5 Responses to “Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration, as it robbed workers of decent wages”

1. bacsi
   March 28th, 2014 @ 11:48 pm

   Cesar Chavez was for Cesar Chavez and nobody else. If he was against illegals it was because he couldn’t indoctrinate them and make them dues paying members of his personal brown boot para-military organization. If you weren’t part of _his_ group you could go suck eggs. I never knew any locals who made their living working on the farms and orchards who cared for him; he never talked to them because he didn’t give a damn about them or anybody else who didn’t kiss his backside. Just like hardly any locals ever associated with his group when they were around, neither would you see any of his strutting folk working in the fields. When there was some news event scheduled they would come in from California by the bus load, along with more bus loads of idiot supporters from Seattle with their wallets full of brand new 10 and 20 dollar bills, and a car or two of so called reporters from the Seattle PI. As soon as the last flash bulb was popped they would jump back in their buses and cars and disappear – does that sound familiar? And the sad fact about all of this was that just about all the so called labor negotiations he bragged about actually ended up lowering the workers real take home earnings. Chavez was an outright fraud who like Jesse Jackson and all his ilk use their own people to promote their own agenda which is always themselves.

2. Sting Ray
   March 29th, 2014 @ 12:49 pm

   Wow! this has got to be a shock to many people on the left??

3. courage
   March 30th, 2014 @ 9:07 pm

   Give me your tired, your poor,

   Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

   The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

   Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

   I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

   Emma Lazarus (1849-1887)

   *

   *

   *

   WARNING

   This is a film the U.S. government does not want you to see.

   Press 1 For English exposes how the government has betrayed you, as it explores the unenforced immigration policies of the United States of America.
   Take a ride with two adventurous filmmakers (The Wright Brothers) as they trek along our southern border to investigate the lawlessness that has ravaged this part of the country. Witness how the devastating effects of crime, murder, trafficking, narco-terrorism, smuggling, lax border enforcement, and violence have turned the communities of the southwest into the wild west again.

   • Press 1 For English is a film about how your government has failed you.

   • Press 1 For English is a film that examines the sickness that has infested the corrupt hiring practices of U.S. businesses.

   • This film will show you how the flood gates for legal immigration have been left open as well, and how quickly your community is changing… over-night.

   For years you have wanted to see a documentary that takes an honest, forthright look at U.S. immigration without interpretation, and now… you finally have it.
   Press 1 For English is one of the most profound political movies you will ever see.

   SYNOPSIS

   This is a political documentary made by concerned citizens aiming to provide an in depth exploration behind the complex issues of U.S. border enforcement and the nation’s policies toward legal and illegal immigration. The film will provide a brief account of U.S. / Mexican relations throughout history, interviews with those most affected by the mass migration (politicians, border agents, ranchers and landowners along the border, environmentalists, Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, the Minutemen, etc.), and cover the effects of current migration on the American economy, culture, job-market, schools, crime, prisons, insurance programs, hospitals, etc. Our hope is to personally grasp a better concept on the issue of immigration and educate the American public as well. Perhaps we may even stumble upon possible solutions in the matter. All in all, the documentary’s purpose is to entertain, educate, and serve the interests of the American people.

   A FILM BY KRIS AND KERRY WRIGHT “PRESS 1 FOR ENGLISH”
   FEATURING LEE MORGAN II CHRIS SIMCOX ROY BECK
   IRA MEHLMAN and JAMIEL SHAW SR.
   MUSIC BY KRIS A WRIGHT EDITED BY KRIS AND KERRY WRIGHT
   PRODUCED BY KRIS and KERRY WRIGHT
   COPYRIGHT 2010 BY WRIGHT BROTHERS PICTURES L.L.C.
   ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

   IMMIGRATION LAWS

   What compelled us to produce this film was the realization that existing U.S. Federal laws, as well as the U.S. Constitution, were largely being unenforced through out the nation. As soon as we realized that local and state governments, as well as the Federal government, were not just ignoring existing immigration laws, but creating laws that usurped immigration law, we knew that we had to respond… this was the genesis of “Press 1 For English.”

   This is a list of the primary Federal U.S. immigration laws.

   Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

   Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

   United States Code: Title 8,1325. Improper entry by alien…

   United States Code: Title 8,1324. Bringing in and harboring …

   Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

   287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

   REAL ID ACT of 2005

   United States Code: Title 8,1373. Communication between government and I.C.E.

   US CODE: Title 8,1644. Communication between State and local agencies and I.C.E

   United States Code: Title 8,1623. eligibility for in-state tuition for illegals…

   Illegal immigrant family apprehended at the border in southern Arizona
   Justification for Arizona’s new immigration law?

   Last month, a federal judge blocked some of the toughest provisions in the new Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state’s attempt to have local police assist federal law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration policy. The judge’s decision, which removed the teeth from S.B. 1070, and the reasons for her decision could not have been more misguided. Her decision was completely misrepresentative of existing U.S. immigration laws.

   Senate Bill 1070 essentially requires local and state law enforcement officials to check with federal immigration authorities on a person’s immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally.

   As the growing debate over this kind of law continues, several questions regarding its constitutionality and lawfulness arise. For those who believe that President Obama, the Justice Department, and the A.C.L.U. have a legitimate case to sue the state of Arizona… consider these facts…

   1. “Will SB1070 force police to racially profile?”
   The new law doesn’t give police any new basis to stop and detain someone – police must have a lawful reason for stopping someone in the first place (you know that).
   The new law cannot be used against, nor does it apply to U.S. citizens.
   Here is the official statement from Arizona’s Department of Public Safety (DPS), Arizona’s state police, which is posted on their website at this link… https://www.azdps.gov/About/Profiling/
   “In November 1999, the Department of Public Safety enacted its first General Order addressing the issue of racial profiling. The General Order entitled “Racial or Ethnic Profiling in Traffic Enforcement” renewed DPS’ commitment to unbiased policing, and clarified the only circumstances in which officers can consider race/ethnicity when making law enforcement decisions.” DPS website
   Racial profiling? Hmm. Well considering that the ethnic make up of the Arizona Department of Public safety is 14% Hispanic, 2% Native American, and 2% Black and Asian, this means that 18% of non white officers will be profiling along side their white colleagues, since they’ll all be profiling – if you buy into that argument. The percentage of Hispanics serving in the Phoenix Police Department is slightly higher at 18%. Or… maybe you’re just implying that only the White officers will be profiling? Hmm. Now who’s a bigot?
   “Reasonable Suspicion:” means a combination of circumstances that compel an officer to suspect law breaking. There’s already plenty of case law that addresses “Reasonable Suspicion.” As a point of fact, SB 1070 makes racial profiling less likely because it requires local police to contact federal law enforcement to finish the job, once local law enforcement suspects a person, who is pulled over after lawful contact is made, is in the country illegally. Once federal law enforcement officials are present, only then can an illegal alien be held in custody for immigration law violations – so both local and federal law enforcement officials are in the same boat together.
   “Lawful Contact:” means what transpires before law enforcement think about checking ones immigration status. The law also specifies that an officer CANNOT inquire into a person’s immigration status unless that police officer has stopped an individual for some legitimate reason, or only after “lawful contact” has been made.
   The bill says officers can only ask an individual’s immigration status during a valid traffic stop or during an investigation with probable cause. “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S., a reasonable attempt should be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of that person.” and “An officer, without a warrant, may arrest the person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense.” Arizona Senate Bill 1070 This is nothing new- any police officer in the country can do this.
   In the final amended version of SB1070, HB2162, it explicitly states officers “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in forming a reasonable suspicion. “A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.” Arizona Senate Bill 1070
   But racial profiling means going after only the Mexicans and dark skinned people… right? O.K. A “Mexican” is not a race! A Mexican is a person who is from the country of Mexico, and almost 20% of Mexicans are white, and are descendants from various parts of Europe, while another 3% are black and Asian.
   In short, for those who say it allows officers to profile… it doesn’t. For those who choose to discard reason from the debate and opt for mud-slinging the word “racist” around, to those name callers, you should probably go to the nearest grade school and hang out with those kids running around on the playground – surely you’d fit right in.
   For those of you who want to argue that the honorable, hard working and brave men and women of our law enforcement agencies in Arizona are going to go shame themselves now by going out to racially profile, just because you think that some law allows them to, you should think twice about what you are saying. Never mind the fact that this law was written and enacted by a STATE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA! Never mind that these are our fellow Americans who are working a legitimate job to feed their families at the end of the day. If you want to argue that there will be racial profiling, just take a moment and think about the dishonor that you are bring to those law enforcement officers.
   2. “Will you need to prove that you are a U.S. citizen if you are stopped?”

   The bill states… if you’re a U.S. citizen you need local, state or federally issued identification, like a driver’s license. Let’s not forget that when a cop pulls you over, what is the first thing he/she ALWAYS asks you for? That’s right folks, you’re “LICENSE (your I.D.) and registration!” This is not a new concept.
   On the idea that it is unfair to demand that illegal aliens carry identification, or documents, with them… since 1940, it has been a federal crime to fail to keep identifying documents with them. If you’re a naturalized citizen you need your green card or proof of citizenship, and those documents have to be registered. An individual is only guilty if he is in violation of 8 USC sec 1304(a) or 8 USC 1306(e). The state statue literally refers to those federal statutes. A person can only be guilty under the state statute if he is guilty under the federal statute.
   Let’s ask this question, how many of Arizona’s 500,000 + illegal immigrants are going to be caught for traffic violations in the first place? Probably a very small number. In Arizona, as in all states, it’s already illegal to drive without a driver license. If you don’t have a license, and you’re over the legal age, then you’re probably in the country illegally.
   So do you need proof? Yes.
   3. “But only Federal Government can enforce U.S. immigration laws.”

   Wrong. This is a complete lie. Since 1976, The Supreme Court has recognized that states can enact immigration laws to deter illegal immigration without being “pre-empted” by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, the law is permitted. The Supremacy Clause says that laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. “ Which means a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute. Right. However, SB 1070 mirrors the Federal Immigration laws, it doesn’t conflict with them. The bills authors wisely and intentionally wrote the bill to reflect U.S. immigration law. They went to great lengths to that it is constitutional and will hold up in court.
   The state of California already has a similar law in place that doesn’t conflict nor preempt U.S. federal law – the reason why most people don’t know about the law is because California simply doesn’t enforce it. That law is 834b of the California Penal Code. Click on the link below to read more.
   https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=833-851.90
   Let’s look at the facts. When despicable groups like the “American Civil Liberties Union” (ACLU), and others of higher character, pledge to sue to block the bill from becoming law, arguing that “only federal government has the authority to enforce immigration laws,” these groups are ignoring the fact that other state laws have withstood legal scrutiny time and time again. Laws like Arizona’s 2008 law mandating the use of E-Verify, and California’s 834b of the Penal Code will continue to withstand the attacks of their contenders because they coincide with federal immigration law. Let’s examine the two clauses in the U.S. Constitution that these open borders groups will use to argue against states enforcing their immigration laws.
   The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. It states that…
   “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
   The Supremacy clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land. That said. Let’s now examine Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is similar to the Supremacy Clause.
   “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.“
   This clause frames out those who aren’t citizens. Key into the words “the privileges or immunities of citizens…” So if you are in the country illegally, a court can’t use this clause as justification to defend illegal aliens. Many argue that the State of Arizona, through their immigration law SB 1070, would be enforcing a law which abridges the rights of illegal aliens, as described in the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th amendment, well it doesn’t. If someone in Arizona is arrested by local and state law enforcement for being in the country illegally, then the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to them because THEY AREN’T CITIZENS.
   State Senator Russell Pearce, a former police officer, noted that some past state laws on immigration enforcement had been upheld in federal courts. “In Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983), the Court held that the Immigration and Naturalization Act precludes local enforcement of the Act’s civil provisions but does not preclude local enforcement of the Act’s criminal provisions.”
   According to one of the bill’s authors, Kris Kobach, “the law embodies the doctrine of ‘concurrent enforcement’ – i.e., that the state law parallels applicable federal law without any conflict.” If you read the bill, and if you read our federal immigration laws, you’ll discover that SB 1070 doesn’t implicate the Supremacy Clause in any way – there’s no preemption here.

   4. “What court cases have the state of Arizona won which defend their immigration laws?”

   The state prevailed in defending their Human Smuggling Statute in 2007.
   The state won again in federal court, and prevailed again in the [U.S. court of appeals for the] 9th Circuit defending their E-verify employment verification law in 2008. Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law requires all employers to use E-verify, which is an electronic verification system that employers can use to check the legal status of a potential employee. The Obama administrations Justice Department is currently going after this law again, asking the supreme court to strike it down – guess some folks are really stubborn.
   The State passed Proposition 200 in November 2004 with 56% of the vote. Despite withstanding three pre-election and two post-election lawsuits, legal challenges to Proposition 200 are still pending. Prop 200 requires individuals to produce proof of citizenship before they may register to vote or apply for public benefits in Arizona.
   As a result of Arizona’s prior immigration laws, the opinions of the 4th, 5th, 8th,9th,and 10th Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals (which are all of the Circuits that have addressed the issue) have already been written, and they support the state of Arizona’s authority to enact such laws.
   5. “But is the bill constitutional, and does it ‘mirror’ federal law.”

   Case law supporting SB 1070
   What protects the Arizona law is the legal principle of “concurrent enforcement.” This has been recognized by several courts, including the 9th Circuit. It holds that a law is not conflict-preempted if the state law prohibits the same behavior that is already prohibited by federal law. So, if a local police officer acts in a way that assists the federal government, he/she concurrently enforces what is already prohibited under federal law.
   The controlling Supreme Court precedent is De Canas v. Bicain 1976. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized states may enact legislation to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdictions. The mere fact that a state law concerns illegal immigration or affects immigration in some way does not render it pre-empted.
   The other case that supports and upholds the right of states to allow their local law enforcement officers to check and verify the status of illegal immigrants is a Supreme Court case MUEHLER et al. v. MENA in 2005.
   SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
   MUEHLER et al. v. MENA In this case, In a 9-0 judgment delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Mena’s detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court further held that the officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure.
   The bill is based on existing U.S. federal immigration laws; it just gives Arizona police similar powers that federal officers have. This is not a new idea. In 1996, federal immigration officers trained local police to enforce national immigration laws under the 287(g) program. SB 1070 is just a continuation of that program.
   There is NO federal statute that the Obama administration, and other groups trying to sue Arizona, can cite that Senate Bill 1070 violates. Not one.
   If you have any more question about Arizona’s law, the federal law, and more analysis, then “READ THE BILL” by checking out the existing laws below:
   Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and the Amended version HB2162

   Federal Immigration Law
   – Section 8 USC 1324 (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens)
   – Section 8 USC 1324a (Unlawful employment of aliens)

   – Section 8 USC 1324b (Unfair immigration-related employment practices)
   – Section 8 USC 1324c (Penalties for document fraud)

   – Section 8 USC 1324d (Civil penalties for failure to depart)

   – Section 8 USC 1325 (Improper entry by alien)

   Give me your tired, your poor,

   Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

   The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

   Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

   I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

   Emma Lazarus (1849-1887)

   *

   *

   *

   WARNING

   This is a film the U.S. government does not want you to see.

   Press 1 For English exposes how the government has betrayed you, as it explores the unenforced immigration policies of the United States of America.
   Take a ride with two adventurous filmmakers (The Wright Brothers) as they trek along our southern border to investigate the lawlessness that has ravaged this part of the country. Witness how the devastating effects of crime, murder, trafficking, narco-terrorism, smuggling, lax border enforcement, and violence have turned the communities of the southwest into the wild west again.

   • Press 1 For English is a film about how your government has failed you.

   • Press 1 For English is a film that examines the sickness that has infested the corrupt hiring practices of U.S. businesses.

   • This film will show you how the flood gates for legal immigration have been left open as well, and how quickly your community is changing… over-night.

   For years you have wanted to see a documentary that takes an honest, forthright look at U.S. immigration without interpretation, and now… you finally have it.
   Press 1 For English is one of the most profound political movies you will ever see.

   SYNOPSIS

   This is a political documentary made by concerned citizens aiming to provide an in depth exploration behind the complex issues of U.S. border enforcement and the nation’s policies toward legal and illegal immigration. The film will provide a brief account of U.S. / Mexican relations throughout history, interviews with those most affected by the mass migration (politicians, border agents, ranchers and landowners along the border, environmentalists, Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, the Minutemen, etc.), and cover the effects of current migration on the American economy, culture, job-market, schools, crime, prisons, insurance programs, hospitals, etc. Our hope is to personally grasp a better concept on the issue of immigration and educate the American public as well. Perhaps we may even stumble upon possible solutions in the matter. All in all, the documentary’s purpose is to entertain, educate, and serve the interests of the American people.

   A FILM BY KRIS AND KERRY WRIGHT “PRESS 1 FOR ENGLISH”
   FEATURING LEE MORGAN II CHRIS SIMCOX ROY BECK
   IRA MEHLMAN and JAMIEL SHAW SR.
   MUSIC BY KRIS A WRIGHT EDITED BY KRIS AND KERRY WRIGHT
   PRODUCED BY KRIS and KERRY WRIGHT
   COPYRIGHT 2010 BY WRIGHT BROTHERS PICTURES L.L.C.
   ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

   IMMIGRATION LAWS

   What compelled us to produce this film was the realization that existing U.S. Federal laws, as well as the U.S. Constitution, were largely being unenforced through out the nation. As soon as we realized that local and state governments, as well as the Federal government, were not just ignoring existing immigration laws, but creating laws that usurped immigration law, we knew that we had to respond… this was the genesis of “Press 1 For English.”

   This is a list of the primary Federal U.S. immigration laws.

   Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

   Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

   United States Code: Title 8,1325. Improper entry by alien…

   United States Code: Title 8,1324. Bringing in and harboring …

   Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

   287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

   REAL ID ACT of 2005

   United States Code: Title 8,1373. Communication between government and I.C.E.

   US CODE: Title 8,1644. Communication between State and local agencies and I.C.E

   United States Code: Title 8,1623. eligibility for in-state tuition for illegals…

   Illegal immigrant family apprehended at the border in southern Arizona
   Justification for Arizona’s new immigration law?

   Last month, a federal judge blocked some of the toughest provisions in the new Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state’s attempt to have local police assist federal law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration policy. The judge’s decision, which removed the teeth from S.B. 1070, and the reasons for her decision could not have been more misguided. Her decision was completely misrepresentative of existing U.S. immigration laws.

   Senate Bill 1070 essentially requires local and state law enforcement officials to check with federal immigration authorities on a person’s immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally.

   As the growing debate over this kind of law continues, several questions regarding its constitutionality and lawfulness arise. For those who believe that President Obama, the Justice Department, and the A.C.L.U. have a legitimate case to sue the state of Arizona… consider these facts…

   1. “Will SB1070 force police to racially profile?”
   The new law doesn’t give police any new basis to stop and detain someone – police must have a lawful reason for stopping someone in the first place (you know that).
   The new law cannot be used against, nor does it apply to U.S. citizens.
   Here is the official statement from Arizona’s Department of Public Safety (DPS), Arizona’s state police, which is posted on their website at this link… https://www.azdps.gov/About/Profiling/
   “In November 1999, the Department of Public Safety enacted its first General Order addressing the issue of racial profiling. The General Order entitled “Racial or Ethnic Profiling in Traffic Enforcement” renewed DPS’ commitment to unbiased policing, and clarified the only circumstances in which officers can consider race/ethnicity when making law enforcement decisions.” DPS website
   Racial profiling? Hmm. Well considering that the ethnic make up of the Arizona Department of Public safety is 14% Hispanic, 2% Native American, and 2% Black and Asian, this means that 18% of non white officers will be profiling along side their white colleagues, since they’ll all be profiling – if you buy into that argument. The percentage of Hispanics serving in the Phoenix Police Department is slightly higher at 18%. Or… maybe you’re just implying that only the White officers will be profiling? Hmm. Now who’s a bigot?
   “Reasonable Suspicion:” means a combination of circumstances that compel an officer to suspect law breaking. There’s already plenty of case law that addresses “Reasonable Suspicion.” As a point of fact, SB 1070 makes racial profiling less likely because it requires local police to contact federal law enforcement to finish the job, once local law enforcement suspects a person, who is pulled over after lawful contact is made, is in the country illegally. Once federal law enforcement officials are present, only then can an illegal alien be held in custody for immigration law violations – so both local and federal law enforcement officials are in the same boat together.
   “Lawful Contact:” means what transpires before law enforcement think about checking ones immigration status. The law also specifies that an officer CANNOT inquire into a person’s immigration status unless that police officer has stopped an individual for some legitimate reason, or only after “lawful contact” has been made.
   The bill says officers can only ask an individual’s immigration status during a valid traffic stop or during an investigation with probable cause. “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S., a reasonable attempt should be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of that person.” and “An officer, without a warrant, may arrest the person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense.” Arizona Senate Bill 1070 This is nothing new- any police officer in the country can do this.
   In the final amended version of SB1070, HB2162, it explicitly states officers “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in forming a reasonable suspicion. “A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.” Arizona Senate Bill 1070
   But racial profiling means going after only the Mexicans and dark skinned people… right? O.K. A “Mexican” is not a race! A Mexican is a person who is from the country of Mexico, and almost 20% of Mexicans are white, and are descendants from various parts of Europe, while another 3% are black and Asian.
   In short, for those who say it allows officers to profile… it doesn’t. For those who choose to discard reason from the debate and opt for mud-slinging the word “racist” around, to those name callers, you should probably go to the nearest grade school and hang out with those kids running around on the playground – surely you’d fit right in.
   For those of you who want to argue that the honorable, hard working and brave men and women of our law enforcement agencies in Arizona are going to go shame themselves now by going out to racially profile, just because you think that some law allows them to, you should think twice about what you are saying. Never mind the fact that this law was written and enacted by a STATE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA! Never mind that these are our fellow Americans who are working a legitimate job to feed their families at the end of the day. If you want to argue that there will be racial profiling, just take a moment and think about the dishonor that you are bring to those law enforcement officers.
   2. “Will you need to prove that you are a U.S. citizen if you are stopped?”

   The bill states… if you’re a U.S. citizen you need local, state or federally issued identification, like a driver’s license. Let’s not forget that when a cop pulls you over, what is the first thing he/she ALWAYS asks you for? That’s right folks, you’re “LICENSE (your I.D.) and registration!” This is not a new concept.
   On the idea that it is unfair to demand that illegal aliens carry identification, or documents, with them… since 1940, it has been a federal crime to fail to keep identifying documents with them. If you’re a naturalized citizen you need your green card or proof of citizenship, and those documents have to be registered. An individual is only guilty if he is in violation of 8 USC sec 1304(a) or 8 USC 1306(e). The state statue literally refers to those federal statutes. A person can only be guilty under the state statute if he is guilty under the federal statute.
   Let’s ask this question, how many of Arizona’s 500,000 + illegal immigrants are going to be caught for traffic violations in the first place? Probably a very small number. In Arizona, as in all states, it’s already illegal to drive without a driver license. If you don’t have a license, and you’re over the legal age, then you’re probably in the country illegally.
   So do you need proof? Yes.
   3. “But only Federal Government can enforce U.S. immigration laws.”

   Wrong. This is a complete lie. Since 1976, The Supreme Court has recognized that states can enact immigration laws to deter illegal immigration without being “pre-empted” by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, the law is permitted. The Supremacy Clause says that laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. “ Which means a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute. Right. However, SB 1070 mirrors the Federal Immigration laws, it doesn’t conflict with them. The bills authors wisely and intentionally wrote the bill to reflect U.S. immigration law. They went to great lengths to that it is constitutional and will hold up in court.
   The state of California already has a similar law in place that doesn’t conflict nor preempt U.S. federal law – the reason why most people don’t know about the law is because California simply doesn’t enforce it. That law is 834b of the California Penal Code. Click on the link below to read more.
   https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=833-851.90
   Let’s look at the facts. When despicable groups like the “American Civil Liberties Union” (ACLU), and others of higher character, pledge to sue to block the bill from becoming law, arguing that “only federal government has the authority to enforce immigration laws,” these groups are ignoring the fact that other state laws have withstood legal scrutiny time and time again. Laws like Arizona’s 2008 law mandating the use of E-Verify, and California’s 834b of the Penal Code will continue to withstand the attacks of their contenders because they coincide with federal immigration law. Let’s examine the two clauses in the U.S. Constitution that these open borders groups will use to argue against states enforcing their immigration laws.
   The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. It states that…
   “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
   The Supremacy clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land. That said. Let’s now examine Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is similar to the Supremacy Clause.
   “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.“
   This clause frames out those who aren’t citizens. Key into the words “the privileges or immunities of citizens…” So if you are in the country illegally, a court can’t use this clause as justification to defend illegal aliens. Many argue that the State of Arizona, through their immigration law SB 1070, would be enforcing a law which abridges the rights of illegal aliens, as described in the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th amendment, well it doesn’t. If someone in Arizona is arrested by local and state law enforcement for being in the country illegally, then the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to them because THEY AREN’T CITIZENS.
   State Senator Russell Pearce, a former police officer, noted that some past state laws on immigration enforcement had been upheld in federal courts. “In Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983), the Court held that the Immigration and Naturalization Act precludes local enforcement of the Act’s civil provisions but does not preclude local enforcement of the Act’s criminal provisions.”
   According to one of the bill’s authors, Kris Kobach, “the law embodies the doctrine of ‘concurrent enforcement’ – i.e., that the state law parallels applicable federal law without any conflict.” If you read the bill, and if you read our federal immigration laws, you’ll discover that SB 1070 doesn’t implicate the Supremacy Clause in any way – there’s no preemption here.

   4. “What court cases have the state of Arizona won which defend their immigration laws?”

   The state prevailed in defending their Human Smuggling Statute in 2007.
   The state won again in federal court, and prevailed again in the [U.S. court of appeals for the] 9th Circuit defending their E-verify employment verification law in 2008. Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law requires all employers to use E-verify, which is an electronic verification system that employers can use to check the legal status of a potential employee. The Obama administrations Justice Department is currently going after this law again, asking the supreme court to strike it down – guess some folks are really stubborn.
   The State passed Proposition 200 in November 2004 with 56% of the vote. Despite withstanding three pre-election and two post-election lawsuits, legal challenges to Proposition 200 are still pending. Prop 200 requires individuals to produce proof of citizenship before they may register to vote or apply for public benefits in Arizona.
   As a result of Arizona’s prior immigration laws, the opinions of the 4th, 5th, 8th,9th,and 10th Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals (which are all of the Circuits that have addressed the issue) have already been written, and they support the state of Arizona’s authority to enact such laws.
   5. “But is the bill constitutional, and does it ‘mirror’ federal law.”

   Case law supporting SB 1070
   What protects the Arizona law is the legal principle of “concurrent enforcement.” This has been recognized by several courts, including the 9th Circuit. It holds that a law is not conflict-preempted if the state law prohibits the same behavior that is already prohibited by federal law. So, if a local police officer acts in a way that assists the federal government, he/she concurrently enforces what is already prohibited under federal law.
   The controlling Supreme Court precedent is De Canas v. Bicain 1976. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized states may enact legislation to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdictions. The mere fact that a state law concerns illegal immigration or affects immigration in some way does not render it pre-empted.
   The other case that supports and upholds the right of states to allow their local law enforcement officers to check and verify the status of illegal immigrants is a Supreme Court case MUEHLER et al. v. MENA in 2005.
   SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
   MUEHLER et al. v. MENA In this case, In a 9-0 judgment delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Mena’s detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court further held that the officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure.
   The bill is based on existing U.S. federal immigration laws; it just gives Arizona police similar powers that federal officers have. This is not a new idea. In 1996, federal immigration officers trained local police to enforce national immigration laws under the 287(g) program. SB 1070 is just a continuation of that program.
   There is NO federal statute that the Obama administration, and other groups trying to sue Arizona, can cite that Senate Bill 1070 violates. Not one.
   If you have any more question about Arizona’s law, the federal law, and more analysis, then “READ THE BILL” by checking out the existing laws below:
   Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and the Amended version HB2162

   Federal Immigration Law
   – Section 8 USC 1324 (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens)
   – Section 8 USC 1324a (Unlawful employment of aliens)

   – Section 8 USC 1324b (Unfair immigration-related employment practices)
   – Section 8 USC 1324c (Penalties for document fraud)

   – Section 8 USC 1324d (Civil penalties for failure to depart)

   – Section 8 USC 1325 (Improper entry by alien)

   Give me your tired, your poor,

   Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

   The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

   Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

   I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

   Emma Lazarus (1849-1887)

   *

   *

   *

   WARNING

   This is a film the U.S. government does not want you to see.

   Press 1 For English exposes how the government has betrayed you, as it explores the unenforced immigration policies of the United States of America.
   Take a ride with two adventurous filmmakers (The Wright Brothers) as they trek along our southern border to investigate the lawlessness that has ravaged this part of the country. Witness how the devastating effects of crime, murder, trafficking, narco-terrorism, smuggling, lax border enforcement, and violence have turned the communities of the southwest into the wild west again.

   • Press 1 For English is a film about how your government has failed you.

   • Press 1 For English is a film that examines the sickness that has infested the corrupt hiring practices of U.S. businesses.

   • This film will show you how the flood gates for legal immigration have been left open as well, and how quickly your community is changing… over-night.

   For years you have wanted to see a documentary that takes an honest, forthright look at U.S. immigration without interpretation, and now… you finally have it.
   Press 1 For English is one of the most profound political movies you will ever see.

   SYNOPSIS

   This is a political documentary made by concerned citizens aiming to provide an in depth exploration behind the complex issues of U.S. border enforcement and the nation’s policies toward legal and illegal immigration. The film will provide a brief account of U.S. / Mexican relations throughout history, interviews with those most affected by the mass migration (politicians, border agents, ranchers and landowners along the border, environmentalists, Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, the Minutemen, etc.), and cover the effects of current migration on the American economy, culture, job-market, schools, crime, prisons, insurance programs, hospitals, etc. Our hope is to personally grasp a better concept on the issue of immigration and educate the American public as well. Perhaps we may even stumble upon possible solutions in the matter. All in all, the documentary’s purpose is to entertain, educate, and serve the interests of the American people.

   A FILM BY KRIS AND KERRY WRIGHT “PRESS 1 FOR ENGLISH”
   FEATURING LEE MORGAN II CHRIS SIMCOX ROY BECK
   IRA MEHLMAN and JAMIEL SHAW SR.
   MUSIC BY KRIS A WRIGHT EDITED BY KRIS AND KERRY WRIGHT
   PRODUCED BY KRIS and KERRY WRIGHT
   COPYRIGHT 2010 BY WRIGHT BROTHERS PICTURES L.L.C.
   ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

   IMMIGRATION LAWS

   What compelled us to produce this film was the realization that existing U.S. Federal laws, as well as the U.S. Constitution, were largely being unenforced through out the nation. As soon as we realized that local and state governments, as well as the Federal government, were not just ignoring existing immigration laws, but creating laws that usurped immigration law, we knew that we had to respond… this was the genesis of “Press 1 For English.”

   This is a list of the primary Federal U.S. immigration laws.

   Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

   Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

   United States Code: Title 8,1325. Improper entry by alien…

   United States Code: Title 8,1324. Bringing in and harboring …

   Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

   287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

   REAL ID ACT of 2005

   United States Code: Title 8,1373. Communication between government and I.C.E.

   US CODE: Title 8,1644. Communication between State and local agencies and I.C.E

   United States Code: Title 8,1623. eligibility for in-state tuition for illegals…

   Illegal immigrant family apprehended at the border in southern Arizona
   Justification for Arizona’s new immigration law?

   Last month, a federal judge blocked some of the toughest provisions in the new Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state’s attempt to have local police assist federal law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration policy. The judge’s decision, which removed the teeth from S.B. 1070, and the reasons for her decision could not have been more misguided. Her decision was completely misrepresentative of existing U.S. immigration laws.

   Senate Bill 1070 essentially requires local and state law enforcement officials to check with federal immigration authorities on a person’s immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally.

   As the growing debate over this kind of law continues, several questions regarding its constitutionality and lawfulness arise. For those who believe that President Obama, the Justice Department, and the A.C.L.U. have a legitimate case to sue the state of Arizona… consider these facts…

   1. “Will SB1070 force police to racially profile?”
   The new law doesn’t give police any new basis to stop and detain someone – police must have a lawful reason for stopping someone in the first place (you know that).
   The new law cannot be used against, nor does it apply to U.S. citizens.
   Here is the official statement from Arizona’s Department of Public Safety (DPS), Arizona’s state police, which is posted on their website at this link… https://www.azdps.gov/About/Profiling/
   “In November 1999, the Department of Public Safety enacted its first General Order addressing the issue of racial profiling. The General Order entitled “Racial or Ethnic Profiling in Traffic Enforcement” renewed DPS’ commitment to unbiased policing, and clarified the only circumstances in which officers can consider race/ethnicity when making law enforcement decisions.” DPS website
   Racial profiling? Hmm. Well considering that the ethnic make up of the Arizona Department of Public safety is 14% Hispanic, 2% Native American, and 2% Black and Asian, this means that 18% of non white officers will be profiling along side their white colleagues, since they’ll all be profiling – if you buy into that argument. The percentage of Hispanics serving in the Phoenix Police Department is slightly higher at 18%. Or… maybe you’re just implying that only the White officers will be profiling? Hmm. Now who’s a bigot?
   “Reasonable Suspicion:” means a combination of circumstances that compel an officer to suspect law breaking. There’s already plenty of case law that addresses “Reasonable Suspicion.” As a point of fact, SB 1070 makes racial profiling less likely because it requires local police to contact federal law enforcement to finish the job, once local law enforcement suspects a person, who is pulled over after lawful contact is made, is in the country illegally. Once federal law enforcement officials are present, only then can an illegal alien be held in custody for immigration law violations – so both local and federal law enforcement officials are in the same boat together.
   “Lawful Contact:” means what transpires before law enforcement think about checking ones immigration status. The law also specifies that an officer CANNOT inquire into a person’s immigration status unless that police officer has stopped an individual for some legitimate reason, or only after “lawful contact” has been made.
   The bill says officers can only ask an individual’s immigration status during a valid traffic stop or during an investigation with probable cause. “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S., a reasonable attempt should be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of that person.” and “An officer, without a warrant, may arrest the person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense.” Arizona Senate Bill 1070 This is nothing new- any police officer in the country can do this.
   In the final amended version of SB1070, HB2162, it explicitly states officers “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in forming a reasonable suspicion. “A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.” Arizona Senate Bill 1070
   But racial profiling means going after only the Mexicans and dark skinned people… right? O.K. A “Mexican” is not a race! A Mexican is a person who is from the country of Mexico, and almost 20% of Mexicans are white, and are descendants from various parts of Europe, while another 3% are black and Asian.
   In short, for those who say it allows officers to profile… it doesn’t. For those who choose to discard reason from the debate and opt for mud-slinging the word “racist” around, to those name callers, you should probably go to the nearest grade school and hang out with those kids running around on the playground – surely you’d fit right in.
   For those of you who want to argue that the honorable, hard working and brave men and women of our law enforcement agencies in Arizona are going to go shame themselves now by going out to racially profile, just because you think that some law allows them to, you should think twice about what you are saying. Never mind the fact that this law was written and enacted by a STATE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA! Never mind that these are our fellow Americans who are working a legitimate job to feed their families at the end of the day. If you want to argue that there will be racial profiling, just take a moment and think about the dishonor that you are bring to those law enforcement officers.
   2. “Will you need to prove that you are a U.S. citizen if you are stopped?”

   The bill states… if you’re a U.S. citizen you need local, state or federally issued identification, like a driver’s license. Let’s not forget that when a cop pulls you over, what is the first thing he/she ALWAYS asks you for? That’s right folks, you’re “LICENSE (your I.D.) and registration!” This is not a new concept.
   On the idea that it is unfair to demand that illegal aliens carry identification, or documents, with them… since 1940, it has been a federal crime to fail to keep identifying documents with them. If you’re a naturalized citizen you need your green card or proof of citizenship, and those documents have to be registered. An individual is only guilty if he is in violation of 8 USC sec 1304(a) or 8 USC 1306(e). The state statue literally refers to those federal statutes. A person can only be guilty under the state statute if he is guilty under the federal statute.
   Let’s ask this question, how many of Arizona’s 500,000 + illegal immigrants are going to be caught for traffic violations in the first place? Probably a very small number. In Arizona, as in all states, it’s already illegal to drive without a driver license. If you don’t have a license, and you’re over the legal age, then you’re probably in the country illegally.
   So do you need proof? Yes.
   3. “But only Federal Government can enforce U.S. immigration laws.”

   Wrong. This is a complete lie. Since 1976, The Supreme Court has recognized that states can enact immigration laws to deter illegal immigration without being “pre-empted” by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, the law is permitted. The Supremacy Clause says that laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. “ Which means a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute. Right. However, SB 1070 mirrors the Federal Immigration laws, it doesn’t conflict with them. The bills authors wisely and intentionally wrote the bill to reflect U.S. immigration law. They went to great lengths to that it is constitutional and will hold up in court.
   The state of California already has a similar law in place that doesn’t conflict nor preempt U.S. federal law – the reason why most people don’t know about the law is because California simply doesn’t enforce it. That law is 834b of the California Penal Code. Click on the link below to read more.
   https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=833-851.90
   Let’s look at the facts. When despicable groups like the “American Civil Liberties Union” (ACLU), and others of higher character, pledge to sue to block the bill from becoming law, arguing that “only federal government has the authority to enforce immigration laws,” these groups are ignoring the fact that other state laws have withstood legal scrutiny time and time again. Laws like Arizona’s 2008 law mandating the use of E-Verify, and California’s 834b of the Penal Code will continue to withstand the attacks of their contenders because they coincide with federal immigration law. Let’s examine the two clauses in the U.S. Constitution that these open borders groups will use to argue against states enforcing their immigration laws.
   The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. It states that…
   “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
   The Supremacy clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land. That said. Let’s now examine Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is similar to the Supremacy Clause.
   “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.“
   This clause frames out those who aren’t citizens. Key into the words “the privileges or immunities of citizens…” So if you are in the country illegally, a court can’t use this clause as justification to defend illegal aliens. Many argue that the State of Arizona, through their immigration law SB 1070, would be enforcing a law which abridges the rights of illegal aliens, as described in the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th amendment, well it doesn’t. If someone in Arizona is arrested by local and state law enforcement for being in the country illegally, then the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to them because THEY AREN’T CITIZENS.
   State Senator Russell Pearce, a former police officer, noted that some past state laws on immigration enforcement had been upheld in federal courts. “In Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983), the Court held that the Immigration and Naturalization Act precludes local enforcement of the Act’s civil provisions but does not preclude local enforcement of the Act’s criminal provisions.”
   According to one of the bill’s authors, Kris Kobach, “the law embodies the doctrine of ‘concurrent enforcement’ – i.e., that the state law parallels applicable federal law without any conflict.” If you read the bill, and if you read our federal immigration laws, you’ll discover that SB 1070 doesn’t implicate the Supremacy Clause in any way – there’s no preemption here.

   4. “What court cases have the state of Arizona won which defend their immigration laws?”

   The state prevailed in defending their Human Smuggling Statute in 2007.
   The state won again in federal court, and prevailed again in the [U.S. court of appeals for the] 9th Circuit defending their E-verify employment verification law in 2008. Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law requires all employers to use E-verify, which is an electronic verification system that employers can use to check the legal status of a potential employee. The Obama administrations Justice Department is currently going after this law again, asking the supreme court to strike it down – guess some folks are really stubborn.
   The State passed Proposition 200 in November 2004 with 56% of the vote. Despite withstanding three pre-election and two post-election lawsuits, legal challenges to Proposition 200 are still pending. Prop 200 requires individuals to produce proof of citizenship before they may register to vote or apply for public benefits in Arizona.
   As a result of Arizona’s prior immigration laws, the opinions of the 4th, 5th, 8th,9th,and 10th Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals (which are all of the Circuits that have addressed the issue) have already been written, and they support the state of Arizona’s authority to enact such laws.
   5. “But is the bill constitutional, and does it ‘mirror’ federal law.”

   Case law supporting SB 1070
   What protects the Arizona law is the legal principle of “concurrent enforcement.” This has been recognized by several courts, including the 9th Circuit. It holds that a law is not conflict-preempted if the state law prohibits the same behavior that is already prohibited by federal law. So, if a local police officer acts in a way that assists the federal government, he/she concurrently enforces what is already prohibited under federal law.
   The controlling Supreme Court precedent is De Canas v. Bicain 1976. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized states may enact legislation to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdictions. The mere fact that a state law concerns illegal immigration or affects immigration in some way does not render it pre-empted.
   The other case that supports and upholds the right of states to allow their local law enforcement officers to check and verify the status of illegal immigrants is a Supreme Court case MUEHLER et al. v. MENA in 2005.
   SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
   MUEHLER et al. v. MENA In this case, In a 9-0 judgment delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Mena’s detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court further held that the officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure.
   The bill is based on existing U.S. federal immigration laws; it just gives Arizona police similar powers that federal officers have. This is not a new idea. In 1996, federal immigration officers trained local police to enforce national immigration laws under the 287(g) program. SB 1070 is just a continuation of that program.
   There is NO federal statute that the Obama administration, and other groups trying to sue Arizona, can cite that Senate Bill 1070 violates. Not one.
   If you have any more question about Arizona’s law, the federal law, and more analysis, then “READ THE BILL” by checking out the existing laws below:
   Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and the Amended version HB2162

   Federal Immigration Law
   – Section 8 USC 1324 (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens)
   – Section 8 USC 1324a (Unlawful employment of aliens)

   – Section 8 USC 1324b (Unfair immigration-related employment practices)
   – Section 8 USC 1324c (Penalties for document fraud)

   – Section 8 USC 1324d (Civil penalties for failure to depart)

   – Section 8 USC 1325 (Improper entry by alien)

   https://pressoneforenglishmovie.com/about/

4. courage
   March 30th, 2014 @ 9:14 pm

   “Give me your tired, your poor,

   Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

   The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

   Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

   I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

   Emma Lazarus (1849-1887)

   *

   *

   *

   WARNING

   This is a film the U.S. government does not want you to see.

   Press 1 For English exposes how the government has betrayed you, as it explores the unenforced immigration policies of the United States of America.
   Take a ride with two adventurous filmmakers (The Wright Brothers) as they trek along our southern border to investigate the lawlessness that has ravaged this part of the country. Witness how the devastating effects of crime, murder, trafficking, narco-terrorism, smuggling, lax border enforcement, and violence have turned the communities of the southwest into the wild west again.

   • Press 1 For English is a film about how your government has failed you.

   • Press 1 For English is a film that examines the sickness that has infested the corrupt hiring practices of U.S. businesses.

   • This film will show you how the flood gates for legal immigration have been left open as well, and how quickly your community is changing… over-night.

   For years you have wanted to see a documentary that takes an honest, forthright look at U.S. immigration without interpretation, and now… you finally have it.
   Press 1 For English is one of the most profound political movies you will ever see.

   SYNOPSIS

   This is a political documentary made by concerned citizens aiming to provide an in depth exploration behind the complex issues of U.S. border enforcement and the nation’s policies toward legal and illegal immigration. The film will provide a brief account of U.S. / Mexican relations throughout history, interviews with those most affected by the mass migration (politicians, border agents, ranchers and landowners along the border, environmentalists, Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, the Minutemen, etc.), and cover the effects of current migration on the American economy, culture, job-market, schools, crime, prisons, insurance programs, hospitals, etc. Our hope is to personally grasp a better concept on the issue of immigration and educate the American public as well. Perhaps we may even stumble upon possible solutions in the matter. All in all, the documentary’s purpose is to entertain, educate, and serve the interests of the American people.

   A FILM BY KRIS AND KERRY WRIGHT “PRESS 1 FOR ENGLISH”
   FEATURING LEE MORGAN II CHRIS SIMCOX ROY BECK
   IRA MEHLMAN and JAMIEL SHAW SR.
   MUSIC BY KRIS A WRIGHT EDITED BY KRIS AND KERRY WRIGHT
   PRODUCED BY KRIS and KERRY WRIGHT
   COPYRIGHT 2010 BY WRIGHT BROTHERS PICTURES L.L.C.
   ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

   IMMIGRATION LAWS

   What compelled us to produce this film was the realization that existing U.S. Federal laws, as well as the U.S. Constitution, were largely being unenforced through out the nation. As soon as we realized that local and state governments, as well as the Federal government, were not just ignoring existing immigration laws, but creating laws that usurped immigration law, we knew that we had to respond… this was the genesis of “Press 1 For English.”

   This is a list of the primary Federal U.S. immigration laws.

   Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

   Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

   United States Code: Title 8,1325. Improper entry by alien…

   United States Code: Title 8,1324. Bringing in and harboring …

   Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

   287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

   REAL ID ACT of 2005

   United States Code: Title 8,1373. Communication between government and I.C.E.

   US CODE: Title 8,1644. Communication between State and local agencies and I.C.E

   United States Code: Title 8,1623. eligibility for in-state tuition for illegals…

   Illegal immigrant family apprehended at the border in southern Arizona
   Justification for Arizona’s new immigration law?

   Last month, a federal judge blocked some of the toughest provisions in the new Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state’s attempt to have local police assist federal law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration policy. The judge’s decision, which removed the teeth from S.B. 1070, and the reasons for her decision could not have been more misguided. Her decision was completely misrepresentative of existing U.S. immigration laws.

   Senate Bill 1070 essentially requires local and state law enforcement officials to check with federal immigration authorities on a person’s immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally.

   As the growing debate over this kind of law continues, several questions regarding its constitutionality and lawfulness arise. For those who believe that President Obama, the Justice Department, and the A.C.L.U. have a legitimate case to sue the state of Arizona… consider these facts…

   1. “Will SB1070 force police to racially profile?”
   The new law doesn’t give police any new basis to stop and detain someone – police must have a lawful reason for stopping someone in the first place (you know that).
   The new law cannot be used against, nor does it apply to U.S. citizens.
   Here is the official statement from Arizona’s Department of Public Safety (DPS), Arizona’s state police, which is posted on their website at this link… https://www.azdps.gov/About/Profiling/
   “In November 1999, the Department of Public Safety enacted its first General Order addressing the issue of racial profiling. The General Order entitled “Racial or Ethnic Profiling in Traffic Enforcement” renewed DPS’ commitment to unbiased policing, and clarified the only circumstances in which officers can consider race/ethnicity when making law enforcement decisions.” DPS website
   Racial profiling? Hmm. Well considering that the ethnic make up of the Arizona Department of Public safety is 14% Hispanic, 2% Native American, and 2% Black and Asian, this means that 18% of non white officers will be profiling along side their white colleagues, since they’ll all be profiling – if you buy into that argument. The percentage of Hispanics serving in the Phoenix Police Department is slightly higher at 18%. Or… maybe you’re just implying that only the White officers will be profiling? Hmm. Now who’s a bigot?
   “Reasonable Suspicion:” means a combination of circumstances that compel an officer to suspect law breaking. There’s already plenty of case law that addresses “Reasonable Suspicion.” As a point of fact, SB 1070 makes racial profiling less likely because it requires local police to contact federal law enforcement to finish the job, once local law enforcement suspects a person, who is pulled over after lawful contact is made, is in the country illegally. Once federal law enforcement officials are present, only then can an illegal alien be held in custody for immigration law violations – so both local and federal law enforcement officials are in the same boat together.
   “Lawful Contact:” means what transpires before law enforcement think about checking ones immigration status. The law also specifies that an officer CANNOT inquire into a person’s immigration status unless that police officer has stopped an individual for some legitimate reason, or only after “lawful contact” has been made.
   The bill says officers can only ask an individual’s immigration status during a valid traffic stop or during an investigation with probable cause. “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S., a reasonable attempt should be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of that person.” and “An officer, without a warrant, may arrest the person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense.” Arizona Senate Bill 1070 This is nothing new- any police officer in the country can do this.
   In the final amended version of SB1070, HB2162, it explicitly states officers “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in forming a reasonable suspicion. “A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.” Arizona Senate Bill 1070
   But racial profiling means going after only the Mexicans and dark skinned people… right? O.K. A “Mexican” is not a race! A Mexican is a person who is from the country of Mexico, and almost 20% of Mexicans are white, and are descendants from various parts of Europe, while another 3% are black and Asian.
   In short, for those who say it allows officers to profile… it doesn’t. For those who choose to discard reason from the debate and opt for mud-slinging the word “racist” around, to those name callers, you should probably go to the nearest grade school and hang out with those kids running around on the playground – surely you’d fit right in.
   For those of you who want to argue that the honorable, hard working and brave men and women of our law enforcement agencies in Arizona are going to go shame themselves now by going out to racially profile, just because you think that some law allows them to, you should think twice about what you are saying. Never mind the fact that this law was written and enacted by a STATE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA! Never mind that these are our fellow Americans who are working a legitimate job to feed their families at the end of the day. If you want to argue that there will be racial profiling, just take a moment and think about the dishonor that you are bring to those law enforcement officers.
   2. “Will you need to prove that you are a U.S. citizen if you are stopped?”

   The bill states… if you’re a U.S. citizen you need local, state or federally issued identification, like a driver’s license. Let’s not forget that when a cop pulls you over, what is the first thing he/she ALWAYS asks you for? That’s right folks, you’re “LICENSE (your I.D.) and registration!” This is not a new concept.
   On the idea that it is unfair to demand that illegal aliens carry identification, or documents, with them… since 1940, it has been a federal crime to fail to keep identifying documents with them. If you’re a naturalized citizen you need your green card or proof of citizenship, and those documents have to be registered. An individual is only guilty if he is in violation of 8 USC sec 1304(a) or 8 USC 1306(e). The state statue literally refers to those federal statutes. A person can only be guilty under the state statute if he is guilty under the federal statute.
   Let’s ask this question, how many of Arizona’s 500,000 + illegal immigrants are going to be caught for traffic violations in the first place? Probably a very small number. In Arizona, as in all states, it’s already illegal to drive without a driver license. If you don’t have a license, and you’re over the legal age, then you’re probably in the country illegally.
   So do you need proof? Yes.
   3. “But only Federal Government can enforce U.S. immigration laws.”

   Wrong. This is a complete lie. Since 1976, The Supreme Court has recognized that states can enact immigration laws to deter illegal immigration without being “pre-empted” by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, the law is permitted. The Supremacy Clause says that laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. “ Which means a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute. Right. However, SB 1070 mirrors the Federal Immigration laws, it doesn’t conflict with them. The bills authors wisely and intentionally wrote the bill to reflect U.S. immigration law. They went to great lengths to that it is constitutional and will hold up in court.
   The state of California already has a similar law in place that doesn’t conflict nor preempt U.S. federal law – the reason why most people don’t know about the law is because California simply doesn’t enforce it. That law is 834b of the California Penal Code. Click on the link below to read more.
   https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=833-851.90
   Let’s look at the facts. When despicable groups like the “American Civil Liberties Union” (ACLU), and others of higher character, pledge to sue to block the bill from becoming law, arguing that “only federal government has the authority to enforce immigration laws,” these groups are ignoring the fact that other state laws have withstood legal scrutiny time and time again. Laws like Arizona’s 2008 law mandating the use of E-Verify, and California’s 834b of the Penal Code will continue to withstand the attacks of their contenders because they coincide with federal immigration law. Let’s examine the two clauses in the U.S. Constitution that these open borders groups will use to argue against states enforcing their immigration laws.
   The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. It states that…
   “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
   The Supremacy clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land. That said. Let’s now examine Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is similar to the Supremacy Clause.
   “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.“
   This clause frames out those who aren’t citizens. Key into the words “the privileges or immunities of citizens…” So if you are in the country illegally, a court can’t use this clause as justification to defend illegal aliens. Many argue that the State of Arizona, through their immigration law SB 1070, would be enforcing a law which abridges the rights of illegal aliens, as described in the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th amendment, well it doesn’t. If someone in Arizona is arrested by local and state law enforcement for being in the country illegally, then the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to them because THEY AREN’T CITIZENS.
   State Senator Russell Pearce, a former police officer, noted that some past state laws on immigration enforcement had been upheld in federal courts. “In Gonzales v. City of Peoria (9th Cir. 1983), the Court held that the Immigration and Naturalization Act precludes local enforcement of the Act’s civil provisions but does not preclude local enforcement of the Act’s criminal provisions.”
   According to one of the bill’s authors, Kris Kobach, “the law embodies the doctrine of ‘concurrent enforcement’ – i.e., that the state law parallels applicable federal law without any conflict.” If you read the bill, and if you read our federal immigration laws, you’ll discover that SB 1070 doesn’t implicate the Supremacy Clause in any way – there’s no preemption here.

   4. “What court cases have the state of Arizona won which defend their immigration laws?”

   The state prevailed in defending their Human Smuggling Statute in 2007.
   The state won again in federal court, and prevailed again in the [U.S. court of appeals for the] 9th Circuit defending their E-verify employment verification law in 2008. Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law requires all employers to use E-verify, which is an electronic verification system that employers can use to check the legal status of a potential employee. The Obama administrations Justice Department is currently going after this law again, asking the supreme court to strike it down – guess some folks are really stubborn.
   The State passed Proposition 200 in November 2004 with 56% of the vote. Despite withstanding three pre-election and two post-election lawsuits, legal challenges to Proposition 200 are still pending. Prop 200 requires individuals to produce proof of citizenship before they may register to vote or apply for public benefits in Arizona.
   As a result of Arizona’s prior immigration laws, the opinions of the 4th, 5th, 8th,9th,and 10th Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals (which are all of the Circuits that have addressed the issue) have already been written, and they support the state of Arizona’s authority to enact such laws.
   5. “But is the bill constitutional, and does it ‘mirror’ federal law.”

   Case law supporting SB 1070
   What protects the Arizona law is the legal principle of “concurrent enforcement.” This has been recognized by several courts, including the 9th Circuit. It holds that a law is not conflict-preempted if the state law prohibits the same behavior that is already prohibited by federal law. So, if a local police officer acts in a way that assists the federal government, he/she concurrently enforces what is already prohibited under federal law.
   The controlling Supreme Court precedent is De Canas v. Bicain 1976. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized states may enact legislation to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdictions. The mere fact that a state law concerns illegal immigration or affects immigration in some way does not render it pre-empted.
   The other case that supports and upholds the right of states to allow their local law enforcement officers to check and verify the status of illegal immigrants is a Supreme Court case MUEHLER et al. v. MENA in 2005.
   SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
   MUEHLER et al. v. MENA In this case, In a 9-0 judgment delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Mena’s detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court further held that the officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure.
   The bill is based on existing U.S. federal immigration laws; it just gives Arizona police similar powers that federal officers have. This is not a new idea. In 1996, federal immigration officers trained local police to enforce national immigration laws under the 287(g) program. SB 1070 is just a continuation of that program.
   There is NO federal statute that the Obama administration, and other groups trying to sue Arizona, can cite that Senate Bill 1070 violates. Not one.
   If you have any more question about Arizona’s law, the federal law, and more analysis, then “READ THE BILL” by checking out the existing laws below:
   Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and the Amended version HB2162

   Federal Immigration Law
   – Section 8 USC 1324 (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens)
   – Section 8 USC 1324a (Unlawful employment of aliens)

   – Section 8 USC 1324b (Unfair immigration-related employment practices)
   – Section 8 USC 1324c (Penalties for document fraud)

   – Section 8 USC 1324d (Civil penalties for failure to depart)

   – Section 8 USC 1325 (Improper entry by alien)

   https://pressoneforenglishmovie.com/about/

5. courage
   March 30th, 2014 @ 10:11 pm

   SYNOPSIS

   “This is a political documentary made by concerned citizens aiming to provide an in depth exploration behind the complex issues of U.S. border enforcement and the nation’s policies toward legal and illegal immigration. The film will provide a brief account of U.S. / Mexican relations throughout history, interviews with those most affected by the mass migration (politicians, border agents, ranchers and landowners along the border, environmentalists, Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, the Minutemen, etc.), and cover the effects of current migration on the American economy, culture, job-market, schools, crime, prisons, insurance programs, hospitals, etc. Our hope is to personally grasp a better concept on the issue of immigration and educate the American public as well. Perhaps we may even stumble upon possible solutions in the matter. All in all, the documentary’s purpose is to entertain, educate, and serve the interests of the American people.”

   https://pressoneforenglishmovie.com/about/

Leave a Reply