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     or 


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:     or 

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.

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).

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:

“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.”


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.

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.

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.

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.” 


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 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 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 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 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 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. . 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”.


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.


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.


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.,1026-crs.pdf


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



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.


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.”

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 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.


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.”

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



The State of Arizona passed Arizona House Bill 2162 and it was signed into law on April 26, 2010.

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.


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”.


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).”


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.

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.


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.


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.            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.

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, ….”.

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

Obama caras con Hugo Chávez y Fidel Castro – No puede haber democracia para Honduras

Obama caras con Hugo Chávez y Fidel Castro – No puede haber democracia para Honduras
Publicado el 29 de junio de 2009, por mcauleysworld | Editar
¿Has visto este artículo

Obama dice que expulsión de Honduras no era “legal”

Por BEN FELLER, de Associated Press Ben Feller, periodista de Associated Press – hace 20 minutos
WASHINGTON – El presidente Barack Obama declaró el lunes que Estados Unidos sigue considerando a Manuel Zelaya, el presidente de Honduras y asaltaron el golpe que lo obligó al exilio como “no legal”, la profundización del abismo entre la nación centroamericana y … … ..
¿Quieres conocer el resto “de la historia”?

¿Por qué Obama el Estado “Golpe de Estado”, si se trataba de un “golpe” no fue legal.

El término “golpe” tiene un significado jurídico específico. Se refiere a “un ejercicio repentina y decisiva del poder por el cual el gobierno actual se subvierte sin el consentimiento del pueblo”. Cuando un país es legal y democráticamente elegido Gobierno “elimina” a un individuo, utilizando los mecanismos apropiados descritos en virtud del mismo la Constitución, no es un “golpe de Estado”, sino un acto legalmente autorizada de Estado.

¿Qué ha ocurrido en Honduras no fue un golpe de Estado, sino una preservación de la democracia se indica en la Constitución de Honduras.

Honduras tiene una Constitución que ha sido actualizada por última vez y ratificado en 1982. “El presidente Zelaya fue elegido en 2006 para un mandato de cuatro años. La nueva Constitución de 1982 prohíbe a las elecciones. “Http:// Presdient Manuel Zelaya intentaba subvertir la Constitución de Honduras y pasivo a la reelección, cuando eso está prohibido por las leyes de Honduras. Existen procedimientos en Honduras para “cambiar” o “modifica” la Constitución, sin embargo, el Presidente Zelaya estaba tratando de subvertir el proceso legal y constitucional en Honduras. intento de Zelaya de modificar la Constitución de Honduras fue declarada “ilegal” e “inconstitucional” tanto por la Corte Suprema de Honduras y el Congreso de Honduras. Dos de las tres ramas del gobierno democráticamente electo de Honduras. Aquellas ramas de la governemnt movido en contra del presidente Zelaya y lo sacó del poder, no el militar. El militar fue simplemente el instrumento empleado por el Gobierno Popular de conseguir su libertad.

Presidente Zelaya ordenó a los militares para ayudar a él ilegalmente subvertir la Constitución de Honduras, la propia Constitución que los militares ha jurado defender. En Honduras, al igual que en los Estados Unidos, el Ejército y Polticians juramento de “defender” o “proteger y defender” la Constitución, no un juramento de defender cualquier partido o un político. Desde los días de Adolfo Hitler tiene un jurado lealtad militar a un “líder” o “Führer” en lugar de al País que sirven.

Cuando el presidente Zelaya ordenó a los militares para ayudar en su violación de la Constitución de Honduras, el Miliitary, bajo la dirección del Congreso y la Corte Suprema, el Presidente retirado de su cargo en lugar de seguir órdenes ilegales del Presidente.

Dos días antes que el presidente Zelaya fue “depuesto”, Zelaya “despedido” de Honduras Militar Jefe de Estado Mayor, general Romeo Vásquez. El despido se produjo, no por no seguir las órdenes, pero por no apoyar el intento inconstitucional del Presidente Zelaya para extender su mandato. Los jefes de los hondureños Ejército, la Armada y la Fuerza Aérea luego renunció antes que aceptar órdenes ilegales de Zelaya.

Es posible que quiera saber quién más grandes partidarios del presidente Zelaya han sido en el pasado …. Hugo Chávez, el dictador venezolano que las cárceles y mata a candidatos de la oposición en su país, y Fidel Castro el dictador de Cuba. Lo que Chávez y Castro saber sobre “elecciones justas” no podría llenar un dedal. Chávez y Castro la cabeza dos de los gobiernos más represivos del mundo.

Los informes de estado de Honduras, “El país tiene ahora otro presidente nombrado por el Congreso, Roberto Micheletti, quien insistió en que Zelaya fue removido legalmente por los Tribunales y el Congreso por violar la Constitución de Honduras y el intento de extender su propio gobierno.” Http://

El derrocamiento de Zelaya se produjo horas antes de los comicios fueron a abrir, en un referéndum constitucional que Zelaya estaba presionando forma ininterrumpida, incluso después que la Corte Suprema y el Fiscal General dijo que era ilegal. La constitución prohíbe cambios en algunas de sus cláusulas, como la prohibición de un presidente que atienden a más de un término.

El Congreso votó para aceptar lo que dijo era la carta de renuncia de Zelaya, con los antiguos aliados de Zelaya, incluso volverse contra él. Congreso líder Roberto Micheletti fue juramentado en su cargo hasta 27 de enero, cuando concluya el mandato de Zelaya. Micheletti pertenece al Partido Liberal de Zelaya, pero con la oposición al presidente en el referéndum. “Mi lema será la conciliación de la gran familia de los hondureños … y un gran diálogo nacional”, dijo Micheletti después que el Congreso dio a los militares una larga ovación.

Es curioso que el presidente Obama deja de mencionar que la Corte Suprema de Honduras y el Fiscal General de Honduras “declaró” que las acciones del ex presidente eran inconstitucionales e ilegales. Tampoco Obama mencionar el hecho de que el nuevo presidente es “el ex Presidente Adjunto del Partido” y fue el miembro superior rango del Partido del ex presidente en el Congreso. “Depuesto” no es el término apropiado aquí, debemos referirnos al juicio político del presidente Zelaya – porque con la aprobación del Congreso de Honduras y la Corte Suprema de Honduras, que es lo que sucedió, Zelaya fue destituido no depuesto.

Lo que ocurrió en Honduras no fue un golpe militar “. Los militares Honduarn no está ahora a cargo. El Congreso y la Corte Suprema de utilizar las fuerzas armadas para evitar una toma del poder por el ex Presidente Zeleya. El Congreso de Honduras, según la Ley de Honduras, ha nombrado a un sucesor legalmente para llenar el resto del mandato del ex presidente. El proceso que se siguió no es tan diferente que el proceso que se seguiría aquí en los Estados Unidos. El Gobierno de Honduras, con la excepción de Zeleya, permanece intacto. Esto no fue un “golpe de Estado” como el Gobierno no se sustituyen, simplemente eliminado a un individuo que insistió en seguir una línea de conducta inconstitucional e ilegal.

Los informes de prensa internacional de la semana anterior incluir la siguiente información “, la resolución de lectura en la planta de [Congreso Nacional de Honduras] Zelaya acusa de” conducta irregular manifiesto “y” poner en peligro la actualidad el estado de derecho “, por su negativa a obedecer una sentencia del Tribunal Supremo en contra de un referéndum constitucional trató de sujetarla. Zelaya, un cercano aliado del presidente venezolano Hugo Chávez, se trata de eliminar los límites a los mandatos presidenciales a través de un referéndum, preparando el camino para su reelección. Más tarde el Congreso aprobó la eliminación de Zelaya, y citó los artículos constitucionales que dijo el jefe del Congreso asume la presidencia en estos casos. líder del Congreso hondureño, Roberto Micheletti, ha sido designado para reemplazar al derrocado presidente José Manuel Zelaya.

Zelaya se negó a renunciar. Su retiro fue iniciado por el Congreso de Honduras y la Corte Suprema de Honduras, no la militar.

Esta situación sería análoga a un presidente de Estados Unidos tratando de cumplir un mandato de tercera de las objeciones del Congreso, la Corte Suprema y una violación directa de la Constitución estadounidense. Tengo que asumir un presidente de Estados Unidos de intentar hacer algo así sería destituido y encarcelado, y que en caso necesario, los EE.UU. militares sería utilizada por el Congreso y la Corte Suprema para “proteger y defender” la Constitución.

¿Por qué este movimiento extraño y antidemocrático de los Obama. Un intento de pura y simple, por un presidente de Estados Unidos, para apoyar a un individuo que estaba tratando de subvertir la Constitución de su país y violar la Ley Electoral de Honduras muy juró defender.

¿Por qué es que Obama está adoptando Hugo Chávez y Fidel Castro, en lugar de al Gobierno democráticamente electo de Honduras. El Gobierno de Honduras, en las personas del Congreso de Honduras y la Corte Suprema de Honduras, que fueron elegidos democráticamente también … y las ramas “igualdad de Gobierno” no estaban tratando de subvertir la Constitución hondureña, pero fueron excersing el apropiado “separación de poderes” , proteger al pueblo de Honduras del intento ilegal de Zelaya de subvertir las leyes y extender su poder.

Lo chocante para mí es que Obama se ha alineado con los dictadores, Chávez y Castro, otra vez. Chávez y Castro son a la vez megalomanics, tienen delirios de omnipotencia. Es por eso que tanto Castro y Chávez han perseguido “cadena perpetua”, como presidentes de sus respectivas dictaduras, lo mismo que Zelaya estaba tratando de hacer en Honduras. Imagine a alguien realmente creer que no hay nadie más calificado para dirigir al pueblo en su país, nadie más, pero ellos mismos. En todo el país, nadie. Eso da miedo. No es de extrañar el pueblo hondureño Zelaya destituido. No es de extrañar el número 2 al hombre en su propio partido lo reemplazó con el apoyo del Congreso de Honduras.

Pero ¿qué pasa con Obama? ¿Por qué se relacionan con estos meglomaniacs que creen que son omnipotentes? ¿Por qué del lado de los represores “en lugar de aquellos que están por la libertad.

El ex presidente hondureño me recuerda de sus aliados, Chávez y Castro …. las normas sólo se aplican a los demás. La Constitución de Honduras sólo dice lo que quiere decir. No hay necesidad de una “separación de poderes” …. que quiere todo el poder para sí mismo. Tenemos un hombre muy peligroso en la Casa Blanca si está de acuerdo con Chávez y Castro y no con el imperio de la ley o la separación de poderes que se produce cuando usted tiene tres “ramas iguales” del Gobierno.

Si Obama no puede distinguir cuál de las partes en Honduras actuó legalmente y que no … que no deben ser de su oficina. Un hombre que actúa de subvertir la Constitución de su país contra su Congreso País, Juzgados y militares, no está “en el” derecho y una vez destituido de su cargo, ya no es el “Presidente democráticamente elegido”.

¿Qué sigue para Obama? ¿Se unirá a Chávez en su amenaza de una invasión militar de Honduras? ¿Va a poner nuestras fuerzas armadas en estado de alerta? ¿Por qué está del lado de Obama con Castro y Chávez contra el pueblo de Honduras?
Contrariamente a los informes de prensa, Honduras no ha sido “condenados” por su acción, de hecho los que han hablado en contra de Honduras son limitados en número – Obama, Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro y el líder comunista de Nicaragua – Daniel Ortega.

Aliados Eurpopean de Estados Unidos no se han pronunciado contra el Gobierno de Honduras – de hecho, la BBC informa de lo siguiente:

El presidente interino Roberto Micheletti ha impuesto un toque de queda nocturno en Honduras, horas después de prestar juramento pulg

El orador Congreso asumió el cargo después de que tropas derrocado líder electo Manuel Zelaya y lo hizo volar a Costa Rica.

La remoción del señor Zelaya llegó en medio de una lucha de poder sobre sus planes para el cambio constitucional.

Sr. Zelaya, que había estado en el cargo desde 2006, quiso celebrar un referéndum que podría haber llevado a la prórroga de su mandato de cuatro años no renovables.

Las encuestas para el referéndum se ha debido a abrir la madrugada del domingo – pero las tropas lugar se lo llevó del palacio presidencial y lo hizo volar fuera del país.

El derrocamiento de Manuel Zelaya ha sido criticado por vecinos de la región y los EE.UU..

Sr. Micheletti dijo en una conferencia de prensa que el toque de queda en todo el país se impone para el domingo y el lunes, que va desde 2100 (0300 GMT) a 0600 (1200 GMT) en cada noche.

Días de tensión

La juramentación de Roberto Micheletti – constitucionalmente segundo en la línea de la Presidencia – fue recibido con aplausos en el Congreso.

En un discurso, dijo que no había asumido el poder “bajo la ignominia de un golpe de Estado”.

El ejército había cumplido con la Constitución, dijo, y había llegado a la presidencia “como resultado de un proceso de transición absolutamente legal”.

Congreso dijo que servir hasta el 27 de enero, cuando mandato del señor Zelaya debía expirar. Las elecciones presidenciales están previstas para el 29 de noviembre y el Sr. Micheletti prometió se iban por delante.

Tanto el Congreso y los tribunales se habían opuesto a referéndum el Sr. Zelaya, que pidió a los hondureños a apoyar una votación sobre los cambios constitucionales sin especificar junto con las elecciones de noviembre.

Las tensiones sobre el tema se ha ido en aumento por varios días, con el ejército negarse a ayudar con los preparativos para el referéndum.

Justo antes del amanecer del domingo, las tropas irrumpieron en la residencia del presidente. Había confusión sobre su paradero durante varias horas antes de que se presentó en Costa Rica.

Congreso dijo que había votado a favor de destituirlo debido a su “violaciónes repetido de la Constitución y la ley y la inobservancia de las órdenes y sentencias de las instituciones de Gobierno”.


Un final victorioso para el pueblo hondureño – El nuevo presidente asume el cargo – Devuelve Depuesto Zelaya al exilio
Publicado el 30 de enero 2010 por mcauleysworld | Editar
Nuevo presidente de Honduras, tome posesión del cargo; ex dirigente se exilia

Como nuevo Presidente de Honduras, Porfirio Lobo, asumió el cargo, deshonrado y depuesto ex presidente Manuel Zelaya voló al exilio permanente en la República Dominicana el pasado miércoles. Un acuerdo, negociado a principios de semana, ha permitido Zelaya para volver al exilio y evitar un juicio penal por algunos de los cargos que llevaron a su destitución por el verano pasado militar.

Zelaya, acompañado por su esposa, dos hijos y el presidente Leonel Fernández de República Dominicana, Honduras dejó pocas horas después de Porfirio Lobo fue juramentado como presidente.

En virtud de un acuerdo negociado por el Presidente Fernández, Zelaya acordó abandonar la Embajada de Brasil en Tegucigalpa, donde se había escondido desde el pasado septiembre, y para salir del país como Presidente Lobo tomó juramento de su cargo.

“Estaremos de vuelta”, gritó Zelaya antes de subir al avión. comentarios Zeleya parecía hueco ya que hay poco apoyo para su regreso en Honduras.

Lobo, un ranchero conservador elegido en noviembre, escoltado Zelaya al aeropuerto en una larga caravana, de acuerdo a la televisión hondureña.

“Dejamos atrás el pasado y ahora mira hacia el futuro”, dijo el presidente Lobo después de prestar juramento pulg-Pero usted no puede avanzar hacia el futuro sin sanar las heridas del pasado “.

Lobo primer acto como presidente fue firmar un decreto que concedía amnistía política para Zelaya. La medida, aprobada un día antes por el Congreso de Honduras, no conceda amnistía a los cargos de malversación que el ex presidente puede hacer frente.

La Corte Suprema exoneró Honduarn seis altos oficiales militares, entre ellos el jefe del Estado Mayor, al dictaminar que no actuaron con malicia cuando se redondea Zelaya el 28 de junio y lo hizo volar a Costa Rica. El fallo que se esperaba que los oficiales militares habían estado actuando por instrucciones de la Corte Suprema y el Congreso Honduarn. El fallo de la Suprema Corte de Honduras rechaza las alegaciones formuladas por Zelaya en la prensa internacional.

Posteriormente Zelaya, al amparo de la noche y con la asistencia del Gobierno brasileño, se coló de nuevo en Honduras y se escondió en la Embajada de Brasil. oferta vergonzoso de Zelaya para reclamar su oficina fueron infructuosos.

El verano pasado la Corte Suprema de Honduras ordenó el arresto de Zelaya por abuso de poder, la traición y otros cargos después de que él se negó a abandonar los planes para un referéndum que fue declarado ilegal y que el Congreso de Honduras dijo que estaba destinado a ayudarlo a mantenerse en el poder más allá de la una límite de plazo dispuesto por la Constitución hondureña.

En el momento el Gobierno democráticamente electo de Honduras de acuerdo con la Corte Suprema de Honduras y Zelaya se negó a reincorporar a la oficina a pesar de las denuncias internacionales.

Inexplicablemente, los Estados Unidos suspendió la ayuda a Honduras y tiró de las visas de algunos funcionarios hondureños que trabajan en el gobierno interino, un gobierno liderado por el presidente Roberto Micheletti. A pesar de que Micheletti, el segundo miembro rango de partido político de Zelaya, un partido que se volvió contra el depuesto líder y apoyaron su derrocamiento, estaba actuando de una manera constitucionalmente su caso, el Adminsitration Obama puso del lado de Zelaya y cortar la ayuda a uno de los países más pobres del hemisferio occidental.

La presión diplomática contra Honduras disminuyó incluso antes que el presidente Lobo ganó las elecciones, una elección que estaba prevista mucho antes de la detención de Zelaya por comportamiento ilegal.

Hubo señales el miércoles que la parte de la tierra pronto normalizar las relaciones con el nuevo gobierno. En los Estados Unidos, la indignación pública contra la postura de la Adminsitration de Obama en apoyo de Zelaya había atado las manos Administraciones e impidió cualquier tipo de apoyo significativo para el depuesto dictador.

aliado de Obama, el dictador Hugo Chávez de Venzuella, había amenazado con una invasión a Honduras para restablecer a Zelaya al poder.

El presidente izquierdista de El Salvador, Mauricio Funes, no asistió a la inauguración, pero ha dicho que restaurar los lazos diplomáticos una vez el presidente Lobo asumió el cargo.

Presidente Lobo dijo el martes que esperaba que los Estados Unidos pronto se restablecería millones de dólares en ayuda humanitaria.

Un alto funcionario del Departamento de Estado dijo que aunque el gobierno de EE.UU. considera que la primera se mueve del nuevo gobierno hondureño como “positivo”, no ha tomado una decisión sobre las ayudas.


%d bloggers like this: