LA Unified School Board “SB1070 is UN-AMERICAN?!?!?”
Whew! So happy my kids are not in the LA school system. Their Unified School Board has decided that they are going to teach school kids that the Arizona Immigration Law is "UN-AMERICAN!!" They are equating it to slavery, internment camps for Japanese Americans and Antisemitism?!?! What is happening to our country?
Arizona Immigration v. Mexican Law
So, it's been a little bit since SB 1070 was passed in AZ. It was interesting to see the backlash this issue caused. Since then, I'm sure we've all read many blogs, articles, editorials, etc. on the law itself and the controversy regarding possible racial profiling.
Well... if you think Governor Brewer is a "meanie", I encourage to keep reading and see what Mexico's Immigration Law looks like. Call me a racial profiler if you like, but can we all at least agree that the influx of undocumented people entering the US, is primarily Mexican? Is that overstepping some lines? Will it become too much of an encumbrance to ask citizens who are driving, to carry with them a state issued driver's license? Are papers too heavy? Did everyone miss the part about federal law permitting agents to ask for proof of legal status without first executing a lawful transaction? Let's move on...
The following is a translated although accurate interpretation of the both Mexico's Ley General de Poblacion or General Population Law (read it straight from Mexico's Congress site http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/140.pdf unless you think it's unfair of me to ask you to do this). You think Arizona's Immigration Law is a burden? Read on and tell me if you don't agree that if we enacted Mexico's laws in the US, we would not have this problem to begin with? I mean if you go to Mexico you could be barred from the country if your presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for profiling?!?!!?!
Mexico’s Immigration Law (General Law on Population) 1999
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
- Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
- Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
- Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
- The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
• Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
- Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
- A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
- A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
• Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
- Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
- Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
• Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
- Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
- Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
- Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
• Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
- “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
- Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
- Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
• Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
- A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
- Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
From MEXICO’S CONSTITUTION (http://factreal.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/mexicoconstitution2008.pdf):
• The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life.
Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, “only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country.” Article 33 is unambiguous: “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”
• The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners.
If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast.
Article 27 states, “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.” (Emphasis added)
• The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal
ones, in the public sector.
“Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.” (Article 32)
• The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.
Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:
“In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.”
• An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.
• Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).
• The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82), thus giving secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.
• The Mexican constitution singles out “undesirable aliens.” Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.”
• The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests.
Article 16 states, “in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.
• The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”
Equal Justice vs. Social Justice
This is why Beck is the man!! Take a look at these two pictures... what stands out at you?
Equal Justice...
Social Justice...
Did you happen to catch the "oh so subtle difference"? Both of these groups claimed to be fighting for civil rights. You don't have to be too bright to see the fear, angst, concern, anger in the faces of those who REALLY fought the EQUAL justice of their people.
Then there is Nancy Pelosi and her minions... how the hell is this fighting?!?! Unless she is going to use that gavel to beat up on some doctors! This is the fight for "SOCIAL" justice.
I love the United States of America, but these people are making it hard to keep the faith. May God bless us all.
Arizona Law Sucks? Read Muehler v. Mena…
Hey Libs... so you think the Arizona Immigration law is unfair and opens the door for racial profiling? First of all, you're nuts! Plain and simple!! Second of all, if you actually took the time to read the law, you would see that it is actually less strict than the federal law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Muehler v. Mena ruling in 2005.
So, first, READ SB1070, then read this Muehler ruling and then tell me something substantive to refute my argument, or I suppose you can handle like these winners...
Expectations… How could you not have any!!
Anyone see a little irony in that title?
Well, we've said from the beginning that we wanted this blog to be a forum for anyone to voice their opinion politics and, well, really anything that furthers the cause of protecting our first amendment right, by any association possible. Today, I have decided to write about something totally not politically inclined, but for which I have the right to speak about freely... for now 
I have recently read a lot of literature about relationships, expectations in relationships, their dynamics and how they change throughout the course of the same...
This has lead to some careful analysis so as not to fall into the same trap! I'd like to share with you, my thoughts on why it is very important that partners in a relationship recognize the profound impact and it's circular effects, that expectations can have in a relationship. I've read and heard from many a "love" doctor, that it is bad for couples to have expectations of one another. I've even talked to my wife about it and at first we agreed that it was ridiculous to think that a wife would have no expectations of her husband and vice versa. Later though, I started to do some serious self-analysis and try to break down this argument. My attention was piqued because again, I had heard it from many relationship experts, but also in a two-week church service series where a husband and wife expounded on the differences between "expectations" and "dreams, hopes, goals, etc).
As I thought more about it and contemplated different scenarios and the challenges that each and every one of those expectations brought about I came up with the following introspective write up...
A man truly loves and appreciates who is his wife is as a person, and in his life. He realizes that recently, he has been sending her mixed messages about how he feels after several years of marriage and deterioration of their relationship despite the deep love they feel for each other. He expresses his whole-hearted desire to rekindle the special "something" that made the fall in love with each other in the first place, only to shatter the hope of the wife by telling the wife that "they are trying to change things that cannot be changed" and "divorce could be an option because is they don't have harmony as married people, they could possibly have it with others who are more similar, and they themselves could grow closer together because the emotion and neediness that come along with marriage would no longer be a factor". She has resigned herself to despair because she realizes that there is no point in trying because he must just not love her anymore. She thinks this, because he constantly disappoints her by doing things that she is against or finds repulsive or that she has told him not to do because only bad people do those things.
He, however, had actually not given up and has tried so hard to measure up as a man, inasmuch as his wife's convictions, morals, and highly regarded axioms were concerned. This unrecognized effort has lead him to despair as well and thus he knows he loves her and tells her so, but his actions are not congruent with words. Moreover, because he is trying as hard as he can to become a "better" man, he begins to realize that he is doing the opposite of what he should... in a sense, he is trying to force a square peg into a round hole. So he begins to postulate what he has learned, in an effort to compel his wife to join him a journey toward self-awareness and understanding how important it is to draw a line in the sand, forget about who has worked harder in the relationship, who did and didn't measure up, judging... negatively by pointing out shortcomings or too positively by putting the other on a pedestal, and TALKING!!
This may sounds very rudimentary but what I mean is, get to know each other on another level. Don't be afraid to tell each other the truth about who you are, what you like to do when you're with that person, and when you are alone, etc. The more honest you can be about what YOU like, the more you and your partner can formulate a list of hopes, dreams, etc. But what is paramount here, is that by doing this, you avoid THE TRAP! Read on and see what I mean...
I will now take you back to our couple. Husband has had an opportunity to reflect on everything that has taken place so far and says the following...
...Bottom line is that I don't need a piece of paper saying that we are married to want to change our lives for the better. See, the reason I said that divorce doesn't scare me is not because I was already thinking about leaving you. It is because some of those things that I read and some that I have thought of myself are that I love you for you. I do the things I do for YOU, not because you are my wife. Along those lines, I can see what the fear is behind divorce. For some, it is the fear of having failed, for others it's how it's going to look, for others it's how the children are going to be impacted and for others still, it is because you feel like you are losing someone. What I believe the reality of it to be, is that, marriage is a state of being, whereby the parties involved are signing a promise (or vows), which give rise to expectations. These expectations (as many people have postulated) are what cause the discussions, which turn into disagreements, which turn into fights, which turn into animosity and resentment. I am with you in that there should be "some" expectations, but those expectations should be derived through communication and consensus and they should not be above and beyond the expectations you would have of anyone within the human scope. What I mean is, human beings have a modicum of civility and proper communication and behavior, which they are expected to abide by within their jurisdiction and/or country and/or culture and/or religion. There are certain actions that are universally considered taboos, like killing people or maybe not being intimate with our parents...I'm not certain that is universally recognized but you get the picture. I honestly believe that this is what relationship experts mean when they say that we need to treat each other as best friends or at the very least like co-workers.
Beyond expectations, axioms and social mores that further the human cause, yes, one could say that there may be a minimal level of spousal expectations, but if you really think about it, those SHOULD be contemplated and set as a couple, rather than one expecting the other to change or adapt to align with that person's acceptable thresholds.So, with that said, does this sound within the realm of reason to you? I am not trying to get a "yes" from you. In fact, you can consider that a rhetorical question. I just would love it if you could accept my theory, if only as a suggestion rather than a policy I am trying to implement and by default, disregard your point of view. What I meant the other day, by saying that I always start at zero with you, was not meant to insult you or convictions. It was more of a general statement that I feel explains the transformation in dynamic that takes place within almost any couple. In human life leading up to marriage, both the husband and the wife have been imbued with a set of beliefs, mores, cultural traits, spiritual beliefs, convictions, etc. Then, one day, they get married and those attributes are brought into the relationships and sometimes, into the new living arrangements. Almost immediately, there are conflicts, but they are dispelled as idiosyncrasies or nuances of a new marriage so beyond a brief altercation here and there, they are not really addressed. One or both can feel a little stronger about those arguments but will not redress the issues. Later, the same issues come up and we feel that the other has had some time to "get used to our style" and "should know better" so those things become bigger things and so on and on and on... before you know it, both feel the other has failed to perform to their expected roles within the relationship.
If, on the other hand, as the relationship matures and before and even after the couple is married (as long as it happens at some point), both agree that it is in the best interest of the relationship and not of themselves, to "inform" the other of their "hopes and dreams and things that they love to do and things they don't like to do", and there is genuine love the other will pick up on these and formulate a proactive approach to implement these hopes and desires, rather than feeling like they have been given (or not even that sometimes) a list of things they can and cannot do. The latter is a bad idea all together because the list is never comprehensive. That is to say, you may not have included something in your list, but have the expectation in your mind nonetheless.
I would love for us to re-write our story with the end in mind. We are going to make it and I think that we should start by telling each other what we love, what we want to do before we die and what we want to accomplish. With that we can talk about how we're going to help each other achieve those goals or why they may give rise to conflict, but at least it will be an honest conversation and we will not be setting ourselves up for disappointment before we even start...
Talk people!! Talk! If you think this is pathetic, TALK! If you want me to be your shrink, TALK!! You want your wife to chill out... TALK!! You think your husband doesn't care about you, or love you anymore? TALK!!
And with that, I bid thee farewell... Happy lovin' everyone! It's a beautiful thing... Like our country!!