKETT'S CHARGE AT GETTYSBERG

Obama’s Attempt to Circumvent the Constitution and Create an Imperial Presidency

Under our Constitutional Republic the right to create and pass laws rests with the Legislative Branches. Our Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Congress has the exclusive right to pass laws that establish immigration quotas or limits and that all “immigration quotas and limitations” established by Congress are binding upon the Executive Branch and the individual states. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the individual states have “concurrent jurisdiction” to enforce our Federal immigration laws. To enforce the Federal immigration laws, not to rewrite them. The Arizona law does not attempt to rewrite the laws passed by Congress, in fact, the Arizona law calls for the enforcement of the 1996 Federal Immigration Law – Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

President Obama and various members of the Obama Administration believe in the concept of “open borders”. The

 Obama Administration supports an “amnesty” for illegal aliens.

WORLD WAR I DOUGH BOYS

An “open borders policy” means the elimination of immigration quotas. Under an “open borders policy”: any migrant, from any country, would be free to enter and live in the United States once they crossed our border.

This post will not debate whether we should adopt an “open border policy” or grant yet an additional “amnesty”, the third “amnesty” in the last 30 years, before we secure our borders.

This post will note the Obama Administration’s attempt to usurp power granted constitutionally to the Legislative and Judicial branches and create an Imperial Presidency.

When the Obama Administration states that they want “comprehensive immigration reform” the Administration means they want an “open borders policy” with an “amnesty” for those currently within our borders illegally.

The overwhelming majority of American people are diametrically opposed to such a “open border policy” or the implementation of an additional “amnesty”.

Under our Constitutional Republic, implementing such a change in our “existing laws” would need to be initiated by our Congress not the Obama Administration or the Executive Branch. 

A proposal to adopt either an “open borders policy” or an “amnesty program” would be soundly defeated in both Houses of the U.S. Congress.

The Obama Administration wants to implement two immigration policies but lacks the Constitutional power to do so, two policies strongly opposed by the legislative branch and a majority of Americans.

Prevented constitutionally from unilaterally implementing these changes the Obama Administration has adopted policies and ignored existing laws in the Administration’s attempt to implement a “de facto” open border and amnesty program.  (“de facto”: actually existing, without lawful authority).  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/de+facto )  

The Obama Administration is refusing to enforce our existing immigration laws. The Administration is willfully failing to secure our borders. The Administration is refusing to send appropriate resources to secure our borders and has even failed to deploy the 1200 National Guard Troops promised to our Border States. In adopting these actions the Obama Administration has moved to usurp (to use without authority or right) powers granted to the Congress under the Constitution. The Obama Administration cannot get an “amnesty program” or an “open borders policy” passed through Congress as the Constitution requires, so the Obama Administration is adopting extra constitutional (not authorized by or based on a constitution; beyond the provisions of a constitution) measures to achieve policies it cannot obtain constitutionally.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extraconstitutional 

WORLD WAR II - D DAY: GI JOES OMAHA BEACH

The Obama Administration must challenge the Arizona Law, not because the Administration believes the law to be unconstitutional, but because the Administration fears that other States will pass similar laws. The Obama Administration must challenge the Arizona law because the Obama Administrations’ attempts to implement “de facto” amnesty and open borders policies will be thwarted by the States when the States move to enforce the laws passed constitutionally by Congress.

The Obama Administration views itself as an Imperial

OPEN BORDERS - AMNESTY

 Presidency – with President Obama as the omnipotent autocrat – possessing unlimited power, unlimited authority and unrestrained by Constitutional limitations. An autocrat free to ignore his oath to “protect and defend the constitution”, free to selectively enforce or ignore the laws of the land as he chooses, free to implement his policies without the advise or consent of the Congress or the American people.

Prologue:

Ancient Rome started as a Republic.  Like the United States, the Roman Republic was founded after the overthrow of a monarchy. The Roman Republic was based on a Constitution which honored the principles of separation of powers, of a need for a system of checks and balances within the Government.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic

The end of the Roman Republic was brought about by the Roman leaders who “transitioned” Rome, leaders who “fundamentally transformed” Rome from a Republic to an Imperial State. A state ruled by autocratic Emperors. The Emperors were men who subverted the Roman Constitution for their own power, for their own political gain. The Emperor’s usurped the powers granted to the Roman Senate and Legislative Assembly and after consolidating their power proclaimed themselves perpetual dictators (Julius Caesar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic ),  Supreme Majesty (Augustus ), Imperator Caesar Maximus Naughtius Pretentious Stroppius Homosexius Nero Augustus (Nero,  http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nero ) and Caligula (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, http://www.roman-emperors.org/nero.htm).

THE KOREAN WAR - MARINES LANDING AT INCHON

Dictator: a person exercising absolute power, a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictator

My generation was very familiar with a saying (it is actually a book title), “The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire”. Rome rose as a Republic and Rome fell because it was “fundamentally transformed” into an autocratic Empire ruled by despots. Despot: a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power; autocrat. any tyrant or oppressor. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/despot

It is ironic that America’s coming battle, a battle that will determine whether the Country will remain a Constitutional Republic or be “fundamentally transformed” into an Imperial Presidency, will be fought over the issue of illegal immigration, most particularly, illegal immigration into the State of Arizona. The President’s true objective, an extra constitutional usurpation of powers granted to Congress, is being disguised as a phony “civil rights issue”.  A false issue the President is exploiting to garner political support among his Hispanic and far left base. The President is guilty of “race baiting” as he moves to esatblish his Imperial Presidency. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=race+baiting&page=1&qsrc=2891&dm=all&ab=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2010%2Fmay%2F03%2Fobamas-race-baiting%2F&sg=aqQrV3cX93bwZwf8zn%2BMF2wfMlOuCjIOuGwZHEDm8Vk%3D&tsp=1277047957762The Hispanic portion of his base has very close ties to our southern neighbor, Mexico.

Mexico, the Country that twice had to fight to escape from the despotic rule of Emperors. (In 1821 when Mexico declared independence from Spain (Mexican Independence Day) and in 1867 at the end of The Second Mexican Empire). 
Mexico fought again, for a third time, to free the Country from another autocratic ruler (Porfirio Diaz) during the Mexican Revolution (1910 – 1920: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution ).

VIETNAM - INSERTION INTO HOT LZ

How can the Country of Mexico, a Country that has tasted the violence of autocratic rule 3 times in the last 150 years and fought its Revolution less than 100 years ago, support or applaud the “fundamental transformation” of America into that which they, the Mexican people, want to flee. Mexico has rejected Imperial rule three times, yet Mexico would support the “fundamental transformation” of the America Republic into an Imperial Presidency.                                       

Is the purpose of coming to America rooted in a desire to share in the American Dream, to embrace the Republic for which it stands or is the goal to “fundamentally transform” America, transform the Republic into another Empire, an Empire ruled by an Imperial Presidency, an Imperial Presidency where one man or woman rules with unlimited authority and unlimited power.

Remember these two things: 1). There has never been a “compassionate dictator” or “despot”, and 2). Dictators are neither liberal nor conservative; they are first and always, dictators.

F15E IRAQ 1991

The Immigration Debate: Obama’s National ID Card & Race Baiting – What is the True Agenda?

They said “this man” was going to unite the Country, ‘The Great Uniter”, has tuned out to be just another race baiting divider, ready and willing to say or do anything, to divide and destroy, as long as it provides the smallest political advantage to his person.

Race baiting is the use of racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical, and often harmful to their personal or group interests. Race baiting can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race-based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists. The term “race” in this context can be construed very broadly to include the social constructs which define race or racial difference, as well as ethnic, religious, gender and economic differences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_baiting

Race baiting is the lowest form of hypocrisy: hyprocrisy / – a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. A pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude. See: Deceitful. Deceit is the quality that prompts intentional concealment or perversion of truth for the purpose of misleading: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deceit

Anyone who has read the Arizona Immigration Law now knows, the law specifically and repeatedly states that racial profiling is prohibited under the law. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

The law also identifies 11 pieces of identification, that if produced, create a “presumption of legal residency”. The 11 types of ID are:

1.  An Arizona driver license issued after 1996 or an Arizona nonoperating identification license.

 2.  A birth certificate or delayed birth certificate issued in any state, territory or possession of the United States.

 3.  A United States certificate of birth abroad.

 4.  A United States passport.

 5.  A foreign passport with a United States visa.

 6.  An I-94 form with a photograph.

 7.  A United States citizenship and immigration services employment authorization document or refugee travel document.

 8.  A United States certificate of naturalization.

 9.  A United States certificate of citizenship.

 10.  A tribal certificate of Indian blood.

 11.  A tribal or bureau of Indian affairs affidavit of birth.

Produce one of these IDs and it is presumed that you are a “lawful” U.S. resident. Issues resolved!

Is it possible that the law could be abused? Of course, any law can be abused, just as the Race Baiter in Chief is abusing the position of power that the people of the United States entrusted to him, a position he is betraying while he tries to divide this Nation for his personal political advantage.

You might recall that the far left media has repeatedly told us how amazingly smart this Harvard educated lawyer is.

How then, is it, that this Harvard educated lawyer doesn’t know the diference between “misfeasance” and “unconstitutional”. As most 1st year law students can distinguish between the two, how is it that a Harvard Educated Constitutional Law professor, his Attorney General and his Secretary of Homeland Security can’t comprehend the distinction between “misfeasance” and “unconstitutional”?

Misfeasance is defined as: 1). a wrong, actual or alleged, arising from or consisting of affirmative action. 2). the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; the wrongful and injurious exercise of lawful authority. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misfeasance

Unconstitutional is defined as: unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unconstitutional   

If the President, Attorney General and Secretary of Home Land Security don’t understand the difference, they are not competent to hold office.

The truth is that the 3 of them know, full well, that their claims that the Arizona Law is unconstitutional are false. The 3 are guilty of race baiting and deceit!

Example 1: The speed limit in front of my home is 25 miles per hour. There is nothing “unconstitutional” about that law. If a law enforcement officer pulls over a black driver, because they are black and not because they were speeding, that officer has committed an act of malfeasance which is punishable in both the criminal and civil courts, however, the speed limit law is constitutional and there is no question that the speed limit law is constitutional. None!

Example 2: The United States passed a Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act in 1964. The Laws were Amended in 1965. These Civil Rights laws were passed despite strong and united opposition from southern Democrats. The 1965 Voting rights Act called for Federal oversight of elections. http://www.conservapedia.com/Voting_Rights_Act , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 

If I, as individual, happen to be working as an election official and I intentionally act to exclude any individual’s vote, based on that persons race, does my action make the “Civil Rights Act & The Voting Rights Act” of 1965 unconstitutional? Of course not – those laws are Constitutional – it is my individual act of “misfeasance” that is unlawful. The Civil Rights Act is Constitutional, my act would be “unlawful”. 

A race baiter and hater, not an individual committed to uniting.

The Arizona Law permits law enforcement officials to ask for ID and if the “suspect” can’t produce one of the 11 IDs listed above, the officer may question the suspect about his or her immigration status.

What is unconstitutional about asking a “criminal suspect” to identify themselves? Nothing is the answer and the Supreme Court of the United States has said so on many occassions. http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/comprehensive-immigration-reform-the-history-of-immigration-reform-in-america-1790-to-2009/

THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION’S SOLUTION

The National ID Card 

The complaint against the Arizona law has been clearly articulated by the Obama Administration; asking an individual for ID leads to racial profiling and that must not stand.

The proposed solution – Open Borders, No Immigration Quotas, No Immigrant screening - Eliminate the current “excludeable” catergories that bar immigrants from entry into the United States (such as past criminal conduct, rape, murder, sex & drug trafficking, etc) and the implementation of a National ID Card.

A National ID Card?

Just what will this National ID Card be used for? Identification?

Just how stupid do they think we are?

For the National ID Card to be of any use, you will need to allow individuals to actually ask to see the card, won’t you? To actually ask suspects to show the ID?

After all, what good is a National ID Card, if you can’t ask to see it?

Once you ask to see the National ID Card we are back where we started, correct, asking for someone, who is under Police investigation, to identify themselves? Exactly what difference does it make - Law Enforcement Officers don’t care what type of ID you produce – just produce some ID? A National ID card or one of the 11 IDs already listed in the Arizona Law – you’ll need to produce sometype of ID – correct?

Exactly what do you think will happen when the individual can’t produce a National ID Card? How does that differ from not producing one of the 11 IDs listed in the Arizona Law? 

Obviously, the real issue is about not asking for ID. The real issue is that Obama wants open borders and no immigration limits.

To get to where he wants to go, Obama is willing to race bait!

Endangering the Citizens of Arizona    

The Race Baiter In Chief has instructed the head of ICE to threaten the State of Arizona and the citizens of Arizona with the suspension of ICE activities in the State of Arizona.

ICE stands for Immigration Control & Enforcement.

ICE is responsible for fighting organized criminal activity involving drugs, gangs and sexual trafficking. For a summary of the law enforcement activities the President has threatened to withhold from the citizens of Arizona see: http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/obama-administration-threatens-to-abandon-law-enforcement-in-arizona/

Isn’t the President responsible for securing our borders and protecting the citizens of Arizona? Mr. President, if you don’t want to do the job you promised to do when you took your oath of office – resign – and we, the people, will be glad to replace you. Sooner, rather than later ….

The Immigration Debate; The Arizona Law & Its Place In The History Of American Immigration Laws

Enough already with the race baiting from the left …..

Arizona’s new law is neither unconstitutional nor does Arizona’s new law call for racial profiling.

For a discussion of Arizona’s new “immigration law” see  http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/     or http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/el-debate-de-inmigracion-la-ley-de-arizona-hechos-de-la-ficcion-%c2%bfesta-cansado-de-que-nos-mientan/ 

THE CURRENT POLITICAL SPIN

The left is trying to create a poltical advantage and distract the American public from the real issues of unemployment a faltering economy and rising crime rates with fabricated claims of racism in the new Arizona law, a law which is incorrectly being called an “immigration law” when in fact the law focuses on the prevention of criminal acts and the enforcement of exisiting criminal laws. See: http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/     or  http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/el-debate-de-inmigracion-la-ley-de-arizona-hechos-de-la-ficcion-%c2%bfesta-cansado-de-que-nos-mientan/ 

The race baiters are not interested in uniting our neighborhoods, healing our wounds or bringing people together, for making our Country a safer place for all, for bringing an end to the illegal drug smuggling or sexual trafficking trade, for ending 21st century slavery ……. they are hoping to bring destruction, to destroy communities and to divide the people for their own personal gain.  

Earliest History of America’s Immigration Laws

The United States Constitution was adopted in 1789. Congress adopted the first “immigration law” one year later in 1790 when it granted citizenship to the first “immigrants”. Subsequent legislation passed in the 1790′s required prospective citizens to renounce or give up former allegiances to other “Sovereign Nations” and to surrender titles of nobility granted by foreign monarchs prior to being granted citizenship in our great country. 

In 1798 Congress authorized the President to expel “dangerous” aliens in the Alien Friends Act and the Alien Enemies Act. 

The Naturalization Act of 1802 expanded the provisions of the 1795 law and created a “five-year legal residency requirement” prior to granting an immigrant citizenship. Then in 1808, Congress enacted a law forbidding the importation of slaves.

No official immigration records were kept until 1820, but it is estimated that 250,000 immigrants, 1/4 of a million people, arrived in the United States between 1790 and 1820 - the 1st 30 years of the Constitutionally governed United States. It is estimateed that an additional 10 million immigrants came to American between 1820 and 1875 when the US passed its first “restrictive” immigration law.

A total of 10 million 250 thousand people “immigrated” to the United States between 1790 and 1875. The first “restrictive immigration law” in 1875 excluded “convicts” and “prostitutes”, the 1st classes of individuals to be denied “lawful entry” into the United States. Those same “class” restrictions continue to this day. 

In 1903 the United States added “anarchists” to the list of those to be “denied entry” into the United States. An anarchist is someone who who seeks to overturn, by violence, all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchists

In 1918 Congress expanded this exclusion when it enacted the “Anarchist Act” which expanded the definition of those to be denied entry to include,  “a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.”. The Act of 1918 did not only deny admission to the United States but also provided a basis to deport “anarchists” out of the Country.

The Act specifically identified the following people

            (a) aliens who are anarchists;

(b) aliens who advise, advocate, or teach, or who are members of, or affiliated with, any organization, society, or group, that advises, advocates, or teaches opposition to all organized government;
(c) aliens who believe in, advise, advocate, or teach, or who are members of, or affiliated with, any organization, association, society, or group, that believes in, advises, advocates, or teaches:
(1) the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law, or
(2) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers generally, of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character, or
(3) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property, or
(4) sabotage;
(d) aliens who write, publish, or cause to be written or published, or who knowingly circulate, distribute, print, or display, or knowingly cause to be circulated, distributed, printed, or displayed, or knowingly have in their possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, or display any written or printed matter, advising, advocating, or teaching opposition to all government, or advising, advocating, or teaching:
(1) the ovethrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law, or
(2) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers of the Government of the United States or of any other government, or
(3) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property, or
(4) sabotage;
(e) aliens who are members of, or affiliated with, any organization, association, society, or group, that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, or display, any written or printed matter of the character in subdivision (d).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Exclusion_Act

Limits on Immigration- Immigration Quotas – The 1920′s

In the 1920′s Congress implemented the first numerical controls on immigration. Enacted first, as a temporary measure, the 1921 Quota Law marked a major shift in the U.S. approach to immigration control. The law limited immigration from each foreign nation to 3% of the number of foreign-born persons of that nationality residing in the U.S. as of the 1910 census.

The total quota for the Country was 357,000 new immigrants per year.

In 1924, Congress further restricted immigration by reducing the immigration quota from 3% of foreign-born persons under the 1910 census to 2% of the foreign-born under the 1890 census. This change cut the total quota of new immigrants per year to 164,667.

During the 1930′s and the “Great Depression” more people emigrated out of (left) the United States than “immigrated” into the Country. In the entire decade of the 1930′s only 500,000 ( 1/2 million) immigrants entered the United States. In the year 1932 only 35,000 (thirty five thousand) immigrants entered the country while 100,000 (one hundred thousand) left or emigrated out of the country.

In the 1940′s the United States negotoated the first of its “temporary worker” programs with Mexico. 

In a 1948  response to problems created by the devastation of Europe in World War II and the Nazi Holocaust, Congress adopted the Displaced Persons Act that allowed for the admission into the U.S. of some 400,000 non-citizens. 

The Sovereign Right To Regulate Immigration

All sovereign nations have the right to regulate immigration.

See: The Human Rights Library of the University of Minnesota: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

“The broad power of the federal government to regulate the admission, removal, and naturalization of non-citizens has its roots in the early history of the United States. Modern statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and federal agency regulations attest to the plenary (plenary = unlimited or full) nature of this power.” http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

THE SOURCE OF THE FEDERAL POWER 

Throughout the history of the United States the Supreme Court has upheld all manner of federal statutes regulating immigration. By contrast, Supreme Court decisions preclude states from passing legislation that directly impinges on this area of federal dominion. The Supreme Court’s basis for action is clear when the area regulated is naturalization. Article 1, § 8, clause 4, of the United States Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” By expressly allocating this power to Congress, the Constitution prevents the confusion that would result if individual states could bestow citizenship. The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. In the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government’s exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Ultimately the Supreme Court found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

Early cases cite specific constitutional provisions to support the inference that the federal government possesses complete power over international relations, including immigration matters. In addition to citing the foreign commerce power, the Supreme Court in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (Sup.Ct.1892) cites the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; the power to declare war, and to provide and maintain armies and navies; and the power to make all laws necessary and proper. The Fong Yue Ting v. United States (Sup.Ct.1893) case adds the power to define and punish piracies, felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

The Migration and Importation Clause in Article I, § 9, clause 1, provides: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight….”. The specific limit on congressional power before 1808 could be construed to imply that after 1808, Congress would have power over migration and importation. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

The War Power, found in Article I, § 8, clause 11, is an additional source of federal control over immigration. The War Power gives Congress the authority to “declare war.” The War Power authorized the exclusion and expulsion of enemy aliens. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such provisions in Ludecke v. Watkins (Sup.Ct.1948).

National Sovereignty

The United States Supreme Court ultimately found the source of the federal power to regulate immigration in a combination of international and constitutional legal principles. The Chinese Exclusion Case (Sup.Ct.1889) was the first case to hold that the federal power to exclude non-citizens is an incident of national sovereignty. The Court reasoned that every national government has the inherent authority to protect the national public interest. Immigration is a matter of vital national concern. Furthermore, it is the role of the federal government to oversee matters of national concern, while it is the province of the states to govern local matters. Therefore, the Court found that the inherent sovereign power to regulate immigration clearly resides in the federal government.

Subsequent cases reinforced national sovereignty as the source of federal power to control immigration and consistently reasserted the plenary and unqualified scope of this power.

Fong Yue Ting v. United States (Sup.Ct.1893) explicitly held that the power to expel or deport (now “remove”) non-citizens rests upon the same ground as the exclusion power and is equally “absolute and unqualified.”

“To be a sovereign nation, a people must have control over its territory. Without such control, a nation would be unable to govern itself and its borders effectively, and as a result, would be subject to the sovereignty of other nations. The power to regulate immigration is therefore inherent in the Constitution’s creation of a sovereign nation.” 

THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL POWER

To date there have been no successful challenges to federal legislation that refuses admission to classes of non-citizens or removes resident aliens. Federal immigration power thus appears limitless. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated: “[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.” Fiallo v. Bell (Sup.Ct.1977), Kleindienst v. Mandel, (Sup.Ct.1972), and Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan (Sup.Ct.1909). Extreme judicial deference bears witness to the truth of this statement.

The United States Constitution & The United Nations Charter

The Constitution and the U.N. Charter have been dismissed as grounds for opposing federal immigration power. The federal courts and immigration authorities have without much consideration rejected an assertion in Hitai v. INS (2d Cir.1965), Vlissidis v. Anadell (7th Cir.1959), and Matter of Laurenzano (BIA 1970) that the immigration quota system is inconsistent with the U.N. Charter. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of federal statutes that detain non-citizens for the brief period necessary for their removal proceedings (Demore v. Kim (Sup.Ct.2003)) and that exclude non-citizens on the basis of race (Chinese Exclusion Case (1889)) and political belief (Kleindienst v. Mandel (Sup.Ct.1972)). Moreover, excluded non-citizens have no constitutional right to a hearing. Shaughnessy v. Mezei (Sup.Ct.1953). Mezei also determined that excludable non-citizens can be indefinitely detained if their country of origin refuses to accept them.

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN REGULATING IMMIGRATION

The plenary and unqualified power of the federal government to regulate immigration, naturalization, and related foreign policy belongs to Congress. The possible international consequences of decisions in this area have made the federal judiciary extremely reluctant to substitute its judgment for the legislature’s. Justice Jackson articulated the Court’s position in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (Sup.Ct.1952): “[A]ny policy towards aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Subsequent decisions echo this sentiment. Since the judiciary poses no obstacle, Congress has been historically free to “exclude aliens altogether or prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may enter and stay in this country.” Lapina v. Williams (Sup.Ct.1914).

For example, Congress exercised its plenary authority in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) that facilitated the removal of non-citizens.

The Supreme Court and the Paths To Citizenship

The Fourteenth Amendment “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only, birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark (Sup.Ct.1898). As with exclusion and deportation (now “inadmissibility” and “removal”), the Supreme Court has accorded great deference to the naturalization guidelines set by Congress. In United States v. Ginsberg (1917) the Court stated, “An alien who seeks political rights as a member of this nation can rightfully obtain them only upon the terms and conditions specified by Congress. Courts are without authority to sanction changes or modifications; their duty is rigidly to enforce the legislative will….” In cases involving classifications in the naturalization process, the Court has given a near absolute presumption of validity to distinctions drawn by Congress.

Congress has been historically free to “exclude aliens altogether or prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may enter and stay in this country.” Lapina v. Williams (Sup.Ct.1914).

The Executive Branch and Immigration

As in other areas of the law, the function of executive agencies in the field of immigration is to enforce the legislation passed by Congress. The Executive Branch is not empowered to create Immigration Policy.

A Brief History of 20th Century Immigration Law Reform 

THE 1952 ACT

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) consolidated previous immigration laws into one coordinated statute. As amended, the 1952 Act provided the foundation for immigration law in effect today.

The 1952 Act retained the national origins quota and established a 150,000 person limit.

Within the quota system, four types of entrance preferences were established. First preference was given to those entrants with skills or experience needed by the U.S. economy. Those persons with close family relations to U.S. citizens or permanent residents received lower preferences.

It should be noted that spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens were not and are still not subject to the quota or preference system. For that reason, they are called “immediate relatives.”

Following the passage of the 1952 law a large increase in apprehensions of deportable non-citizens occurred. The Border Patrol, numbering just about 1,000 strong, apprehended 800,000 deportable non-citizens in 1952; in 1954, that number increased to one million.

THE 1965 AMENDMENTS

The 1965 amendments replaced the national origins formula with a limit of 20,000 on each country in the Eastern Hemisphere and an overall limit of 170,000 for that hemisphere. The law established a quota of 120,000 for the Western Hemisphere, without preferences or country limits to take effect in 1968. ( A total of 290,000 new “legal immigrants” were to be allowed per year).

The 1965 amendments abolished the old four-preference system and established in its place a seven-preference system for close relatives and those immigrants with needed occupational skills from the Eastern Hemisphere.

Spouses of U.S. citizens were permitted to immigrate without reference to the quota or preference system.

Under the preference system, unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens received highest preference; second preference was granted to spouses and unmarried children of permanent residents. The preference for immigrants of “exceptional ability” and those in “the professions” was changed from first to third. Other relatives of citizens and permanent residents received the fourth and fifth preferences. Sixth preference was given to needed workers. Seventh preference was allocated to refugees.

THE 1976 AMENDMENT

The 1976 amendment applied the Eastern Hemisphere preference system to the Western Hemisphere, both hemispheres were subject to the 20,000 per country limit and the seven preference system.

THE 1978 AMENDMENT

The 1978 amendment established a world-wide quota of 290,000 and applied the same per country limits and seven preference system to both hemispheres. This worldwide ceiling eliminated the hemisphere consideration and allowed visas to go where the need was greatest.

Illegal Immigration in the 1970′s

The number of deportable non-citizens, which fell in the 1950s, climbed rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s, as did the number of total entries. In 1972, one half million deportable non-citizens were apprehended. By 1977, that annual figure had doubled. The Border Patrol had grown to a force of 2,400.

The Immigration Service estimated that, between undetected border crossings and violations of legal entry conditions, millions of undocumented non-citizens were living in the U.S. in 1974. In 1979 the Border Patrol apprehended one million deportable non-citizens. That year, the INS employed almost 11,000 personnel and had a 300 million dollar budget.

THE 1980 REFUGEE ACT

The Carter Administration asked for special legislation to deal with the issue of the “”Mariel Boat Lift” that delivered 100,000′s of Cubans to the shores of Florida. It later became evident that Fidel Castro, the Communist dictator in Cuba, had emptied his prisons and placed untold number of Cuban criminal felons on the boats with the non-criminal Cubans seeking asylum in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift . The boat lift began on April 1, 1980 and ended in October 1980.

Estimates vary on how many of the incoming immigrants were “undesirables” or former felons. The low estimate placed the number at 7,500 with a high estimate of 40,000 covicted felons. Congress adopted an official estimate of 12,500. Approximately 2700 of the immigrants were denied entry due to their criminal past.

The “boat lift” was depicted in the movie “Scarface”.

THE 1986 IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA) 

In 1980 the United States Census Bureau counted 2,047,000 undocumented non-citizens in the country. Based on the Bureau of Census experience in miscounting other segments of the population, the Bureau had estimated that there were 5,965,000 undocumented persons in the country on census day April 1, 1980. 

The 1986 the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) dealt with the major problem of undocumented workers by imposing sanctions on employers while it legalized the status of undocumented entrants who had arrived prior to January 1, 1982.

In response to the demand for foreign agricultural labor, IRCA created a program that granted temporary and permanent resident status to qualified agricultural workers.

The IRCA did not substantially restructure the immigration law as it pertains to immigration quotas or the requirements for admission.

Another major goal of IRCA was improvement of enforcement and services. The act increased border patrol as well as other enforcement activities of the INS to deter unlawful entry of aliens into the U.S..

In exchange for the increased enforcement provisions of IRCA, Congress offered a broad amnesty for many undocumented non-citizens already present in the country. The one-time, limited amnesty program allowed qualified non-citizens who met its strict deadlines to obtain permanent resident status. To qualify, non-citizens were required to show that they had entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and had resided unlawfully and continuously in the United States from that date until the date they applied for amnesty. Non-citizens who entered with a valid nonimmigrant status that later expired could also qualify for amnesty by showing that their unlawful status was known to the U.S. government. Applicants were specifically required to (1) have been physically present in the U.S. since November 1986, except for “brief, casual, and innocent” absences; (2) meet most of the requirements of immigrant admissibility to the United States; (3) have not been convicted of any felony or of three or more misdemeanors committed in the United States; (4) have not assisted in any form of persecution; and (5) register for the draft, if required to do so.

Non-citizens who met these requirements and filed an application between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988, were granted temporary residence. After 18 months of temporary residence, the non-citizens had one year in which to apply for adjustment to permanent resident status or they would become undocumented once again. To adjust to permanent resident status, applicants were again required to meet the criteria for permanent residence and also meet minimal English and civics requirements.

IRCA mandated procedures to ensure strict confidentiality. The Act allowed voluntary organizations to receive applications and forward them to the INS. Whether a non-citizen applied through such an organization or directly to the INS, access to information in the applications was restricted to INS officers with no deportation responsibilities and the INS could only use the information to make a determination on the application or impose penalties for false statements.

Despite these precautions, response to the amnesty program was less enthusiastic than expected. The INS originally estimated that between two and four million applications would be filed by the almost 5.5 million illegals estimated to be in the Country, but when the program ended, only 1.4 million people had applied for amnesty.

A proposal to extend the application deadline passed the House of Representatives but died in the Senate, due to fears that an extension would send the message that the U.S. could not enforce its immigration laws. The program thus ended as planned on May 4, 1988.

Another concern in adopting IRCA was the potential adverse financial impact on the states. For this reason, IRCA included extensive provisions disqualifying newly legalized non-citizens (except Cuban/Haitian entrants) from receiving most federal public welfare assistance for five years. Appropriations were also included to compensate state and local governments for other public assistance and medical benefits conferred upon people granted amnesty, as well as for the costs of incarcerating undocumented non-citizens and “Mariel” Cubans.

IRCA also established a separate program for granting temporary and permanent status to qualified agricultural workers. This program was the result of agribusiness pressure for greater availability of such farm workers.

THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1990

In 1990, Congress passed a series of amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, collectively referred to as the Immigration Act of 1990 (“1990 Act” also known as “IMMACT 90″).

The most visible feature of IMMACT 90 was the increase by approximately 35% in the numerical limitation system, or overall immigration allowed. IMMACT 90 established an annual limit for worldwide immigration of 700,000 for three years, after which it decreased to 675,000. Because other provisions of the 1990 Act allowed immigration of groups not counted in the 700,000, and a separate law permitted as many as 125,000 refugees to be legally admitted, the actual worldwide immigration limit was closer to 800,000.

This number represented a nearly 300% increase over the 290,000 immigrants allowed in 1978. 

The 1990 Act increased the allocation for both family-related and employee-related immigration. In addition, the new law created a separate basis by which “diversity” immigrants, that is, nationals of countries with relatively low numbers of immigrants since 1965, could gain entry.

Of the first 700,000 annual allotment, 465,000 visas were made available to family-sponsored immigrants, 140,000 for employment-based immigrants, and 55,000 for diversity immigrants.

Beginning October 1, 1991, all family-sponsored immigration was limited to approximately 480,000 annually for two years, after which the yearly limit dropped to 465,000. The relatively large percentage of the overall limit allocated to family-related immigration reflected the continued commitment to family unity as a primary goal of immigration policy.

There is still no limit on immigration by immediate relatives.

The 1990 Act did guarantee admission of at least 226,000 other relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, an increase of approximately 65,000 over the former quota, set just 4 years previously in 1986.

THE ACTS OF 1996 (AEDPA and IIRIRA)

Three new immigration acts were signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The first of these acts was the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which became law on April 24, 1996.

The second was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Reform Act), which became law on August 22, 1996. The changes made by the Welform Reform Act were part of a comprehensive reform of the American Welfare System and were not reforms solely made to target immigrants or illegal immigrants.

The third was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which became law on September 30, 1996. The AEDPA and IIRIRA increased the number of criminal acts for which a non-citizen could be removed and eliminated nearly all forms of relief for non-citizens with criminal convictions.

IIRIRA also stiffened the requirement for affidavits of support for immigrants entering on the basis of their relationship to U.S. citizens or permanent residents. A sponsor must agree in the affidavit to provide support for the immigrant at an annual income that is not less than 125% of the federal poverty standard. Also, the sponsor must reimburse the government if the non-citizen receives means-tested public benefits within ten years of admission, unless he or she has naturalized. IIRIRA also added a ground of removability for any non-citizen who becomes a “public charge” within five years of admission.

Like the affidavit of support requirement, the 1996 Welfare Act reflected Congress’ concern that immigrants were placing an increasing burden on the federal budget. The Welfare Act made most non-citizens, including permanent residents, ineligible for federal benefits such as food stamps and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Immigrants who entered the country after August 22, 1996, were ineligible for all means-tested public benefits for a period of five years. The Welfare Act also authorized the states to deny benefits to certain classes of non-citizens.

In 1998 reinstated federal benefits for most permanent residents who were receiving them before passage of the Act.

SECTION 434 & SECTION 642 of the 1996 ACT

The 1996 law states the following: 

Pursuant to § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208) states and localities may not limit their governmental entities or officers from maintaining records regarding a person’s immigration status, or bar the exchange of such information with any federal, state, or local entity.

This language was placed in the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” of 1996 in repsonse to the creation “Sanctuary Cities” and the adoption of “Sanctuary City Statutes” by many U.S. cities,

As the previous parargarphs clearly establish, Immigration Laws and Quotas are the responisbility of the Federal Government, any attempt by State of City Governments to usurp this power from the Federal Government is unconstitutional. A States attempt to enforce a Federal Immigration Law is not unconstitutional. Simply put, while States and Cities don’t create Immigration Law, they are expected to enforce them.

http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2009,1026-crs.pdf

 WHAT IS A SANCTUARY CITY?

The term “Sanctuary City” refers to a city or state that enacts policies which are favorable to illegal immigrants. Specifically, sanctuary cities often mandate local laws which prevent inquiry into a person’s immigration status.

How does one administer the Federal, State and Local criminal laws and civil laws governing the allocation and distribution  of Federal, State and Local Welfare benefits? 

Sanctuary policies are a violation of federal law, such as the section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which prohibits the embedding of illegal immigrants, and the March 2005 United States Supreme Court case, Muehler v Mena, which stated that law enforcement has the right to ask about immigration status.

While the laws differ from Commmunity to Community, an example of a “Sanctuary City” ordinance, taken from the city of Tacoma Park, Maryland, follows: 

“Introduced by: Councilmember Seamens First Reading: October 22, 2007:   Second Reading: October 29, 2007

CITY OF TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-58,

AN ORDINANCE REAFFIRMING AND STRENGTHENING THE CITY OF TAKOMA PARK’S IMMIGRATION SANCTUARY LAW

WHEREAS, in 1985, as an expression of these values, the Takoma Park City Council passed the City of Refuge Ordinance, which prohibits City employees, including police officers, from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of civil and criminal immigration laws and prohibits City employees from requesting or disclosing information regarding the immigration status of individuals.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND:

SECTION 1. Title 9, Civil Liberties and Human Relations, Chapter 4, Rights of Non-U.S. Citizens in Takoma Park, of the Takoma Park Code (2004 edition) is amended as follows:                                                                   9.04.010 No City enforcement of immigration laws.                            A. No agent, officer or employee of the City, in the performance of official duties, shall assist the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the investigation or arrest of any persons for civil or criminal violation of the immigration and nationality laws of the United States.

9.04.020 No inquiries into citizenship. No agent, officer or employee of the City, in the performance of official duties, shall ask any person about his or her citizenship or immigration status or inquire about any person’s citizenship or immigration status with any third person. No agent, officer or employee of the City, in the performance of official duties, shall release any information regarding the citizenship or residency status of any City resident.immigration status of any individual to any third party.”

http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/clerk/agenda/items/2007/102907-2.pdf

The intent of the Tacoma Park, Maryland statute is obvious, a liberal attempt to usurp the Federal Governements authoirty to regulate immigration into the United States and to disrupt the co-operation between Federal, State and City Law Enforcement officials while they attempt to enforce the laws of this Country. How does one enforce Federal or State welfare laws that prohibit dispersing benefits to illegal aliens while reserving the benefits for citizens and “legal immigrants” if one cannot make a legal determination of who is in the Country legally and who is here illegally? 

The devastating effect this short sighted, unconstitutional activity could have on the safety of America became all to clear on September 11, 2001.

 THE COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 09/11/2001

The September 11, 2001, attacks resulted in significant changes in immigration law and policy. Congress passed several acts intended to improve national security, including the USA Patriot Act (115 Stat. 272), the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (116 Stat. 543), and the Homeland Security Act (116 Stat. 2135). One of the most dramatic consequences of these measures was the elimination of the INS and the transfer of immigration functions to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. Other provisions of these acts broadened the class of people who can be excluded or removed for terrorist activity, mandated increased screening of applicants for admission, and called for new data systems to track non-citizens in the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security

In November 2002, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act (116 Stat. 2135), which abolished the Immigration and Naturalization Service and transferred most immigration functions to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As suggested by the Commission on Immigration Reform some years earlier (see § 1-7.6, supra), the INS’ service and enforcement functions were separated in this reorganization. These functions have been divided among three bureaus within the DHS: the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which adjudicates immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions, naturalization petitions, asylum applications, and other matters; the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which includes the Border Patrol and immigration inspections at ports of entry; and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which enforces immigration laws in the interior of the U.S..

Restrictions on Immigration

The USA Patriot Act (115 Stat. 272) broadened the definition of terrorist as used in the grounds for inadmissibility and removal. Under this Act, anyone who endorses or provides financial support to a terrorist organization, or who actually participates in terrorist activities, is inadmissible or removable.

To identify possible terrorists, U.S. consulates are required to check visa applicants’ names against “lookout lists” prior to issuing a visa.

Monitoring of Non-Citizens in the U.S.

After September 11, the INS was criticized for its inability to track non-citizens in the U.S. or to identify persons who might pose a threat to national security. In 2002, the INS promulgated regulations requiring nonimmigrants from twenty-five countries to register at INS district offices and report periodically as to their whereabouts and activities in the U.S. See § 8-2.2(c), infra. That same year, the INS and the State Department implemented a new database system, called “SEVIS” to track foreign students. Immigration authorities also began to enforce change of address reporting requirements that had been part of the INA since 1952 but were rarely publicized or enforced.

ATTEMPTED IMMIGRATION REFORM OF 2007

U.S. House Passes Drake Amendment to Eradicate Sanctuary Cities. Amendment withholds federal funding for localities that violate Section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act

July 25, 2007

Washington D.C. — The U.S. House of Representatives today passed an amendment by Representative Thelma Drake (R-Va.) to H.R. 2638, the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008.  Passing by a voice vote, Rep. Drake’s amendment aims to eliminate what are commonly referred to as “sanctuary policies” in local municipalities, whereby law enforcement officials are barred from asking suspects about their immigration status or reporting them to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).  The amendment will ensure that existing law is enforced uniformly across the country by withholding federal funding for cities that choose to violate section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).

“Although predominately a federal issue, we have all witnessed how the epidemic of illegal immigration can impact members of a local community,” said Rep. Drake.  “Solving this problem is going to require the commitment from all levels of government to engage in an active partnership.

“Sanctuary cities undermine these partnerships by willfully and selectively choosing to disregard federal laws that are already on the books.  Most Americans agree that if you want to get serious about addressing our nation’s failed immigration system, enforcing existing laws is a good place to start.

“This amendment says that when Congress took steps to eradicate sanctuary policies back in the Nineties, we meant it.  I am committed to ensuring that this language remains in the legislation and is signed into law by the President.”

Under section 642(a) of IIRIRA, a “Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca50_bilbray/morenews/drakeamend.shtml

The Democratically controlled U.S. Senate blocked a vote on the Drake Amendment in 2007 & 2008.

THE ARIZONA LAW 2009

See: http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-immigration-debate-arizonas-law-facts-from-fiction-are-you-tired-of-being-lied-to/

The State of Arizona passed Arizona House Bill 2162 and it was signed into law on April 26, 2010. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

On the day the law wasssigned into effect Arizona has at least 4 ”Sanctuary Cities” violating the Federal Law; Phoenix, Tuscon, Chandler and Mesa. 

Section 3 of the Arizona is titled; “Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws.”

Section 3 of the Arizona Law mandates that all State, Local and City Employees enforce both Federal and State laws regarding criminal acts committed by illegal aliens. The law mandates that the laws be enforced “concurrently” by all Federal, State and Local law enforcement officials.

Section 3 does not permit law enforcement officials to stop and ask anyone for their ID. No one!

Section 3 does require that once law enforcement officials have “stoppped, detained or arrested” an individual and are “conducting a criminal investigation”, the suspect will be asked for identification.

All indivuals who find themselves the subject of an investigation will be asked for their ID.

PRESUMPTION OF LAWFUL CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE ARIZONA LAW

Any individual who can produce one of the following pieces of identification is presumed to be a “lawful citizen of the United States”:  1).  A valid Arizona driver license. 2).  A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. 3).  A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.  4).  If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

Section 3 also provides, “A law enforcement official or agency may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution”.

FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF CITIZENSHIP STATUS UNDER THE ARIZONA LAW

If some one is “stopped, detained or arrested” and cannot produce identification, the law enforcement officals are instructed to continue their investigation, however, the determination of whether any individual is an “illegal alien” is determined according to Federal Law: “In the implementation of this section, an alien’s immigration status may be determined by: 1.  A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status, or 2.  The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the United States Customs and Border Protection Act pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).”

THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG – SCAAP PAYMENTS – THE HIDDEN COST OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: 

SCAAP is a payment program administered by OJP, through its component the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), in conjunction with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureau within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).2 SCAAP was authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to provide federal assistance to states and localities for the costs of incarcerating certain criminal aliens who are in custody based on state or local charges or convictions.3 In fiscal year (FY) 2005, BJA distributed $287.1 million in SCAAP payments to 752 state, county, and local jurisdictions.4

The following table displays the 10 jurisdictions that received the largest SCAAP payments from the FY 2005 appropriation. Collectively, they accounted for nearly 69 percent of the SCAAP payments made from that appropriation.

TOP TEN SCAAP RECIPIENTS – FY 2005
State Jurisdiction Amount
California State of California5 $ 85,953,191
New York State of New York 24,022,356
Texas State of Texas 18,582,484
New York City of New York 15,893,255
Florida State of Florida 12,806,110
California Los Angeles County6 12,530,034
Arizona State of Arizona 12,139,791
California Orange County 6,562,437
Illinois State of Illinois 4,731,269
Massachusetts State of Massachusetts 4,728,549
TOTAL $197,949,476
       

 

  The program only reimburses states and localities that incur correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who: (1) have at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law, and (2) are incarcerated for at least four consecutive days during the established reporting period.7 Applicants for funding are required to provide correctional officer salary costs, the total of all inmate days, and details about eligible inmates housed in their correctional facilities during that period.

In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report stating that 80 percent of the SCAAP aliens were incarcerated in the five states of Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas in FY 2003.

The total costs for Federal, State and Local detection, apprehension, arrest and incarceration  are in the 100,’s of billions of dollars.

REPEAT OFFENDERS IN THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY

The Department of Homeland Security reported the following to Congress.

Congression asked the Department of Homeland Security to determine how many criminal offenses were committed by criminal aliens who were released from state or local custody without a referral to DHS for removal from the United States.

To address this question, the DHS performed limited testing to determine the number of subsequent arrests of criminal aliens who were released from state or local custody. We based our testing on information from the vetted FY 2004 SCAAP database, which was the last year when ICE reported to BJA on the status of every person identified in support of applications for SCAAP funding. There were 262,105 records in that database. We requested assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to have those records compared to arrest data in the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC).

After querying NCIC, the FBI provided us with nearly 433,000 text files that could not be searched by automated means. The volume of files was too great to search manually and quantify the results. Consequently, we judgmentally selected a sample of 100 criminal histories, which we reviewed for evidence of arrests of criminal aliens subsequent to June 30, 2003. The criminal histories for 73 of the 100 individuals documented at least one arrest after that date. Those 73 individuals accounted for a total of 429 arrests, with 878 charges and 241 convictions. These figures represent an average of nearly six arrests per individual.

The charges for the 73 individuals ranged from traffic violations and trespassing to more serious crimes, such as burglary or assault. Some of those charges included:

• 166 drug-related;

• 37 immigration-related;

• 213 burglary, robbery, or theft;

• 40 assault;

• 10 property damage;

 • 3 terrorist threat;

and 13 weapons charges.

Based on this limited sample, the DHS could not statistically extrapolate the number of offenses committed by undocumented criminal aliens who were released from local custody without a referral to ICE. Based on the information available to us in the criminal histories, we could not determine the number of the criminal aliens in our sample that were deported, if any, and later arrested after reentering the United States. We also could not determine if ICE was notified before the criminal aliens in our sample were released from custody. But if this data is indicative of the full population of 262,105 criminal histories, the rate at which released criminal aliens are rearrested is extremely high. http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0707/final.pdf

IMMIGRATION 2010

Today, in 2010, as in every year since the mid 1980′s, the US has allowed at least 1 million (1,000,000) new immigrants to enter this Country. More than 1 million each and every year. Yes, despite our economic down turn, over 1,000,000 immigrants entered this Country as LPRs (Legal Permanent Residents) in 2009. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2009.pdf            Yes, the exact number, according to the Obama Administration, was            1,130, 818 ( 1 million, 130 thousand, 8 hundred and eighteen) for the year ending December 2009.

An additional 1,000,000 immigrants were granted the rights of “Naturalized Citizens” in 2009. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/natz_fr_2009.pdf

In addition to these numbers, believe it or not, it is estimated that 160 million (160,000,000) non-immigrant admissions occur on an annual basis. Non-immigrant admission include, ”tourists and business travelers from Canada, Mexican nationals with Border Crossing Cards, ….”.  http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ni_fr_2009.pdf

The United States allows more “legal” immgration every year than all the other Countries in the world  combined.

La violencia México se derrama en EE.UU. – El Procurador del Condado de Reclamaciones 400 secuestros en Phoenix, Arizona en el 2008 – Los demócratas en el Congreso no adoptan medidas

La violencia México se derrama en EE.UU. – El Procurador del Condado de Reclamaciones 400 secuestros en Phoenix, Arizona en el 2008 – Los demócratas en el Congreso no adoptan medidas

Publicado el 16 de febrero de 2009, por mcauleysworld

According to the County Attorney for Maricopa County, Arizona ( by Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas | December 3rd, 2008 ) De acuerdo con el Procurador del Condado para el Condado de Maricopa, Arizona (por Andrew Procurador del Condado Maricopa Thomas | 03 de diciembre 2008 ) - Phoenix law enforcement says that Phoenix has now become “”ground zero”” for the violent Mexican drug cartels. There has been a 325% increase in kidnapping for ransom cases in Maricopa County since 2005. – Aplicación de la ley de Phoenix dice que Phoenix se ha convertido en “zona cero” para los cárteles mexicanos de la droga violentos. Se ha producido un aumento de 325% en el secuestro en los casos de rescate del condado de Maricopa desde 2005.

Kidnappings for ransom are increasing in Arizona, as drug cartels and “”coyotes,”” or human smugglers, hold their own customers and other victims for ransom. Special interest groups that favor looking the other way when it comes to illegal immigration insist that illegal immigrants are peaceful, but this naïve outlook doesn’t take into account the violence that inevitably accompanies illegal immigration. This latest wave of violence hitting Arizona puts women and children at risk as they are frequently targeted as hostages and held for ransom. At the same time, combating this new type of Latin American-style violence is increasing the load on our justice system and straining our financial resources. Los secuestros para pedir rescate están aumentando en Arizona, como los cárteles de drogas y “coyotes” o traficantes de personas, tienen sus propios clientes y otras víctimas para pedir rescate. Especiales grupos de interés que favorecen a mirar hacia otro lado cuando se trata de inmigración ilegal insisten en que ilegales los inmigrantes son pacíficas, pero este punto de vista ingenuo no tener en cuenta la violencia que inevitablemente acompaña a la inmigración ilegal. Esta última ola de violencia golpea de Arizona pone a las mujeres y niños en riesgo ya que son señalados como rehenes y se pidió un rescate. Al mismo tiempo, tiempo, la lucha contra este nuevo tipo de violencia al estilo latinoamericano está aumentando la carga sobre nuestro sistema de justicia y el esfuerzo de nuestros recursos financieros.

Powerful illegal drug cartels used to be considered a Latin American phenomenon, limited to countries like Colombia where drug dealers control the government. ilegal de drogas de gran alcance carteles que antes se consideraba un fenómeno de América Latina, limita a los países como Colombia, donde los narcotraficantes controlan el gobierno. In recent years, the drug cartels have moved northward illegally into Mexico, turning Mexico into the kidnapping capital of the world. En los últimos años, los cárteles de la droga se han movido hacia el norte ilegalmente a México, convertir a México en la capital secuestros del mundo. Over 4,400 people have been killed in drug cartel wars in Mexico this year. Más de 4.400 personas han muerto en la guerra de los carteles de drogas en México este año. But the violence hasn’t stopped there. Pero la violencia no ha dejado allí. It has continued to move north, as the drug cartels and coyotes found a profitable market crossing the border illegally into the US Phoenix law enforcement says that Phoenix has now become “”ground zero”” for the violent Mexican drug cartels. Se ha seguido avanzando hacia el norte, como los cárteles de la droga y coyotes encontrado un mercado rentable que cruzan la frontera ilegalmente en el cumplimiento de la ley dice que EE.UU. Phoenix Phoenix se ha convertido en “zona cero” para los cárteles mexicanos de la droga violentos.

Police estimate that over 300 kidnappings are investigated each year in Phoenix. La policía estima que más de 300 secuestros se investigan cada año en Phoenix. So far this year we’ve had more than 200 referred to our office by law enforcement. Hasta ahora este año hemos tenido más de 200 que se refiere a nuestra oficina por la aplicación de la ley. There are more that go unreported, because many victims fear retribution from the drug cartels. Hay más que no se denuncian, ya que muchas víctimas temen represalias de los cárteles de la droga.

Looking the other way at illegal immigration and making excuses to avoid dealing with its associated crime by saying it is the federal government’s responsibility will not stop the coyotes and drug cartels from bringing their Latin American-style violence into the US The federal government is still doing little in this area to protect us. Mirando hacia otro lado a la inmigración ilegal y poner excusas para evitar enfrentarse con su delincuencia asociada al decir que es federal del gobierno de la responsabilidad no se detendrá a los coyotes y los carteles de la droga de traer su estilo americano violencia latina en los EE.UU. El gobierno federal todavía está haciendo poco en este sentido para que nos proteja. As long as I am County Attorney, I will work to protect the residents of Maricopa County from this new wave of violence. Mientras que a mí el fiscal del condado, voy a trabajar para proteger a los residentes del Condado de Maricopa de esta nueva ola de violencia.

http://www.firecoalition.com/forum/yaf_postst3711_Kidnappings-Latin-America-Style-Violence-Sweeping-Arizona.aspx http://www.firecoalition.com/forum/yaf_postst3711_Kidnappings-Latin-America-Style-Violence-Sweeping-Arizona.aspx

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/12/03/kidnappings-latin-america-style-violence-sweeping-arizona/ http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/12/03/kidnappings-latin-america-style-violence-sweeping-arizona/

Las Vegas, Nevada has also seen an increase in the number of drug gang related kidnappings: “Clemens Fred Tinnemeyer, disappeared in May after stealing millions of dollars related to “major drug trafficking,” authorities have said, and investigators think Cole’s kidnapping was intended to send him a message. Las Vegas, Nevada también ha visto un aumento en el número de bandas de narcotraficantes los secuestros relacionados con: “Clemens Fred Tinnemeyer, desapareció en mayo, después de robar millones de dólares relacionados con” el tráfico de drogas importantes “, las autoridades han dicho, y los investigadores piensan secuestro de Cole estaba previsto que le enviara un mensaje. Tinnemeyer was already at the center of a federal investigation when Cole was kidnapped, Nichols testified. Tinnemeyer ya estaba en el centro de una investigación federal, cuando fue secuestrado Cole, Nichols testificó. “There was on ongoing investigation involving a ton of money, a ton of drugs and a Mexican cartel that was serious about getting that money back,” he said. http://www.lvrj.com/news/33564389.html “Había en la investigación en curso que involucra una tonelada de dinero, una tonelada de drogas y un cartel mexicano que hablaba en serio acerca de cómo obtener ese dinero de vuelta”, dijo. http://www.lvrj.com/news/33564389.html

Maricopa County Attorney Asks why National Guard on Border Procurador del Condado Maricopa se pregunta por qué la Guardia Nacional en la Frontera

Retreated from Armed Gunmen Hombres armados se retiraron de Armado

Maricopa County County Attorney Andrew Thomas called for an inquiry by Congress and the Arizona legislature into the circumstances surrounding last week’s reported retreat by National Guard troops along the Mexican border after they were confronted by four armed gunmen from Mexico. Condado de Maricopa, Andrew Thomas, fiscal del condado ha pedido una investigación por el Congreso y la legislatura de Arizona en las circunstancias que rodean retiro informó la semana pasada por la Guardia Nacional a lo largo de la frontera con México después de haber sido confrontado por cuatro hombres armados de México. This development was troubling given that Valley streets increasingly are being flooded with crime, drugs and violence flowing from the open border with Mexico. Este desarrollo fue preocupante dado que las calles del Valle cada vez más están siendo inundados con la delincuencia, las drogas y la violencia que se derivan de la frontera abierta con México. The Border Patrol acknowledged last week that National Guard troops abandoned a post along the Arizona border after being threatened by armed men entering from Mexico. La Patrulla Fronteriza reconoció la semana pasada que la Guardia Nacional abandonó un puesto en la frontera de Arizona después de haber sido amenazados por hombres armados entrando desde México. This confrontation occurred along a porous border where drug lords and their gangs operate freely. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/01/10/maricopa-county-attorney-asks-why-national-guard-on-border-retreated-from-armed-gunmen-2/ Este enfrentamiento se produjo a lo largo de una frontera porosa donde los narcotraficantes y sus bandas operan libremente. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/01/10/maricopa-county-attorney-asks-why-national-guard-on-border- se retiró-de-armadas-pistoleros-2 /

Of the 46,000 arrests made in Maricopa County last year, 6,000 involved illegal aliens. De los 46.000 arrestos efectuados en el Condado Maricopa el año pasado, 6.000 extranjeros ilegales involucrados. 120 arrests were made for the illegal summgling of human beings. http://www.mayorgordon.com/news/view.cfm?id=483420746 120 arrestos fueron hechos para el summgling ilegal de seres humanos. http://www.mayorgordon.com/news/view.cfm?id=483420746

Latin America-style kidnappings move into Ariz. – http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-11-smuggler-kidnappings_N.htm América Latina al estilo de secuestros mudarse a Arizona – http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-11-smuggler-kidnappings_N.htm

 

PHOENIX — A woman leaving an eyeglass store is grabbed in the parking lot by four men who force her, kicking and screaming, into a pickup. PHOENIX – Una mujer que salía de una tienda de gafas y se recoge en el estacionamiento por cuatro hombres que la fuerza, pataleando y gritando, en una camioneta. The kidnappers demand a $900,000 ransom. Los secuestradores exigen un rescate de US $ 900.000. 

PHOENIX (Reuters) – The criminal underworld in the sun-baked Arizona capital of Phoenix has long enjoyed the hot money profits from illicit smuggling of drugs and people over the border from Mexico. PHOENIX (Reuters) – El mundo del hampa en la capital de Arizona quemado por el sol de Phoenix ha disfrutado durante mucho tiempo los beneficios de fondos especulativos tráfico ilícito de drogas y de personas por la frontera de México. But now its members are living in fear as they are stalked by kidnappers after their proceeds, authorities say. Pero ahora sus miembros viven en el temor, ya que son acosadas por sus secuestradores después de sus ganancias, dijeron las autoridades. Police in the desert city say specialized kidnap rings are snatching suspected criminals and their families from their homes, running them off the roads and even grabbing them at shopping malls in a spiraling spate of abductions.”Phoenix is ground zero for illegal narcotics smuggling and illegal human smuggling in the United States,” said Phil Roberts, a Phoenix Police Department detective. http://www.tigardtimes.com/us_world_news/story.php?story_id=TRE4979VW La policía de la ciudad del desierto dicen especializados secuestrar a los anillos, se están adueñando de presuntos delincuentes y sus familias de sus casas, corriendo ellos fuera de las carreteras e incluso agarrar en los centros comerciales en una ola de secuestros en espiral. “Phoenix es la zona cero para el contrabando de narcóticos ilegales e ilegales el contrabando de personas en los Estados Unidos “, dijo Phil Roberts, un detective del Departamento de Policía de Phoenix. http://www.tigardtimes.com/us_world_news/story.php?story_id=TRE4979VW

PHOENIX – Phoenix police have arrested a suspect wanted in the kidnapping of a teenage girl. PHOENIX – La policía de Phoenix ha arrestado a un sospechoso buscado en el secuestro de una adolescente.

Thomas was in a southwest Phoenix neighborhood Monday evening with other children and adults when an SUV with a strobe light on its front grill pulled up and two men armed with assault-style rifles and another two with handguns exited the vehicle. Thomas se encontraba en un barrio al suroeste de Phoenix la semana pasada con otros niños y adultos cuando un SUV con una luz estroboscópica en su rejilla frontal se detuvo y dos hombres armados con rifles de asalto y otros dos con armas de fuego salió del vehículo. Two of the gunmen had utility belts that witnesses described as resembling the gun belts worn by police officers. Dos de los hombres armados habían cinturones de utilidad que los testigos describen como semejante a los cinturones de armas usados por los oficiales de policía. Despite the strobe light and belts, Phoenix police spokesman Sgt. A pesar de la luz estroboscópica y cinturones, vocero de la policía de Phoenix. Andy Hill said the kidnappers never claimed to be police officers. http://ktar.com/index.php?hlpage=8&nid=6&sid=770438 Andy Hill dijo que los secuestradores nunca pretendió ser agentes de policía. http://ktar.com/index.php?hlpage=8&nid=6&sid=770438

Each year, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are smuggled through Arizona from Mexico, most heading on to join relatives living and working in the shadows in towns and cities across the United States. Cada año, cientos de miles de inmigrantes ilegales se introducen de contrabando a través de Arizona desde México, la mayoría de dirigirse a reunirse con familiares que viven y trabajan en las sombras en los pueblos y ciudades de los Estados Unidos. The desert state also straddles a furiously trafficked corridor for drugs, especially marijuana, more than 400 tons of which were seized last year by the US Border Patrol alone. El estado del desierto también extiende a ambos lados de un pasillo con furia trata con fines de drogas, especialmente marihuana, más de 400 toneladas de las cuales se decomisaron el año pasado por la Patrulla Fronteriza de los EE.UU. solo. Profits from the two crimes amount to billions of dollars. Los beneficios procedentes de la cantidad dos delitos a los mil millones de dólares.

In one recent kidnapping, a 14-year-old girl from south Phoenix was mistakenly picked up on the street by a gun-toting snatch squad looking for the daughter of a known drug dealer. En un reciente secuestro, una niña de 14 años de edad, desde el sur de Phoenix fue detenido por error en la calle por un fragmento del arma-toting equipo en busca de la hija de un traficante de drogas conocido. The girl was subsequently released by her captors. La joven fue puesto en libertad por sus captores. “She happened to be standing outside in front of the home … they grabbed her in broad daylight … threw her in the vehicle and took off,” said Roberts. “Ella pasó a estar de pie afuera en frente de la casa … se la agarró en plena luz del día … le echó en el vehículo y se fue”, dijo Roberts. “Here is the perfect example of a young girl who has nothing to do with this, her family has nothing to do with this, she just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.” http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4979VW20081008?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true “Este es el ejemplo perfecto de una joven que no tiene nada que ver con esto, su familia no tiene nada que ver con esto, que acaba de pasar a estar en el lugar equivocado en el momento equivocado”. http://www.reuters. com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4979VW20081008? feedType = RSS y feedName = TopNews y rpc = 22 & sp = true

Man kidnapped from Phoenix store, police ask for your help. http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/story/Man-kidnapped-from-Phoenix-store-police-ask for/ktkfLTjEk0ygMqGoNh_L0A.cspx El hombre secuestrado de la tienda de Phoenix, la policía pedir su ayuda. for/ktkfLTjEk0ygMqGoNh_L0A.cspx http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/story/Man-kidnapped-from-Phoenix-store-police-ask

Phoenix police uncover organized crime ring De policía de Phoenix descubre anillo del crimen organizado

PHOENIX — Phoenix police have uncovered an organized crime ring they believe committed home invasions and kidnappings. PHOENIX – La policía de Phoenix han descubierto un anillo de la delincuencia organizada que creen cometido allanamientos y secuestros.
Police raided a Phoenix tire business Wednesday after receiving reports that the owner and employees were involved in organized crime, including armed robberies, home invasions and kidnappings across the Phoenix metro area. La policía allanó un negocio de llantas Phoenix miércoles, luego de recibir informes de que el propietario y los empleados se dedican a la delincuencia organizada, incluido el robo a mano armada, allanamientos y secuestros en toda la zona metropolitana de Phoenix. The owner, Manuel Torres, 39, was arrested in court Wednesday while facing other criminal charges, police said. http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/275015.php El propietario, Manuel Torres, de 39 años, fue arrestado el miércoles en la corte mientras se enfrenta otros cargos criminales, dijo la policía. http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/275015.php

TRATA DE SEXO – Francisco Mayor Centro de San – Redes Internacionales del Delito de contrabando y esclavizar

TRATA DE SEXO – Francisco Mayor Centro de San – Redes Internacionales del Delito de contrabando y esclavizar

Posted on March 22, 2009 by mcauleysworld Publicado el 22 de marzo de 2009, por mcauleysworld

San Francisco Chonicle San Francisco Chonicle

FIRST OF A FOUR PART SPECIAL REPORT PRIMERA DE UN REPORTE CUATRO PARTE ESPECIAL

Many of San Francisco’s Asian massage parlors — long an established part of the city’s sexually permissive culture — have degenerated into something much more sinister: international sex slave shops. Muchas de las salas de masaje asiático de San Francisco – la duración de una parte establecida de la cultura sexual permisiva de la ciudad – han degenerado en algo mucho más siniestro: tiendas internacionales esclava sexual.

Once limited to infamous locales such as Bombay and Bangkok, sex trafficking is now an $8 billion international business, with San Francisco among its largest commercial centers. Una vez que se limita a lugares infames como Bombay y Bangkok, el tráfico sexual es ahora un negocio internacional de 8000 millones $, con San Francisco entre sus mayores centros comerciales.

San Francisco’s liberal attitude toward sex, the city’s history of arresting prostitutes instead of pimps, and its large immigrant population have made it one of the top American cities for international sex traffickers to do business undetected, according to Donna Hughes, a national expert on sex trafficking at the University of Rhode Island. actitud liberal de San Francisco hacia el sexo, la historia de la ciudad de detener a las prostitutas en lugar de los proxenetas, y su gran población de inmigrantes se han convertido en una de las principales ciudades de América para los traficantes del sexo internacional para hacer negocios sin ser detectados, según Donna Hughes, un experto nacional en el sexo el tráfico en la Universidad de Rhode Island.

“It makes me sick to my stomach,” said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. “Me hace mal del estómago”, dijo el alcalde de San Francisco Gavin Newsom. “Girls are being forced to come to this country, their families back home are threatened, and they are being raped repeatedly, over and over.” “Las niñas se ven obligados a venir a este país, a sus familias están amenazadas, y están siendo violadas repetidamente, una y otra vez.”

Because sex trafficking is so far underground, the number of victims in the United States and worldwide is not known, and the statistics vary wildly. Debido a que el tráfico sexual es la medida de metro, el número de víctimas en los Estados Unidos y en todo el mundo no se conoce, y las estadísticas varían ampliamente.

The most often cited numbers come from the US State Department, which estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked for forced labor and sex worldwide each year — and that 80 percent are women and girls. La cita a menudo la mayoría de los números provienen del Departamento de Estado de EE.UU., que estima que entre 600.000 y 800.000 personas son traficadas para trabajos forzados y el sexo en todo el mundo cada año – y que el 80 por ciento son mujeres y niñas. Most trafficked females, the department says, are exploited in commercial sex outlets. La mayoría de las mujeres víctimas de la trata, el departamento, dice, son explotados en los puntos de comercio sexual.

The number will always be an estimate, because trafficking victims don’t stand in line and raise their hands to be counted, but it’s the best estimate we have,” said Ambassador John Miller, director of the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. El número siempre será una estimación, ya que las víctimas de trata no están en línea y levantan la mano para contar, pero es la mejor estimación que tenemos “, dijo el embajador John Miller, director de la Oficina del Departamento de Estado para la Vigilancia y Combate a la Trata de personas. The CIA won’t divulge its research methods, but based its figures on 1,500 sources, including law enforcement data, government data, academic research, international reports and newspaper stories. La CIA no revelará sus métodos de investigación, sino que basó su cifras de 1.500 fuentes, incluyendo datos policiales y judiciales, datos del gobierno, investigación académica, los informes internacionales y artículos periodísticos.

Women trafficked for the sex industry are predominantly from Southeast Asia, the former Soviet Union and South America — lured to the United States by promises of lucrative jobs as models or hostesses, only to be sold to brothels, strip clubs and outcall services and extorted into working off thousands of dollars in surprise travel debts to their new “owners.” Las mujeres objeto de trata para la industria del sexo son en su mayoría del sudeste de Asia, la antigua Unión Soviética y América del Sur – atraídos a los Estados Unidos con promesas de trabajos lucrativos como modelos o azafatas, sólo para ser vendidas a los burdeles, clubes de striptease y servicios outcall y extorsionaron a de trabajo a miles de dólares en deudas de viaje sorpresa a sus nuevos “dueños”.

Federal investigators say that even those who come to the United States with the idea of working as high-society call girls cannot imagine the captivity and the degrading workload they face. Los investigadores federales dicen que incluso aquellos que vienen a los Estados Unidos con la idea de trabajar como las niñas de la alta sociedad llamada no puede imaginarse el cautiverio y la carga de trabajo degradantes que se enfrentan.

“Human trafficking is a multibillion-dollar business. “El tráfico humano es un negocio de miles de millones de dólares. In terms of profits, it’s on a path to overtake drug and arms trafficking,” said Barry Tang, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement attache with the US Department of Homeland Security in South Korea . En términos de beneficios, está en un camino de superar a las drogas y el tráfico de armas “, dijo Barry Tang, un agregado de Inmigración y Aduanas de ejecución con el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de EE.UU. en Corea del Sur. “There’s a highly organized logistical network between Korea and the United States with recruiters, brokers, intermediaries, taxi drivers and madams.” “Hay una red muy bien organizada logística entre Corea y los Estados Unidos con los reclutadores, intermediarios, corredores, los taxistas y madamas”.

The United States is among the top three destination countries for sex traffickers, along with Japan and Australia. Los Estados Unidos es uno de los países de destino para los tres principales traficantes de sexo, junto con Japón y Australia. Once in the United States, traffickers most often set up shop in California, New York, Texas and Las Vegas. Una vez en los Estados Unidos, los traficantes con más frecuencia se instaló en California, Nueva York, Texas y Las Vegas.

It’s an underground world, but in more than 100 interviews with federal agents, experts and sex trafficking victims in California and South Korea, a picture emerges about how international traffickers buy and sell women between Asia and the West Coast. Es un mundo subterráneo, pero en más de 100 entrevistas con los agentes federales, peritos y víctimas de tráfico sexual en California y Corea del Sur, surge una imagen acerca de cómo los traficantes internacionales de compra y venta de mujeres entre Asia y la costa oeste.

In Mexico, the traffickers lead the women over the same treacherous desert paths worn down by migrants heading to “El Norte” for work. More women come through airport customs in San Francisco and Los Angeles, using fake passports and student or tourist visas made for them by their traffickers. En México, los traficantes llevan a las mujeres sobre el desierto de senderos traicioneros misma desgastado por emigrantes que se dirigen a “El Norte” para el trabajo. Más mujeres vienen por la aduana del aeropuerto de San Francisco y Los Ángeles, utilizando pasaportes falsos y visas de turista o estudiante de créditos para ellos por sus traficantes.

It’s relatively easy for traffickers to evade authorities at the checkpoints — land, air or sea — because women still don’t realize at that point that they are being tricked. Es relativamente fácil para los traficantes para evadir a las autoridades en los puestos de control – tierra, aire o mar – Porque las mujeres aún no se dan cuenta en ese momento que están siendo engañados.

“It’s not like the movies where you open a trunk and you interview them and they tell you everything,” said Lauren Mack, special-agent-in-charge with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in San Diego. “No es como las películas donde se abre un baúl y les entrevista y te dicen todo”, dijo Lauren Mack, agente especial a cargo de Inmigración y Aduanas en San Diego. “They aren’t going to tell you they’re victimized because they aren’t — yet.” “No van a decir que son víctimas porque no son – todavía.”

Once in California, the women are taken most often to Los Angeles or San Francisco , where they are hidden inside homes, massage parlors, apartments and basements, only to learn that the job offer was just a ploy. Una vez en California, las mujeres se toman con más frecuencia a Los Angeles o San Francisco, donde se esconden dentro de las casas, salones de masajes, apartamentos y sótanos, sólo para saber que la oferta de trabajo era más que una estratagema. Typically they are locked inside their place of business, forced to have sex with as many as a dozen men a day. Suelen estar encerrados en su lugar de negocio, forzada a tener relaciones sexuales con otros tantos como una docena de hombres al día. Sometimes victims are forced to live in the brothel, too, where five or six “co-workers” are crammed into one room. A veces las víctimas se ven obligados a vivir en el burdel, también, en el que cinco o seis “compañeros de trabajo” son hacinados en una habitación.

Sex trafficking rings are often run by criminal organizations that aren’t afraid to use violence to protect the billions they generate. el tráfico de anillos sexuales son a menudo dirigidas por organizaciones criminales que no tienen miedo de usar la violencia para proteger a los miles de millones que generan.

Although it’s not known how much money the San Francisco market generates for sex traffickers, federal agents confiscated $2 million in cash from 10 Asian massage parlors during a San Francisco raid in summer 2005. Aunque no se sabe cuánto dinero el mercado de San Francisco genera para los traficantes de sexo, los agentes federales confiscaron $ 2 millones en efectivo de 10 salones de masaje asiático durante una redada de San Francisco en el verano de 2005.

Local police say the bust didn’t make a dent in the illegal sex trade. La policía local dijo el busto no hizo mella en el comercio sexual ilegal.

“The number of Asian massage parlors has doubled in San Francisco in the last two years,” said Capt. Tim Hettrich of the San Francisco police vice unit. “El número de salones de masaje asiático se ha duplicado en San Francisco en los últimos dos años”, dijo el capitán Tim Hettrich de la unidad de la policía Francisco San vicepresidente. “Profits are huge. “Los beneficios son enormes. I have nine people working on this. Tengo nueve personas trabajando en ello. I need three times that many to keep up.” Se necesitan tres veces esa cantidad para mantener el ritmo. “

There are at least 90 massage parlors in San Francisco where sex is for sale, according to the online sex Web site myredbook.com. Hay 90 salones de masajes, al menos, en San Francisco, donde el sexo es para la venta, según el sitio Web myredbook.com sexo en línea. The site has been around since 1997 and has more than 55,000 reviews of Northern California sex workers. El sitio ha sido de alrededor desde 1997 y cuenta con más de 55.000 comentarios de los profesionales del sexo en California del Norte. It is used by johns, yet is also a main monitoring tool for law enforcement. Es utilizado por Johns, pero es también una herramienta de seguimiento principal para hacer cumplir la ley. On average, there are about eight women working in a massage parlor, police say. En promedio, hay cerca de ocho mujeres que trabajan en una sala de masajes, dijo la policía. That would mean more than 700 Asian sex masseuses working in San Francisco, based on 90 illicit parlors listed on sex Web sites and on police interviews. Eso significaría más de 700 masajistas sexo de Asia que trabajan en San Francisco, a razón de 90 salones ilícitas que figuran en el sexo en sitios Web y las entrevistas con la policía.

But the scope of sex trafficking in San Francisco is much larger — women are also forced to work as escorts, outcall girls, erotic dancers and street prostitutes. Pero el alcance del tráfico sexual en San Francisco es mucho más grande – Las mujeres también son forzadas a trabajar como escoltas, las niñas outcall, bailarines eróticos y prostitutas de la calle. Women are also placed in “AAMPs” — Asian apartment massage parlors — which are little more than apartments rented by traffickers who staff them with one or two sex workers. Las mujeres también son colocados en “AAMPs” – casas de masajes asiáticos apartamento – que no son más que los apartamentos alquilados por los traficantes que el personal con uno o dos profesionales del sexo. Business is done by word of mouth, and only customers approved by the owner are allowed in. Negocios se hace de boca en boca, y los clientes sólo los usuarios autorizados el propietario se permite la entrada
 
There are thousands of trafficked women in San Francisco,” said Norma Hotaling, who advocates for victims as director of the Standing Against Global Exploitation Project in San Francisco. Hay miles de mujeres víctimas de trata en San Francisco “, dijo Norma Hotaling, que aboga por las víctimas como director de la Permanente contra la explotación global del proyecto en San Francisco.

She can watch men come and go at all hours of the day to a massage parlor across the street from her office. Puede mirar a los hombres van y vienen a todas horas del día para una casa de masajes en la calle de su oficina.

The city may even be unwittingly contributing to the problem. La ciudad puede ser incluso sin saberlo, contribuyen al problema. Thirty-seven of the erotic massage parlors on My Redbook’s list have massage permits issued to them through the San Francisco Department of Public Health. Treinta y siete de los salones de masajes eróticos, en Mi Redbook la lista de un masaje permisos expedidos a través del Departamento de San Francisco de Salud Pública.

When asked about the city giving permits to illegal massage parlors, Johnson Ojo, principal environmental health inspector for San Francisco, said part of the problem has to do with a big backlog that was created when jurisdiction over massage parlors was moved from the Police Department to the Department of Public Health in 2004. Cuando se le preguntó acerca de la ciudad dando permisos para salas de masaje ilegal, Johnson Ojo, inspector principal de salud ambiental para San Francisco, dijo que parte del problema tiene que ver con un retraso grande que se creó cuando la jurisdicción sobre salas de masaje se ha desplazado desde el Departamento de Policía de el Departamento de Salud Pública en 2004.

“We are catching up and inspecting each one,” he said. “Estamos alcanzando e inspección de cada uno”, dijo. “But prostitution is a police matter — we are looking for health and safety violations. “Pero la prostitución es un asunto policial – que estamos buscando para la salud y la seguridad violaciónes. If we find anything suggesting trafficking, we talk to police.” Si encontramos elementos que hagan suponer la trata, hablamos a la policía. “

When told by The Chronicle of the scores of erotic massage parlors with city permits, Newsom said, “We aren’t doing our job. Cuando se le dijo por la Crónica de las decenas de salas de masaje erótico con permisos de la ciudad, Newsom dijo: “No estamos haciendo nuestro trabajo. We should take these Internet lists and go down them one by one.” Debemos tener en estas listas de Internet y bajar uno por uno. “

In July, Newsom waited with city inspectors one afternoon outside Sophia’s Spa, an alleged brothel in an alley between an ultra-modern cocktail lounge and a sex shop on Geary Street. En julio, Newsom esperaba con inspectores de la ciudad una tarde en las afueras de Sofía Spa, un burdel presunta participación en un callejón entre un salón de cócteles ultra-moderno y una tienda de sexo en Geary Street.

A decoy, an Asian police officer in jeans and a T-shirt, stood in view of the security camera over Sophia’s front door and pressed the buzzer. Un señuelo, un oficial de policía de Asia con unos vaqueros y una camiseta, se puso a la vista de la cámara de seguridad sobre la puerta principal de Sofía y apretó el timbre. The metal security door opened. El abrió la puerta blindada.

He duct-taped the lock so Newsom, the inspectors, police, a social worker and a reporter could get in. El conducto-grabada el candado para Newsom, los inspectores, la policía, un trabajador social y un reportero pudo entrar

It was a rude awakening for the half-dozen men inside, one of whom was in the middle of a sex act with a masseuse on the lobby couch. Fue un duro despertar para la media docena de hombres en el interior, uno de los cuales se encontraba en medio de un acto sexual con un masajista en el sofá del vestíbulo.

While sex between adults on the lobby couch indicates that Sophia’s is not a holistic massage establishment, it’s not a crime unless the police see money change hands. Mientras que el sexo entre adultos en el sofá del vestíbulo indica que Sofía no es un establecimiento de masaje holístico, no es un crimen a menos que la policía ver las manos de cambio de moneda.

Women are scared for good reason. Las mujeres tienen miedo por una buena razón. Those who have become witnesses have been burned with acid, have disappeared, or have had their homes ransacked and their families harmed or threatened in their home countries. Los que se han convertido en testigos han sido quemadas con ácido, han desaparecido, o han tenido sus casas saqueadas y sus familias perjudicadas o amenazadas en sus países de origen.

THE SERIES LA SERIE

Part 1 Parte 1

Global sex trafficking is making inroads into the Bay Area el tráfico sexual global está haciendo incursiones en el área de la bahía

Part 2 Parte 2

“Diary of a Sex Slave,” Part 1: Fooled by traffickers in South Korea “Diario de un Sex Slave”, Parte 1: dejen engañar por los traficantes en Corea del Sur

Part 3 Parte 3

“Diary of a Sex Slave,” Part 2: Trapped in Los Angeles “Diario de una esclava sexual,” Parte 2: Atrapado en Los Angeles

Part 4 Parte 4

“Diary of a Sex Slave,” Part 3: Trying to break free in San Francisco “Diario de un esclavo sexual”, Parte 3: Tratando de liberarse en San Francisco

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/10/MNGN9LFHRO1.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/10/MNGN9LFHRO1.DTL

E-mail Meredith May at mmay@sfchronicle.com . E-mail Meredith de mayo a las mmay@sfchronicle.com .

THESE CONDITIONS CANT EXIST WITHOUT CORRUPT POLITICANS. ESTAS CONDICIONES CANT existir sin los políticos corruptos. WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL. Tenemos que seguir El rastro del dinero. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF CORRUPT POLITICIANS NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE. ENJUICIAMIENTO PENAL DE POLÍTICOS CORRUPTOS debe tener lugar.

HOW CAN THIS BE HAPPENING RIGHT IN SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI’S BACK YARD? ¿Cómo Puede Ser sucediendo EN EL presidente de la Cámara Nancy Pelosi EL PATIO TRASERO?

SAN FRANCISCO IS AN OPEN “SANCTUARY” CITY  IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW -  OPEN AND OBVIOUS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS BEING CONDUCTED, IN THE OPEN, IN SAN FRANCISCO. SAN FRANCISCO es una abierta “santuario” EN LA CIUDAD DE LA LEY FEDERAL VIOLACIÓn – ABIERTA Y OBVIO LA ACTIVIDAD CRIMINAL está llevando a cabo, al aire libre, en San Francisco.

Illegal billions are being made while the security of the Country is being treatened under cover of  San Francisco’s “sanctuary” status ……… miles de millones ilegales se están realizando al mismo tiempo la seguridad del país está siendo treatened al amparo de Francisco “San santuario” estado de … … …

CONTACT CONGRESS AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOU THINK: http://www.usa.gov/Contact.shtml CONGRESO DE CONTACTO y hacerles saber lo que piensa: http://www.usa.gov/Contact.shtml 

Inmigración Ilegal y Dinámica de la prostitución y tráfico sexual en América Latina

Inmigración Ilegal y Dinámica de la prostitución y tráfico sexual en América Latina

Publicado el 22 de marzo de 2009, por mcauleysworld

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCCIÓN

Modern human slavery is a growing global phenomenon that currently entraps an estimated 2 million victims, and generates $7 Billion in criminal profits annually, rating third in profitability only after drugs and arms sales for the Mafia, yakuzas, cartels and similar international criminal organizations. La esclavitud moderna humanos es un fenómeno global cada vez más que actualmente atrapa un estimado de 2 millones de víctimas, y genera $ 7 mil millones en beneficios penales al año, tercera evaluación de la rentabilidad sólo después de las drogas y la venta de armas para la mafia, yakuzas, los cárteles y organizaciones similares penal internacional. The US CIA estimates that approximately 50,000 persons are trafficked into slavery in the United States annually. La CIA de EE.UU. estima que aproximadamente 50.000 personas son traficadas a la esclavitud en los Estados Unidos anualmente. A large majority of those victims are forced into prostitution. Una gran mayoría de las víctimas son forzadas a ejercer la prostitución. In is estimated that 30,000 sexual slaves die each year around the world from torture, neglect and diseases including HIV/AIDS. En Se estima que 30.000 esclavos sexuales mueren cada año en todo el mundo contra la tortura, el abandono y las enfermedades como el VIH / SIDA.In this paper we focus upon the mass sexual exploitation of girl children and women from Latin America who are kidnapped or who are convinced with false promises of work to voluntarily be transported across international borders into the United States. En este trabajo se centran en la explotación sexual de masas de las niñas y las mujeres de América Latina que están secuestrados o que están convencidos con falsas promesas de trabajo que voluntariamente se transportan a través de fronteras internacionales en los Estados Unidos. In either case, upon arrival in the United States victims are threatened and forced to prostitute themselves in a strange land, typically without pay. En cualquier caso, a su llegada a los Estados Unidos las víctimas son amenazadas y obligadas a prostituirse en una tierra extraña, por lo general sin goce de sueldo. The US CIA estimates that 15,000 enslaved Latin-Americans are trafficked into the United States each year. La CIA de EE.UU. calcula que 15.000 esclavos latinoamericanos son introducidas ilegalmente en los Estados Unidos cada año. This paper elaborates on the cultural background of Latin American trafficking victims and describes Latin America’s growing crisis of impunity in the sexual abuse and exploitation of women and specifically girl children. Este artículo profundiza en el fondo cultural de América Latina y víctimas de la trata describe la creciente crisis de América Latina de la impunidad en el abuso y explotación sexual de mujeres y en particular las niñas.

As organized sex trafficking expands rapidly across the diverse cultural communities within the United States, an array of public and private institutions are working to understand this problem, quantify it and develop effective responses. Puesto que la trata sexual organizado se expande rápidamente a través de las comunidades culturales diversas dentro de los Estados Unidos, un conjunto de instituciones públicas y privadas están trabajando para entender este problema, cuantificarlo y desarrollar respuestas eficaces. These response activities typically involve international, federal and local law enforcement; medical and mental health professionals; religious institutions; academics; social service agencies, immigrant advocacy and other community based organizations; and federal, state and local legislators and policy makers. Estas actividades suelen incluir la respuesta, federales de aplicación de leyes locales e internacionales; los profesionales de salud mental y médicos, instituciones religiosas, académicos, agencias de servicio social, de defensa de inmigrantes y otras organizaciones de base y locales, estatales y legisladores federales y los responsables políticos. International and regional agencies and national governments have recently engaged in major collaborations with academics and victim advocates to provide a leadership role in response to this problem. Los organismos internacionales y regionales y los gobiernos nacionales han entablado recientemente colaboraciones importantes con académicos y defensores de las víctimas para ofrecer una función de liderazgo en la respuesta a este problema. The United Nations, UNICEF, The US State Department, the US Department of Justice, other agencies of the US government, the European Union and the Organization of American states are all actively working on this issue. Las Naciones Unidas, UNICEF, el Departamento de Estado de EE.UU., el Departamento de Justicia de EE.UU., otras agencias del gobierno de EE.UU., la Unión Europea y la Organización de Estados Americanos son todos los que trabajan activamente en este tema. Together with leading academics and other subject matter experts, these organizations have developed protocols, treaties, legislation, international working groups and major international research studies to define and respond to the growing sex trafficking crisis. Junto con destacados académicos y otros expertos en la materia, estas organizaciones han desarrollado protocolos, tratados, legislación, grupos de trabajo internacionales y los principales estudios de investigación internacional para definir y responder a la crisis cada vez mayor de tráfico sexual.

At the local level public safety and trauma professionals are beginning to interact with children and women who have been the victims of domestic and international sex trafficking schemes. En el plano local y la seguridad pública trauma profesionales están empezando a interactuar con los niños y mujeres que han sido víctimas de los regímenes internacionales de tráfico sexual y doméstica. This interaction is likely to grow as sex trafficking expands in the United States, and as the American criminal justice system begins to focus increasing law enforcement attention on the problem. Esta interacción es probable que aumente el tráfico del sexo se expande en los Estados Unidos, y como el criminal sistema de justicia de Estados Unidos comienza a centrarse cada vez mayor aplicación de la ley la atención sobre el problema. The judicial system and trauma practitioners will face an increasing need to develop effective protocols to respond to this victim population. El sistema judicial y los profesionales de trauma se enfrentará a una creciente necesidad de desarrollar protocolos eficaces para responder a esta población víctima. In the context of Latin American sex trafficking victims, the development of culturally appropriate responses are especially important. En el contexto de América el tráfico de las víctimas del sexo de América, el desarrollo de respuestas culturalmente apropiadas son especialmente importantes. Language barriers, American/ Latino cultural differences and significant, country and region-specific nuances need to be taken into account in dealing with Latin American girl and women sexual exploitation victims. Las barreras del idioma, American / latinos y las diferencias culturales significativas, específicas del país y matices-región deben ser tenidos en cuenta en el trato con América Latina niñas ya las víctimas de explotación sexual.

Sex trafficking affects hundreds of thousands of women across Latin America. El tráfico sexual afecta a cientos de miles de mujeres en toda América Latina. We focus here upon the largest component of the Latin America to US problem, the trafficking of girls and women from Mexico and Central America across the US border, and their subsequent sexual exploitation through forced prostitution in the United States. Nos centramos aquí en el componente más grande de América Latina para el problema de EE.UU., la trata de niñas y mujeres de México y Centroamérica a través de la frontera de los EE.UU., y su explotación sexual posterior a través de la prostitución forzada en los Estados Unidos.

The world’s sex trafficking networks, who often cajole women and girls into traveling abroad with false promises of honest service sector work in restaurants, child care, office and home cleaning and hotels. mundo del sexo las redes de traficantes, quienes engatusar a las mujeres a menudo y las niñas en viajar al extranjero con falsas promesas de trabajo en el sector de servicios honestos en restaurantes, cuidado de niños, la oficina y limpieza del hogar y hoteles.

VER: http://www.libertadlatina.org/LL_Global_Scope_of__this_Crisis.htm

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: