Felipe Calderon’s speech to a joint session of Congress beating up on the Arizona law, criticizing the Arizona law and blaming us for all the guns in Mexico.

CALDERON:

You will notice that the violence in Mexico started to grow a couple of hours before I took office in 2006. This coincides, at least, with the lifting of the assault weapons ban in 2004. I will ask Congress to help us, with respect, and to understand how important it is for us that you enforce current laws to stem the supply of these weapons to criminals and consider restating the assault weapons ban.

Here he is blaming Bush. He’s blaming all this stuff on his predator just as Obama does, and says he wants us to enforce current law. But, no, he doesn’t want us to enforce current law. He doesn’t want us to enforce the current federal immigration law. He doesn’t want us to enforce Arizona’s immigration law.

But he wants us to enforce an assault weapons ban. So he comes here…

Here Felipe Calderon blasting the United States and lecturing Arizona to thunderous applause from Democrats, a standing Ovation…

CALDERON:

I strongly disagree with your recently adopted law in Arizona.

It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree, but also introduced a terrible idea: Using rashal — racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement. And that’s why I agree… I agree with president to say the new law carries a great amount of risk when core values that we don’t care about are breached.

Ripping our country to a standing ovation of the Democrat Party.

What does he care about racial profiling? There is no racial profiling in the bill. This is just so purposely taken out of context.

“I agree with the president who says the new law carries a great amount of risk.”

Whose “core values“?

He comes here and disses our immigration law, blames the United States for all the guns in Mexico.

I guess now it’s a human right to cross the US border. So these guys come in and Calderon says they’re getting guns here. They’re coming to America and picking up assault rifles in their quest for a better life. The drug gangs down in Mexico are beheading people left and right, and it’s interesting to point out they have legalized drugs in Mexico. They have legalized everything — the hard stuff, the soft stuff.

Calderon was on with Wolf Blitzer Wednesday night on CNN Situation Room.

BLITZER:

What’s wrong with the folks in Arizona wanting to protect their border?

CALDERON:

In Arizona, there is some racial profiling criteria in order to enforce the law that it’s against any sense of human rights; and, of course, is provoking very disappointing, uh, things — or very disappointing opinion — in Mexico and around the world, even here in America. So to introduce this kind of elements, especially racial profiling aspect that are attempting against what we consider human rights, it’s the principle of discrimination which is against the values of this great nation.

Who is he to preach to us? For crying out loud, they deport more illegal immigrants from Mexico than we do!

How do they catch their illegal immigrants? Do they profile them? How the hell do they find out who’s in their country illegally?

BLITZER:

So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, can they just walk in?

CALDERON:

No! They need to fulfill, uh, a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedence.

BLITZER:

Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?

CALDERON:

Of course! Of course!

BLITZER:

If somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America through the southern border of Mexico and they wind up in Mexico, they can going get a job?

CALDERON:

No, no, no.

BLITZER:

They can work?

CALDERON:

If somebody do that without permissions, we send — we send back them.

Not everybody in this country is a liberal.

There are a lot of Americans here who are gonna look at this and say,

“This guy is just an idiot.”

Answering those questions like that from Blitzer, he has no right from now on to say anything to us about our immigration law. People can’t even get a job in Mexico unless they have “per-meee-sion…and if they do that, do that, we send ’em back.”

How do they find out who they are in the first place? You think they have to profile ’em?

“We analyze them.”

They’re very, very strict. You can’t own property, you can’t get involved in politics if you are an immigrant, legally in Mexico. It’s very restrictive. And he comes here and lectures us with the approval of the president of the United States and the Democrats in the House of Representatives, who gave it a standing Ovation.

He comes here to lecture us about the way we are trying to enforce our own immigration law.

We got a foreign leader coming here and what’s on his teleprompter’s been written by whoever writes Obama’s words. But then when he’s off the prompter and gets the question about Mexico’s own law, we get the truth.

Here is the main Mexico immigration law:

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)”

All of those are reasons you can be barred from going into Mexico.

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)”

I could keep going…

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)*

In one week we have had this administration side with the Chinese against their own country and bring in the president of Mexico as a prop to mouth Obama’s words to a joint session of Congress beating up on the state of Arizona and the people who are there and the people who live there.

What’s happening here is a doubling down of playing the race card. The president of the United States is continuing to divide this country while pretending to be this great unifier.

In one week, Michael Posner at the State Department tells the ChiComs…

(paraphrased)

“Yeah, we really have no business lecturing you because you’re right: We have some terrible problems in our own country right there in Arizona. That immigration law is very, very bad for human rights.”

So for the first time in my life, agents of a communist government (China) come to our country and criticize us, and our administration agrees.

And for the first time in my life a foreign president (ostensibly an ally) comes here to rip the sovereign state of Arizona, the sovereign United States and its laws — using language exactly like the president of the United States — and the Democrat members of Congress give him a standing ovation.

Meanwhile…

Mexicans are…

“taking the law into their own hands…

“Cops are being killed by the drug cartels just like in Arizona. In the meantime, Felipe Calderon admits, “Oh, yes, of course we check people’s papers. We find out if they are worth being here. If they get a job and they have lied, they get sent home.”

All the while he’s telling us that we’re discriminating and violating our core values.

Want to know what happened to reciprocity? It’s called liberalism.

You want to know what happened to prosperity? It’s called liberalism.

You want to know what happened to economic opportunity and freedom? It’s called liberalism.

There’s a giant disconnect: Liberalism from Americanism.

It’s the plain, simple truth, for everybody to see.

It’s really no surprise to see Obama stand with Señor Wences against Arizona and the vast majority of people in the United States. Is there any issue today — terrorism, health care, cap and trade, taxes, spending — where Obama stands with the majority of the American public? No.

people sponsoring amnesty are not even concerned about these people liking the country. They’re not even concerned about them understanding the country. They aren’t even concerned about them becoming real citizens. All they want is their votes.

In fact the more economically challenged they remain, the poorer they remain, and as uneducated as they can be, the more dependent they will be.

He’s clearly in need of these Hispanic votes. He’s going to need ’em in 2012 because he’s lost half the country. If he hasn’t quite lost half the country, he’s on the way to losing half the country. He knows it.

Harry Reid is gonna need Hispanic votes if he has a prayer of saving his seat in Nevada in November.

We know there’s not going to be an amnesty bill before the election. But there’s going to be a lot of talk about it, and they’re hoping that the talk will encourage Hispanics to go ahead and vote.

“The Democrats really care. They want us to have amnesty. They’re going to get it done. They can’t get it done now.”

They’re hoping that will inspire support and votes, which is all this is about.

Entertaining and Factual.

Love this guy.

Site Update:

Happy to announce the site is now available through Twitter.
Hoping to make the discussion more mobile.

Join us at Twitter : frustrated_inc

Regards,

Phanotm Lady

A few comments, received on my post, Arizona Immigration Law, read it yet??, grabed my attention. As a enthusiastic blogger, I responded to the debate.

After the second comment, by this person, I thought to do a quick search of the web and found the comment had been placed on many blogs/sites. I thought it better to share the conversation as a post, as it can be quite illuminating to see each side.

I believe this to be a great example of the liberal argument against the “UNREAD, Arizona law” and a reasonable rebuttal.

The liberal ‘anti-law’ perspective is ‘simple‘, emotional and without factual understanding. The response is “true” to both philosophy, facts and application.

The goal of this blog is to find the “simple truth” on a wide variety of topics. This discussion exposes the simple and the truth of the dispute.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

COMMENT 1:

Benito

Submitted on 2010/05/13 at 8:18pm

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.

I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.

admin – Phantom Lady

Submitted on 2010/05/14 at 2:27pm

Benito,

You stated your position elegantly. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

I agree 100%. But, I must clarify, we are a Nation of Laws, not men.

John Locke wrote:

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.For all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law.

Forgive me for being blunt here… but, when someone enters this country illegally, it is a crime. This is not an undefined term.

illegal immigrant n. an alien (non-citizen) who has entered the United States without government permission or stayed beyond the termination date of a visa.

And as you stated,

“the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

The Liberty (security and property) of the citizens of Arizona (CA, TX, etc.) is threatened. The drain illegal immigration has on institutions such as school systems, health care, jobs and the depression of wages, law enforcement and the criminal justice system are just a few examples. The taxpayer funded institutions that are reeling from this huge migration into the United States are the ones that are primarily suppose to be servicing the low income people of this country. In turn, causing low income families to compete for increasingly limited funds, resources and basic survival necessities.

As reported in 2009 by ABC

“Phoenix, Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of America, with more incidents than any other city in the world outside of Mexico City.”

The ABC News investigation came on the heels of reports of gun battles near the U.S.-Mexico border between Mexican soldiers and drug cartel hitmen that killed 21 people.

The Federal Government has ignored the boarder problems for decades. Instead of holding Mexico accountable for its immigration policies they pander and collaborate with a country that uses this country to abdicate their responsibility to their citizens.

Your passionate explanation of why “the majority is not always right”, is quite accurate. But the miracle of the United States form of government is the ability to change the leaders to reflect the will of the citizens every two, four, or six years. The founders believed that if a direction taken by the leaders was in conflict with the Constitution and Natural Law (withholding the right to vote, equal access, etc.) these actions would be corrected by subsequent elections of more virtuous public officials. As history shows, it may take generations but the result is;  to further freedom of the citizens by the citizens.

I am a bit confused by your statement:

“…if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!”

The majority of the day, at least in light of this legislation, shows overwhelming support for LEGAL immigration and enforcement of the law.

By ignoring the rights and sovereignty of American citizens, you threaten the very basis upon which this country was formed. Millions of immigrants cherish and value American citizenship, why should that honor be diminished by those who come illegally?

We can not be the beacon of hope to the world, if the apathy, of the people, destroys the sovereignty of the nation.

The task that has fallen to us as Americans is to move the conscience of the world, to keep alive the hope and dream of freedom. For if we fail or falter, there’ll be no place for the world’s oppressed to flee to.

– Ronald Reagan

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

COMMENT 2:

Benito

Submitted on 2010/05/17 at 6:26pm

“All Men are created equal”! The founders had it right, when attempting to form a perfect union and they also knew that they were not there yet but knew we one day would get there. Lincoln moved us forward as did JFK and LBJ. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless, of course, they keep adding more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law.

As for the undocumented workers, as Ronald Reagan said “It’s the Economy, Stupid”. When the economy is good we say let’s all celebrate “Cinco de Mayo, my brothers” but when we are in a down “it’s all your fault, you damn immigrant”. This too will pass. The real problem is the narcosis/drug and people smuggler that’s what the focus should be on.

Don’t you find it funny that no one ever voted for Governor Brewer, it’s all about politics, do not be fooled.

admin – Phantom Lady

Submitted on 2010/05/17 at 9:55pm

Benito,

Welcome back. It continues to be a great conversation.

“All men are created equal…”

Yet everyone knows that no two human beings are exactly alike in any respect. They are different when they are born. They plainly exhibit different natural skills. They acquire different tastes. They develop along different lines. They vary in physical strength, mental capacity, emotional stability, inherited social status, in their opportunities for self-fulfillment, and in scores of other ways. How can they be equal?

The answer is, they can’t, except in three ways. They can only be TREATED as equal in the sight of God, in the sight of the law, and in the protection of their rights. In these three ways all men are created equal. It is the task of society, as it is with God, to accept people in all their vast array of individual differences, but treat them as equals when it comes to their role as human beings.

The Founders distinguished between equal rights and other areas where equality is impossible. They recognized that society should seek to provide equal opportunity but not expect equal results; provide equal freedom but not expect equal capacity; provide equal rights but not equal possessions; provide equal protection but not equal status; provide equal educational opportunities but not equal grades.

Alexander Hamilton said:

Inequality would exist as long as liberty existed…. It would unavoidably result from the very liberty itself.

Nevertheless, there are some who insist that people do not have equal rights unless they have “equal things.”  The Founding Fathers were well acquainted with this proposition and set forth the following principle…

The proper role of Government is to protect equal rights. Not Provide equal things.

–The 5000 Year Leap, A miracle that changed the world

As for your statement:

“It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged…”

I don’t mean this next question to be condescending, so please don’t take it that way. Have you taken the time to read the law?

Resent comments from public officials concerning this law, as noted in : Arizona Immigration Law, read it yet??, have shown them to be ignorant of the law itself. If the people spearheading this effort to discredit the law haven’t read it, how is it possible to debate anything?

Yet, the accusations fly viciously. Bigot, racist, anti-immigration, anti-Mexican, anti-human rights, etc…

Please, be more specific so that I can address your concerns. What in the law is unconstitutional? What sections do you find objectionable?

As I pray Attorney General Eric Holder has learned… it is unrealistic to attempt to debate the merits without stating the actual substance of the law you disagree with.

Philosophy is something that can be debated here, at anytime.  It would be nice to debate the actual facts of the case, if they would take the time to read the damn law.

Despite repeatedly voicing concerns about Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law in recent weeks and threatening to challenge it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he has not yet read the law, which is only 10 pages.

HOLDER:

“I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it,”

Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Fox News: May 13, 2010

Sen. John McCain on Monday asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, if she’d had a chance to review Arizona’s controversial immigration law.

NAPOLITANO:

“I have not reviewed it in detail,”

Napolitano said during a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

“I certainly know of it, senator.”

She knows of it…  Really??

Who doesn’t, “know of it” ?  Actually reading it… those pesky little details can be such a burden.

Sound familiar??   (added to WTF list…)

PELOSI:

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

CONYERS:

I love these members that get up and say, “Read the bill!” What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read the bill?

Back to the misrepresentation, of the unread bill…

OBAMA:

[E]fforts in Arizona which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.  In fact, I’ve instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.

The president is bashing Arizona for simply trying to enforce the law — the federal law, as well as now a new state law.

Has he read the law??

Simple question. Isn’t protecting our legal citizens from an invading army of illegal aliens who are using our services and taking our jobs, a basic notion of fairness?

Why is fairness being denied to American citizens?  What about the basic fairness of state and federal governments to protect the American citizens?

Looks like what’s going on in Arizona is an effort to criminalize enforcing the law.

Related Post: Obama CliffsNotes… updated
Related Post comment:

Comment by Gage:

glad you posted something new for me to read while i’m in web design ;] all very well until the last bullet that confused me:

•Governor Jan Brewer signed an immigration law that launched a national debate.
Obama and his regime govern against the will of the people. CBS Poll: 60 percent of Americans say Arizona’s tough new immigration law is “about right” or “doesn’t go far enough.” Are you listening, Washington?

1. is this dealing with the thing where people who “supposively look like illegal immigrants” must carry a form of identification with them at all times and must present it when requested to do so by a cop?

2. the ppl of Arizona want something more extreme than this?

3. do you agree or disagree with this idea?

thanks ;*,

Gage

In this comment I am actually beginning the conversation about the new Law passed in Arizona. Due to my resent absence as a result of technical difficulties, I have a bit of make-up-work to do. In the next few days, I will be posting a more in-depth post dealing specifically with this controversy. (Above Post)

1. Yes this comment addresses the new law requiring identification.

But here, I’d like to clear up a misconception. Your statement “dealing with people who “supposedly look like illegal immigrants”, is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Obama, the media and everybody on the left is misrepresenting the Arizona law. Kris Kobach, a professor and the primary author of the Arizona legislation said…

“This law only kicks in when a police officer already has made a lawful contact with the person such as stopping him for breaking another law…”

Nobody in Arizona can be pulled over because of their race or because of the way they look. The cops can’t engage ’em unless they’ve got reason to on some other grounds, traffic stop, suspicion of robbery or what have you.

They’re just lying about this. They’re playing the race card here.

“This is profiling, produce your papers,” they don’t want a substantive analysis of this at all, any part of that, because on the substance they lose.

That’s why the template here is: this racism, this white supremacy, this Nazi-like tactics, why, this is going to launch Democrats to new heights of power in the November elections, and really motivate Obama’s base, really reenergize Democrat voters.

It’s all BS.

When, you or I get pulled over for speeding, or maybe a broken taillight, the officer ask for our “papers” (drivers license, registration, proof of insurance). If we board an Airplane, we are ask for our ‘papers’. When we use a credit card or write a check, once again we are ask for our ‘papers’.

Remember, it was just last summer that the Democrats in Congress made US citizens show their residency papers before they were allowed into the town hall meetings. Remember that?

Not just a resident of the US, you had to be a resident of that congressional district. And they were claiming it was a matter of national security to even allow them into the building.

I’ll even expand on this further in a future post. But, I think, I’ve made my position a bit clearer for our discussion here. (Refer to above information)

2.” the ppl of Arizona want something more extreme than this?”

Actually A Rasmussen Reports poll found that almost two-thirds — 64 percent — of voters in the state favored the measure. The poll I quoted was a national poll. Reflecting the strong national support for this law. I do not believe “extreme” would apply. I believe that the majority of the nation supports enforcing the laws already on the books, of which most dealing with illegal immigration are ignored. And, due to the lack of federal responsibility to enforce these laws, states are left to pick-up the slack.

Addendum:

Rasmussen Reports, May 12 2010:

“A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that just 17% oppose the proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining access to public housing, unemployment benefits, welfare or workers compensation.”

“Seventy percent (70%) of Massachusetts voters favor a proposal recently rejected by the state legislature that would stop illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits.”

“The proposal failed to pass in the Democratically-controlled State House last month by a 75 to 82 vote.”

So once again the Democrats are governing against the will of the people. Nothing new to this administration.

3. Yes, I agree.

I believe, the laws already on the books need to be enforced.

Our society is based on the ‘rule of law.”

If the Federal Government refuses to step up to its constitutional responsibilities, the states then must respond. If the states do not respond, it is the right of citizens to defend themselves. This is the basis of a Republic form of government.

…

Arizona Governor Brewer Sends Obama Sing-A-Long: Read Immigration Law!