Post by: Liberty.45ACP on May 06, 2008, 07:20:19 AM
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/6dfbbff2-9e17-4dd1-b2a1-87e4287e69fb.htm
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63522
Republican presidential candidate launches Spanish campaign website
Posted: May 05, 2008
10:38 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON Sen. John McCain, the de facto Republican presidential nominee, announced today he will attend the national convention of La Raza, a radical Hispanic lobby tied to the movement to reconquer the Southwestern U.S. that was part of Mexico before the Mexican-American War that ended in 1848.
The convention will be held in San Diego July 14.
Though La Raza bills itself as a civil rights organization, the group's name literally means "The Race."
La Raza was condemned in 2006 by Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."
Norwood has called on La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan which sees "The Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.
McCain, who steadfastly opposed efforts to build a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border and supported legislation to permit illegal aliens to remain in the U.S., also announced the launch of his campaign's Spanish language website.
The announcements came on Cinco de Mayo, the day commemorating an 1862 battle fought by Mexican troops.
"Today, we join together to remember the sacrifice that these Mexican patriots endured, as well as the struggles of all those around the world striving for freedom," said McCain in the statement. "We recognize as well the important friendship that exists between our country and Mexico, and celebrate the many contributions Mexican-Americans have made to our society, culture, security and economy."
Post by: Manedwolf on May 06, 2008, 07:36:59 AM
As I said, this election is between "sucks" and "sucks a lot more". Oh well.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on May 06, 2008, 08:24:42 AM
Quote
"Today, we join together to remember the sacrifice that these Mexican patriots endured, as well as the struggles of all those around the world striving for freedom," said McCain in the statement. "We recognize as well the important friendship that exists between our country and Mexico, and celebrate the many contributions Mexican-Americans have made to our society, culture, security and economy."
Why do I care at all, as an American Patriot, about any fight the Mexicans and the French had back in 1862?
Why is John McCain so enamoured with Mexican terrorist groups that he wants to "remember the sacrifice [of] these Mexican patriots"? What does Aztlan and La Raza have to do with Mexican nationalism? La Raza wants to take land from Mexico, too, to create their pet Aztlan.
They are the Palestinian trash of the Western Hemisphere.
ETA: Edited so the great powerful Mike Irwin does not visit his wroth upon me for using a nickname on a political candidate.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 06, 2008, 08:26:13 AM
Post by: El Tejon on May 06, 2008, 10:39:20 AM
Mane, I hope you are wrong, but I fear you are right.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 06, 2008, 10:50:52 AM
Quote
Why is Juan McCain so enamoured with Mexican terrorist groups that he wants to "remember the sacrifice [of] these Mexican patriots"?
I like it!
He is nothing but a hoebag.
Post by: Waitone on May 06, 2008, 12:27:44 PM
Post by: longeyes on May 06, 2008, 01:26:31 PM
When "welcoming" begins to mean the surrender of all principles, all bets are off.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 06, 2008, 04:33:43 PM
Why do I care at all, as an American Patriot, about any fight the Mexicans and the French had back in 1862?
Folks like it fine around here. Same reason we all care so much about an English missionary to Ireland (St. Patrick). 'Nother excuse to party.
Post by: De Selby on May 06, 2008, 09:00:09 PM
La Raza is, IMO, a terrorist group.
As I said, this election is between "sucks" and "sucks a lot more". Oh well.
As I said, this election is between "sucks" and "sucks a lot more". Oh well.
A terrorist group?
How many people have been killed by La Raza? Can anyone name its most infamous acts of terrorism?
I don't like it either, because I don't like the politics of race, but I have a hard time seeing how La Raza is anything other than American. And terrorist?
How does an organization become a terrorist organization without actually committing a single act of terrorism?
Post by: seeker_two on May 07, 2008, 01:36:14 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 07, 2008, 04:25:15 AM
Remind me....Why do we want to vote for this guy?
Because the likely alternative would make us NEED our emergency food stores and guns.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 07, 2008, 04:47:21 AM
Remind me....Why do we want to vote for this guy?
Because the likely alternative would make us NEED our emergency food stores and guns.
...look, I understand that the Democrats are slightly worse than McCain if your key issue is the zOMG HOMELAND SECURITY.
But are they really that worse than a guy who, according to YOU, attends the meetings of a terrorist organization?
Post by: Manedwolf on May 07, 2008, 04:56:32 AM
Remind me....Why do we want to vote for this guy?
Because the likely alternative would make us NEED our emergency food stores and guns.
...look, I understand that the Democrats are slightly worse than McCain if your key issue is the zOMG HOMELAND SECURITY.
But are they really that worse than a guy who, according to YOU, attends the meetings of a terrorist organization?
Attending the meeting of one is nowhere near as bad as Obama, who is friends with one of the Weathermen, whose preacher is a hate-fiilled radical black separatist, whose father was a frighteningly extreme "seize from the rich" Marxist. Obama himself is a hardcore left socialist who truly wants to bring all that failed garbage back from the past and try it all over again. And he wants to disarm the law-abiding, which would put them at the mercy of the lawless and cause a massive wave of crime only exacerbated by a repeat of failed socialist economic policies trashing the economy and an empty suit in the oval office.
I'm sorry, but this is a point where you're not here, you ARE a foreigner, and you're overstepping the boundary of being able to understand what "America" is all about.
Live here for a good long while, take the oath of citizenship, then you can understand. Until then, I have to be honest, you're kinda coming off like the people on the BBC who try to debate American politics. You can't understand unless you're here.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 07, 2008, 04:58:14 AM
Really, really, this is what an ad hominem is.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 07, 2008, 05:01:14 AM
So, once you say something about Middle-Eastern politics, and the evil of OMG ISLAM, am I allowed to use that argument right back?
Really, really, this is what an ad hominem is.
Really, really, this is what an ad hominem is.
Actually, I only care about Middle Eastern politics because they tend to leak out and blow up stuff elsewhere. Like, here. Which is what 9/11 was. If Middle Eastern politics stayed in the Middle East, I could care less how often Islamic factions blew each other up. I'd care about as much as I did about tribal warfare in Africa, which is...none.
If I ever argued about internal politics of Israel, which party was which, which I never do, because it's not my country and I don't pretend to understand the political machinations, then your argument would have merit. But I don't. I never have. So your argument makes no sense, and your claims of an ad hominem are silly.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 07, 2008, 05:22:23 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 07, 2008, 05:25:09 AM
Quote
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
ad ho·mi·nem Audio Help /æd ˈhɒmənəm‑ˌnɛm, ɑd-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad hom-uh-nuhm‑nem, ahd-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 07, 2008, 05:27:12 AM
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim".
Post by: Manedwolf on May 07, 2008, 05:32:07 AM
Anyone can make up their own junk and post it at any time. It's why I cite published dictionaries and journals that have been subject to editors and fact-checking before publishing. Definitions of terms have been agreed upon by a great many people before publishing in a dictionary, not just one blogger who decided to redefine a term and hit "submit".
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 07, 2008, 05:55:53 AM
Wikipedia is not accepted as a viable citation source by any university or published media.
Cite it on a paper and it'd get thrown back at you by any profs I'd ever had.
Cite it on a paper and it'd get thrown back at you by any profs I'd ever had.
That's news to me. The university which I attend accepts Wikipedia as a source.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 07, 2008, 06:18:07 AM
Maned is correct on this one, him and I are both on the ground here in the same state and see what's going on. If you believe in freedom it's plain to see that Obama is by far the worst candidate running, and as much as I detest McCain he's no where near the threat Obama is.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 07, 2008, 06:35:47 AM
Micro,
Maned is correct on this one, him and I are both on the ground here in the same state and see what's going on. If you believe in freedom it's plain to see that Obama is by far the worst candidate running, and as much as I detest McCain he's no where near the threat Obama is.
Maned is correct on this one, him and I are both on the ground here in the same state and see what's going on. If you believe in freedom it's plain to see that Obama is by far the worst candidate running, and as much as I detest McCain he's no where near the threat Obama is.
Nobody is contesting that Obama sucks.
Post by: Glock Glockler on May 07, 2008, 07:17:26 AM
Post by: seeker_two on May 07, 2008, 07:41:11 AM
Obama does indeed suck, and he also sucks WAY worse than McCain.
So.....the qualification for POTUS is now being the person that sucks the LEAST?......
....at least it rules out Lewinski.......
Post by: longeyes on May 07, 2008, 09:48:41 AM
Obama is The Horror arrived, in our midst, present-tense. A Marxist with, for now, good manners. His administration stands an excellent chance of dissolving in total civil war.
Post by: GigaBuist on May 07, 2008, 11:56:25 AM
Quote
His administration stands an excellent chance of dissolving in total civil war.
I wonder what the Vegas odds are on that one.
Post by: Bigjake on May 07, 2008, 12:21:17 PM
I swear that man is TRYING to make me vote Hillary this fall.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 07, 2008, 03:04:05 PM
Post by: Finch on May 07, 2008, 05:46:59 PM
Quote
Why do all ACDC songs sound exactly alike??
THEY DON'T!!!
Quote
I wonder what the Vegas odds are on that one.
I'm going to say +135
Post by: De Selby on May 07, 2008, 05:57:41 PM
How many people has La Raza killed?
How many acts of terrorism has it committed?
I still don't see how you earn the label "terrorist" without killing anyone or committing even one act of terrorism. I guess I'm just "foreign" to this idea too.
Post by: Bigjake on May 08, 2008, 01:49:54 AM
Quote
Why do all ACDC songs sound exactly alike??
THEY DON'T!!!
Quote
I wonder what the Vegas odds are on that one.
I'm going to say +135
Post by: Werewolf on May 12, 2008, 12:17:57 PM
Obama does indeed suck, and he also sucks WAY worse than McCain.
So.....the qualification for POTUS is now being the person that sucks the LEAST?......
....at least it rules out Lewinski.......
Ummmm.... hold on there. There might be some real benefit to foreign diplomacy having a Prez that sucked .
Post by: yesitsloaded on May 13, 2008, 12:28:16 PM
They endorsed the December 18, 2001 "Statement of Solidarity with Migrants," which was drawn up by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
It opposes the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act (CLEAR), which would empower state and local law-enforcement authorities to enforce federal immigration laws.
As columnist Michelle Malkin reports, La Raza seeks to inculcate young people with its worldview by funding a number of charter schools that advocate ethnic separatism and anti-American, anti-white attitudes. Among these schools are the following:
* Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Arizona is "structured and developed around the concepts of identity, culture, and language." It supports local ethnic lobbying efforts "to right social injustices by educating the community and helping create social change." Under the heading "Greatest Achievements," the school's website lists its visit from the Marxist academic fraud Rigoberta Menchu, and its sponsorship of the Mexican holiday Dia de los Muertos.
* La Academia Semillas del Pueblo is a Los Angeles public school that teaches children "Aztec math" and the Mexican indigenous language of "Nahuatl." The principal, Marcos Aguilar, is an ethnic separatist who told a UCLA interviewer: "We don't want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don't need a White water fountain. & We are not interested in what they have because we have so much more and because the world is so much larger. And ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction."
* Aztlan Academy in south Tucson seeks "to integrate a meaningful Chicano Studies program into [students'] lives, language, and academics, as a means of developing their intellects as well as their pride and self-esteem." ("Aztlan" is the separatist name for the Southwestern United States that NCLR hopes will someday reunite with Mexico.)
* The Dolores Huerta Preparatory High School in Pueblo, Colorado is named after the Latina labor union activist who is a Board member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
* The Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in Saint Paul, Minnesota supports the aforementioned federal DREAM Act.
NCLR also receives funding from the American Express Foundation; the Allstate Foundation; the AT&T Foundation; the Bank of America Foundation; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; the Annie E. Casey Foundation; the Fannie Mae Foundation; the Ford Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Joyce Foundation; the W. K. Kellogg Foundation; the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Open Society Institute; the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation; and the Verizon Foundation.
NCLR's total revenues in 2005 were $25.3 million. Its net assets that year were nearly $52.4 million.
At the March 2008 "Take Back America" conference sponsored by Campaign for America's Future (CAF), NCLR joined CAF and five additional leftist organizations in announcing plans for "the most expensive [$350 million] mobilization in history this election season." The initiative focused on voter registration, education, and get-out-the-vote drives. Other members of the coalition included MoveOn.org, Rock the Vote, ACORN, the Women's Voices Women Vote Action Fund, and the AFL-CIO.
They bad enough for you?
Post by: Boomhauer on May 13, 2008, 05:28:28 PM
"The only reason to vote McCain is that it gives us potentially 4 more years to buy guns. Period."
That's my view on it as well. Buy 'em up and stack ammo deep.
Post by: De Selby on May 13, 2008, 05:43:08 PM
Let's see what I can find for SS to help him understand that these guys are bad news.
They bad enough for you?
They bad enough for you?
How on earth does that amount to terrorism?
Sorry, but I don't equate "don't agree with their politics" with "terrorist."
Post by: De Selby on May 13, 2008, 06:18:56 PM
Shootinstudent can't wait for the scenario outlined in Matthew Bracken/Travis McGee's novel "Domestic Enemies". Where the hispanics have taken over New Mexico and are instituting land reforms and killing anyone against them.
The hispanics are doing this how?
Post by: yesitsloaded on May 13, 2008, 07:14:00 PM
Post by: De Selby on May 13, 2008, 10:30:01 PM
Quote
SS I really am starting to wonder about your reasonableness at this point. Lets call a spade a spade here.
Okay, let's get it straight-I was responding to the label of "terrorist group" being applied to these guys.
None of what has been posted here is even close to terrorism-there is absolutely no reasonable way to label a group terrorist when it has not committed any acts of terrorism. Support for leftist policies by itself is not terrorism by any sane definition, and so far that's the only thing I've seen alleged here.
Quote
They are a radical left wing group that wants part of the US the be taken over by Mexico so they can return it to a hispanic racial purity.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this claim is not supported by any reasonable evidence whatsoever. Mind you, that doesn't make La Raza good or all my style; but this line smacks of wildest sort of conspiracy theory.
Quote
No I cannot point out a specific crime of terror that they have committed as of yet, but if Hamas were to move over to my town and not blow anything up, Hamas remains a terrorist organization.
Okay, but if Hamas had never committed an act of terrorism ever, would it still be a terrorist organization???
How would that work?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 14, 2008, 03:24:59 AM
so they are terrorist cause you are terrified then?
Post by: trapperready on May 14, 2008, 04:00:43 AM
Post by: Boomhauer on May 14, 2008, 05:21:03 AM
Quote
Support for leftist policies by itself is not terrorism by any sane definition
\\Supporters of leftist policies often turn to terrorism, particularly in the poorer countries.
Quote
Quote
Quote from: Avenger29 on May 13, 2008, 10:28:28 PM
Shootinstudent can't wait for the scenario outlined in Matthew Bracken/Travis McGee's novel "Domestic Enemies". Where the hispanics have taken over New Mexico and are instituting land reforms and killing anyone against them.
Shootinstudent can't wait for the scenario outlined in Matthew Bracken/Travis McGee's novel "Domestic Enemies". Where the hispanics have taken over New Mexico and are instituting land reforms and killing anyone against them.
The hispanics are doing this how?
Its a novel.
Post by: yesitsloaded on May 14, 2008, 06:59:52 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 14, 2008, 02:48:20 PM
Post by: yesitsloaded on May 14, 2008, 03:42:30 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 14, 2008, 04:00:48 PM
Post by: longeyes on May 14, 2008, 04:20:34 PM
Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 14, 2008, 04:29:11 PM
what part of his allegations do you imagine qualifies them for prosecution? we'll be waiting
Post by: CAnnoneer on May 14, 2008, 08:20:22 PM
You win 1 point on semantics and lose 10 points on patriotism. Your balance: -9. Having the right priorities: priceless. 
I think it is beautifully ironic that just 60 years ago, a bunch of innocent people were jailed, while today far more numerous and guilty walk free.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 14, 2008, 08:33:47 PM
Post by: De Selby on May 14, 2008, 08:37:11 PM
So, they are not (yet) terrorists, they are just traitors. You win 1 point on semantics and lose 10 points on patriotism. Your balance: -9. Having the right priorities: priceless.
I think it is beautifully ironic that just 60 years ago, a bunch of innocent people were jailed, while today far more numerous and guilty walk free.
You win 1 point on semantics and lose 10 points on patriotism. Your balance: -9. Having the right priorities: priceless. I think it is beautifully ironic that just 60 years ago, a bunch of innocent people were jailed, while today far more numerous and guilty walk free.
Wait, so you think it ought to be illegal to support left wing policies in the US?
Or it should be against the law to advocate primarily on behalf of one race/ethnic group above others?
Seems like handing the government the right to define "acceptable positions", imo.
Post by: CAnnoneer on May 14, 2008, 08:45:48 PM
Wait, so you think it ought to be illegal to support left wing policies in the US?
=jumping to unsubstantiated conclusion.
Quote
Or it should be against the law to advocate primarily on behalf of one race/ethnic group above others?
= twisting the truth. We both know that is not what they are doing.
Quote
Seems like handing the government the right to define "acceptable positions", imo.
We call such definitions "laws". We vote people into office to write them and pass them, then we follow them. Thus, being a traitor is not an acceptable position, no. Just as it is not acceptable to do all sorts of other illegal things.
If you do not think what they are doing ought to be illegal, that is another story and certainly worthy of discussion. As is, it is.
Post by: De Selby on May 14, 2008, 08:47:52 PM
Or was that treason comment not directed at them?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 14, 2008, 08:52:29 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on May 14, 2008, 08:59:50 PM
So what is it that you would consider a jailable offense here in the activities of La Raza and affiliates?
Or was that treason comment not directed at them?
Or was that treason comment not directed at them?
Yes, it was. The quickest answer is they are guilty many times over of most of what longeyes pointed out in legal terms just a few posts over. Those things are jailable offenses. A longer answer is that what they are advocating and working towards is the dissolution of the USA as a country, or at the least, the surrender of large portions of it to a foreign country. In what world would that not constitute treason??
I feel like I am stating 1+1=2. Why is this necessary?
Post by: CAnnoneer on May 14, 2008, 09:03:58 PM
its only when you advocate in a way that makes him uncomfortable that you are a terrorist...er i mean traitor. if its a position he espouses you are a hwero of the revolution
I cannot say I do not deserve a comment like that. There are issues on which I disagree with the current system of laws. However, that does not make it unreasonable for me to insist that certain laws be followed as written. Moreover, it is disingenuous to criticize me that way when we all know that the respective laws make sense, are in the best interests of the country, and would not be changed anytime soon by legal means. That is one of the things that pro-illegals never want to own up to - that many points of their agenda can only be forwarded by illegal and undemocratic means, IN SPITE OF rather than in accordance to current laws on the books.
Post by: De Selby on May 14, 2008, 09:04:32 PM
Quote
Yes, it was. The quickest answer is they are guilty many times over of most of what longeyes pointed out in legal terms just a few posts over. Those things are jailable offenses.
I'm sorry, but there is no possible way to read that statute and then conclude that political rallies in support of immigration reform constitute a crime. That's why no one has ever been charged for this supposed "crime"-it doesn't exist, because lobbying to change laws you don't like does not constitute a crime against those laws.
Quote
A longer answer is that what they are advocating and working towards is the dissolution of the USA as a country, or at the least, the surrender of large portions of it to a foreign country. In what world would that not constitute treason??
In a world where the freedom to advocate a different government and different laws is the law of the land, that would not be treason, of course. And that world is a reality here in the good old US of A.
You might want to read the law, FYI: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/08/usc_sec_08_00001324----000-.html
Post by: CAnnoneer on May 14, 2008, 09:14:17 PM
I'm sorry, but there is no possible way to read that statute and then conclude that political rallies in support of immigration reform constitute a crime. That's why no one has ever been charged for this supposed "crime"-it doesn't exist, because lobbying to change laws you don't like does not constitute a crime against those laws.
People have not been charged for the same reason that our borders are not secured and our internal enforcement is dragging their feet - because of undue political pressure, not because of what is legal or not. Lack of enforcement cannot be used as sufficient proof of legality.
As far as how the law is read, you are free to believe what you wish, just as you are free to believe there are five lights over the Cardassian's head. I and others see four lights.
Another simple proof of illegality is that it is aiding and abetting a crime. Since breaking our immigration laws is a crime, anyone aiding and abetting illegals is breaking the law as well.
Quote
In a world where the freedom to advocate a different government and different laws is the law of the land, that would not be treason, of course. And that world is a reality here in the good old US of A.
We both know they go far beyond "advocating". I would also point out that if we were talking about a neo-Nazi organization, you'd be on top of them like fly on stink. In the same way as Neo-Nazis are protected by 1A until they entice people to violence, La Raza is protected by 1A until they aid and abett illegals, intimidate officials and private citizens, and entice separatism. We both know they have passed that line for a long time now.
Post by: De Selby on May 14, 2008, 09:19:30 PM
We both know they go far beyond "advocating". I would also point out that if we were talking about a neo-Nazi organization, you'd be on top of them like fly on stink. In the same way as Neo-Nazis are protected by 1A until they entice people to violence, La Raza is protected by 1A until they aid and abett illegals, intimidate officials and private citizens, and entice separatism. We both know they have passed that line for a long time now.
Please note that the quote above in Longeyes's post isn't the statute, it's a highly slanted summary. Click on the link to read the actual law an you'll see what I mean about it not even being close to a crime to hold rallies in support of immigration reform.
And no, I wouldn't be all over letting the government tell me what I can and cannot believe in order to stop neo-Nazis.
Post by: longeyes on May 16, 2008, 09:03:32 PM
"Highly slanted summary?" As if we all don't know exactly what La Raza's agenda is. Come on.
The voice of the American citizenry is being denied in favor of condoning lawlessness. This is an unholy alliance between big chunks of government and business and it should be called what it is: tyranny, a form of coup d'etat that subverts our sacred and essential principles of republican governance. This kind of thing can only go on so long before the massive betrayal leads to the catastrophic rupture of the basic TRUST on which a society like ours rests. We are not far from that point, and when it comes, general barbarity will be the rule rather than the unhappy exception.
Post by: longeyes on May 17, 2008, 06:45:31 AM
What Does Granting Amnesty Have to Do With Funding Our Troops in Iraq? ( NOTHING! )
townhall.com ^ | May 16, 2008 | Ira Mehlman
Posted on 05/17/2008 6:47:22 AM PDT by kellynla
There is an unwritten rule in Congress that the appropriations process should not be used to pass major legislation. So when the Senate Appropriations Committee makes an exception to this rule, you can bet that they are doing so only to deal with some burning crisis.
For the Senate Appropriations Committee to break with tradition, the interests at stake must be so compelling that circumstances demand that the cumbersome legislative process be bypassed and that the issue be dealt with immediately. And when the legislation gets tacked on to not just any old appropriations bill, but an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund our servicemen and women fighting in Iraq, one can assume that the most vital national interests hang in the balance.
What were the compelling interests that led the august Senate Appropriations Committee to include major legislation as part of the military spending bill on Thursday? Amnesty for illegal aliens, and lots of new foreign workers for powerful business interests.
In one afternoon, the Appropriations Committee approved amnesty for 1.35 million illegal alien agricultural workers, and made available an additional 650,000 skilled and unskilled foreign guest workers over the next three years. Thats 2 million new, or newly legalized, foreign workers entering our labor force over the next three years even as our economy has been losing jobs.
The 2 million figure does not include the dependents of the amnesty recipients or new workers who could be admitted under existing agricultural guest worker programs. Under the agricultural amnesty written by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at the behest of the California agricultural lobby the spouses of amnesty recipients will also be authorized to compete with American workers for jobs in any sector of our labor market. Nor does it include the potentially unlimited number of new guest workers agricultural employers will be able to import under a streamlined H-2A program that requires the Department of Labor to issue visas within seven days of an employers request.
Just to be extra sure that the agriculture industry will get their workers as cheaply as possible, Sen. Feinstein threw in a provision that freezes wages for these farm workers at 2007 levels.
While the Feinstein amendment offers senators a fig leaf to avoid the dreaded A-Word (thats A-M-N-E-S-T-Y) by legalizing these workers for only five years, the sunset provision is sheer kabuki theater. Everyone knows that once we start down that road there is no turning back. At some point in the next five years, the temporary amnesty will be made a permanent one and will likely include many other categories of illegal aliens just to be fair to everyone who broke our laws.
California agriculture is not the only business interest powerful enough to hitch a ride on the backs of our military personnel. The Maryland fishing and tourism industries also want a ready supply of cheap foreign labor, and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) was happy to accommodate by offering an amendment that exempts returning unskilled or low-skilled H-2B workers from counting against the caps for that category. (Never mind that there are fewer Maryland crabs to harvest each year, and that with the skyrocketing price of gas people may not be able to afford to drive to the Eastern Shore.) Over the next three years, the cumulative number of H-2B workers admitted could reach 432,000.
And while the Appropriations Committee was piling on goodies for the low-skill industries, they found time to take care of the lobbyists for the high tech industry as well. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Microsoft/Wash.) added a provision to recapture 218,000 visas for skilled foreign workers. These visas didnt really escape, so much as they just went unutilized between 1996 and 2004, especially during the years immediately after the high tech bubble burst. But now high tech employers and labor contractors want those visas back, because foreign guest workers tamp down labor costs for the industry.
Americans, no matter what they might think of the war in Iraq, genuinely support our men and women who are over there serving our nation. It seems that the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee love our troops too but for entirely different reasons: they provide convenient cover for passing special interest legislation to benefit illegal aliens and powerful business lobbies.
Post by: De Selby on May 17, 2008, 02:24:16 PM
The time to "rally for immigration reform" is BEFORE 20 million-plus illegal aliens are encamped inside your society. "Immigration reform" means aiding and abetting the legalization of people who have no right to be in this country in the first place.
"Highly slanted summary?" As if we all don't know exactly what La Raza's agenda is. Come on.
The voice of the American citizenry is being denied in favor of condoning lawlessness. This is an unholy alliance between big chunks of government and business and it should be called what it is: tyranny, a form of coup d'etat that subverts our sacred and essential principles of republican governance. This kind of thing can only go on so long before the massive betrayal leads to the catastrophic rupture of the basic TRUST on which a society like ours rests. We are not far from that point, and when it comes, general barbarity will be the rule rather than the unhappy exception.
"Highly slanted summary?" As if we all don't know exactly what La Raza's agenda is. Come on.
The voice of the American citizenry is being denied in favor of condoning lawlessness. This is an unholy alliance between big chunks of government and business and it should be called what it is: tyranny, a form of coup d'etat that subverts our sacred and essential principles of republican governance. This kind of thing can only go on so long before the massive betrayal leads to the catastrophic rupture of the basic TRUST on which a society like ours rests. We are not far from that point, and when it comes, general barbarity will be the rule rather than the unhappy exception.
I meant of the statute that was cited. That wasn't a textual quote of the law, it was someone else's summary of the law that badly distorted the activity it prohibits.
Post by: freakazoid on May 17, 2008, 03:51:26 PM
Post by: longeyes on May 17, 2008, 03:52:10 PM
Post by: De Selby on May 18, 2008, 03:28:32 AM
Why don't you post the Federal statute verbatim?
I did, with that link, but I will repost it here in full:
Quote
§ 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(a) Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs
(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
(C) It is not a violation of clauses [1] (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) except where a person encourages or induces an alien to come to or enter the United States, for a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States, or the agents or officers of such denomination or organization, to encourage, invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the United States to perform the vocation of a minister or missionary for the denomination or organization in the United States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee, notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination for at least one year.
(2) Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien shall, for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this paragraph occurs
(A) be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or
(B) in the case of
(i) an offense committed with the intent or with reason to believe that the alien unlawfully brought into the United States will commit an offense against the United States or any State punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year,
(ii) an offense done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(iii) an offense in which the alien is not upon arrival immediately brought and presented to an appropriate immigration officer at a designated port of entry,
be fined under title 18 and shall be imprisoned, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(iii), not more than 10 years, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii), not less than 3 nor more than 10 years, and for any other violation, not less than 5 nor more than 15 years.
(3)
(A) Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
(B) An alien described in this subparagraph is an alien who
(i) is an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 1324a (h)(3) of this title), and
(ii) has been brought into the United States in violation of this subsection.
(4) In the case of a person who has brought aliens into the United States in violation of this subsection, the sentence otherwise provided for may be increased by up to 10 years if
(A) the offense was part of an ongoing commercial organization or enterprise;
(B) aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more; and
(C)
(i) aliens were transported in a manner that endangered their lives; or
(ii) the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States.
(b) Seizure and forfeiture
(1) In general
Any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, that has been or is being used in the commission of a violation of subsection (a) of this section, the gross proceeds of such violation, and any property traceable to such conveyance or proceeds, shall be seized and subject to forfeiture.
(2) Applicable procedures
Seizures and forfeitures under this subsection shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18 relating to civil forfeitures, including section 981(d) of such title, except that such duties as are imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury under the customs laws described in that section shall be performed by such officers, agents, and other persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Attorney General.
(3) Prima facie evidence in determinations of violations
In determining whether a violation of subsection (a) of this section has occurred, any of the following shall be prima facie evidence that an alien involved in the alleged violation had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law:
(A) Records of any judicial or administrative proceeding in which that aliens status was an issue and in which it was determined that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(B) Official records of the Service or of the Department of State showing that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(C) Testimony, by an immigration officer having personal knowledge of the facts concerning that aliens status, that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
(d) Admissibility of videotaped witness testimony
Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the videotaped (or otherwise audiovisually preserved) deposition of a witness to a violation of subsection (a) of this section who has been deported or otherwise expelled from the United States, or is otherwise unable to testify, may be admitted into evidence in an action brought for that violation if the witness was available for cross examination and the deposition otherwise complies with the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(e) Outreach program
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall develop and implement an outreach program to educate the public in the United States and abroad about the penalties for bringing in and harboring aliens in violation of this section.
(a) Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs
(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
(C) It is not a violation of clauses [1] (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) except where a person encourages or induces an alien to come to or enter the United States, for a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States, or the agents or officers of such denomination or organization, to encourage, invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the United States to perform the vocation of a minister or missionary for the denomination or organization in the United States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee, notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination for at least one year.
(2) Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien shall, for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this paragraph occurs
(A) be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or
(B) in the case of
(i) an offense committed with the intent or with reason to believe that the alien unlawfully brought into the United States will commit an offense against the United States or any State punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year,
(ii) an offense done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(iii) an offense in which the alien is not upon arrival immediately brought and presented to an appropriate immigration officer at a designated port of entry,
be fined under title 18 and shall be imprisoned, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(iii), not more than 10 years, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii), not less than 3 nor more than 10 years, and for any other violation, not less than 5 nor more than 15 years.
(3)
(A) Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
(B) An alien described in this subparagraph is an alien who
(i) is an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 1324a (h)(3) of this title), and
(ii) has been brought into the United States in violation of this subsection.
(4) In the case of a person who has brought aliens into the United States in violation of this subsection, the sentence otherwise provided for may be increased by up to 10 years if
(A) the offense was part of an ongoing commercial organization or enterprise;
(B) aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more; and
(C)
(i) aliens were transported in a manner that endangered their lives; or
(ii) the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States.
(b) Seizure and forfeiture
(1) In general
Any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, that has been or is being used in the commission of a violation of subsection (a) of this section, the gross proceeds of such violation, and any property traceable to such conveyance or proceeds, shall be seized and subject to forfeiture.
(2) Applicable procedures
Seizures and forfeitures under this subsection shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18 relating to civil forfeitures, including section 981(d) of such title, except that such duties as are imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury under the customs laws described in that section shall be performed by such officers, agents, and other persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Attorney General.
(3) Prima facie evidence in determinations of violations
In determining whether a violation of subsection (a) of this section has occurred, any of the following shall be prima facie evidence that an alien involved in the alleged violation had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law:
(A) Records of any judicial or administrative proceeding in which that aliens status was an issue and in which it was determined that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(B) Official records of the Service or of the Department of State showing that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(C) Testimony, by an immigration officer having personal knowledge of the facts concerning that aliens status, that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.
(c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
(d) Admissibility of videotaped witness testimony
Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the videotaped (or otherwise audiovisually preserved) deposition of a witness to a violation of subsection (a) of this section who has been deported or otherwise expelled from the United States, or is otherwise unable to testify, may be admitted into evidence in an action brought for that violation if the witness was available for cross examination and the deposition otherwise complies with the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(e) Outreach program
The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall develop and implement an outreach program to educate the public in the United States and abroad about the penalties for bringing in and harboring aliens in violation of this section.
Post by: longeyes on May 18, 2008, 08:07:30 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 18, 2008, 08:11:12 AM
Now SS supports Hamas, Hezbollah, and La Raza and illegal immigrants, who are criminals, as well.
How about Chavez? You behind him as well? Picking some real winners. Ahmadinejad?
Do you wear American flags on the soles of your shoes as a statement, too?