Anti Immigration & Illegal Immigration Info - Ongoing Thread

Search
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,835
Tokens
YOUR NOT A CITIZEN OF THE USA!!!!
14th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - Never said you are a citizen when born by an illegal alien woman
BY: Michelle Dallacroce, June 16, 2006


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Mothers Against Illegal Aliens’ mission is to educate and inform all of America about the injustices that occur to our legal citizen children of America.
Above is the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is clear that in order to be a citizen of the United States of America, (This means a true citizen who is eligible to vote in the United States of America which consists of 50 States – this does not include South America or Canada), you must be born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to be a citizen under the United States Constitution.
When illegal alien women illegally enter the United States of America and have a child or children, these children are not U.S. citizens.
Most of America and Americans believe that by giving ONLY BIRTH to a child is a birthright to citizenship to this country. THIS IS NOT TRUE.
Birthright and citizenship as well the right to vote in the United States of America is granted to true citizens who are under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
Children born to illegal alien women are under the jurisdiction of the mother’s home of origin and the mother’s native land.
The 14th Amendment has not been challenged and is the Achilles heel of the invasion into the United States of America. The motive of illegal aliens to have multiple pregnancies is to change the demographics and the political arena in our country. By considering these illegal alien babies (better known as anchor babies) as citizens is stealing the future away from every legal citizen child that has been born to legal citizens of the United States of America.
When illegal alien children are presented with the inappropriate label of ‘citizen” by way of their birth is solely, a direct violation of the 14th Amendment. Children born to a parent who is under the jurisdiction of another nation while illegally in the United States of America, is under the jurisdiction of the nation of origin of their mother. That child is NOT a citizen of the USA. That child should never be given an opportunity to VOTE. Although this is happening in the USA presently, millions of children who have been born in the USA to illegal alien parents and mothers are currently voting and changing the election and electoral votes in our country.
We must all be well informed and investigate this injustice to the future of the United States of America. This blatant disregard for the birthright to the legal citizen children of our country is being raped from our children’s heritage and this countries loyalty is being sold and given away without the permission of the legal citizen children.
Please continue to investigate this and pass this information to all your friends and family. We must all do what we can to re-educate all of the USA and hold our Congress and Senators accountable to the future of our country and the future of our children’s country.
Lastly, the last sentence of the 14th Amendment states that;
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Please let’s hold Congress accountable and force them to enforce our laws. Please write to all your officials and let them know that you do not want them to continue to strip our children’s votes 2 to 1 because illegal alien women are having many more children illegally in our country, more than the average American family currently, which will offset our children and their votes when they are old enough to vote.
Let’s not let our children down. They are counting on you and Mothers Against Illegal Aliens is counting on you.
God Bless America.


MICHELLE DALLACROCE
PRESIDENT - FOUNDER - USAF VETERAN
MOTHERS AGAINST ILLEGAL ALIENS
www.mothersagainstillegalaliens.org

------------------------------------------------------
Alien born infants are Illegal TOO!!!!
U.S. Library of Congress in Washington D.C. says “aliens are excluded from being citizens”
by: Michelle Dallacroce, MAIA - 4/27/07
Thanks to the hundreds of great legal citizens of the United States, grassroots organizations and the 35+ radio stations that went to D.C. - we made a POWERFUL IMPACT! Michelle Dallacroce, President of MAIA went to the Library of Congress and researched the 14th Amendment and the Congressional Records/Globe. She has uncovered the clear defense which, without a doubt - PROVES that Illegal Alien Infants. aka. Anchor Babies - ARE NOT citizens. Based on the first sentence in Section 1, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is…..a citizen of the United States.” In the book titled “Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation,” Page 1672, Par. 3, line, 5, states, “The requirement that a person be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,” or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal law.”
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/032.pdf
Section 5: Page 2036, Paragraph 1 of the Library of Congress’ Law Library book entitled as referenced above: “The Congress shall have the Power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” It is CLEAR, the 14th Amendment and the language used explicitly excluded “aliens” and their offspring, not legally within the United States - from citizenship. Our founding fathers did not have crystal ball to predict that 30 million illegal aliens from Mexico, China, Ireland and every other country would be using the birth of a child to violate the laws of the United States for sympathy and as a means to remain in the USA - and by intent and design - change the face of our nation by strong arming the American people in the name of family and child.
There can be no argument that Illegal Aliens fall in the ”alien” category which is specified in the documents pertaining to the 14th amendment - held in trust for the American people in the Library of Congress in our Nation’s Capital. The fact that our forefathers did not explicitly state that the Infants of Illegal Alien Female’s were included in this sentence, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE NOT EXCLUDED.
Aliens, NOT LEGALLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as opposed to those who are - such as a Resident Aliens - are one in the same, regardless of whether it be for “hostile occupation” or for “designed repopulation” for hostile purposes. The bottom line is, Alien means Alien - and all Aliens not legally present in the United States - to include ILLEGAL ALIENS and the children born of Illegal Alien parents - are clearly EXCLUDED for Citizenship and Residency in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Section 5 gives Congress the “exclusive” authority to define, expand or limit the terms set forth in the 14th Amendment and its applications under our Rule of Law. In 2007, we find that the United States of America is being willfully and deliberately populated to facilitate the hostile occupation - and the Colonization of our Country by a large number of ILLEGAL ALIENS - males, females and infants and anchor babies who have - unlawfully INVADED OUR NATION.
By the Constitutional authority vested in the United States Congress under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, MAIA, as a legitimate representative of thousands of American voices - submits for redress of grievances - and for the IMMEDIATE consideration by the Congress of the United States - a formal request for an addendum via a clarifying statement to the 14th Amendment that will, in affect, encompass every definition attributed to the words and terms associated with ALIENS who have entered, who are currently present and who will enter the Sovereign Territory of the United States of America - Illegally - and to include their offspring who were, are and will be born of Illegal Alien parents within the Sovereign boundaries of the United States of America.
Senator Howard of Michigan stated it best and with great clarity when he proffered that “….it takes a citizen to make a citizen….” The pundits of today, are living in denial - and they would have Pirates, Profiteers and Pandering Politicians change the meaning of our great foundational documents to accommodate their Marxist-Socialist vision of the American dream - and turn our Nation into another 3rd World landfill. THIS WE CANNOT ALLOW - EVER!!
The true character of a Nation requires that the People’s Representatives make no laws that abridge the rights and privileges of its citizens and that they faithfully execute their sworn duty and obligation to ensure that the Rule of Law is respected and that it remains the vanguard of our Nation. In our form of government - our elected officials must be ever mindful that we are not a democracy, where a handful reign over the majority, but rather that we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC from which the elected derive their authority from those that have elected them.
WE THE PEOPLE is not a literary error. It is a statement of fact!! The Founding Fathers did not limit the authority and the power of the people (see the 9th Amendment). They limited the authority and the power of those who operate the government on behalf of, and for the benefit of the People.



MICHELLE DALLACROCE
PRESIDENT - FOUNDER - USAF VETERAN
MOTHERS AGAINST ILLEGAL ALIENS
www.mothersagainstillegalaliens.org


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1904077/posts

Anchor Babies, Away

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 29 Sept 2007 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Posted on 09/29/2007 7:47:05 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob

The Constitution is simple, short and easy to read. There is no excuse for any reporter to write about it, without reading it. The latest example is an article about anchor babies in the Orlando Sentinel today (29 September) by Jim Stratton.

The article concerns a comment about anchor babies by Fred Thompson, Republican candidate for President. If you haven’t followed the illegal immigration debate, anchor babies are children born on US soil of illegal immigrant parents. The babies get citizenship. Then, the provisions for “reuniting families” kick in, and the baby assists the parents in becoming legal.

It is a serious problem. Even illegals who cannot read a word of English, are aware of the law. Mexican women who are eight months pregnant are dying every month in the deserts on the border, trying to have their child here as “an American.”

Thompson’s comment on the automatic citizenship was, “I think that law was created at another time and place for valid reasons, [and] needs to be revisited.” The reporter’s gloss on Thompson’s comment, was “Citizenship by birth has been prescribed by the Constitution since 1868 -- and upheld for 109 years by the Supreme Court....”

The reporter was either incompetent or dishonest. Here’s what the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says in its first sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” That’s the legal basis for anchor babies.

Those who say anchor babies are guaranteed by the Constitution, and cannot be eliminated without an amendment, jump right over the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Here’s an example to explain that, applied to children.

An Australian diplomat and his wife (or her husband) are serving in the United States. She has a child, born in a US hospital. Is that child an American? Absolutely not. Under the laws of the US, a child born of a diplomatic couple is a citizen of their nation, not ours, just as the embassies themselves are defined as territory of the foreign nations, not of the US.

What is the connection between the diplomatic child and the child of an illegal alien from whatever country, though most likely from Mexico? Here’s the last sentence of the 14th Amendment, a provision which is common to many amendments: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Based on the plain language of the Constitution, Congress is given the power in the 14th Amendment itself to pass “appropriate” legislation. Therefore, Congress could pass a law that says, “For the purpose of citizenship of them or their children, aliens who are not in the US legally, or not here for the purpose of obtaining citizenship are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US as stated in the 14th Amendment.”

Such a law would be legal, because the Constitution permits it. It would mean a child born in a Tucson, or San Diego, or Laredo hospital of Mexican parents, would be a Mexican child. The anchor baby problem would be over. No more pregnant women would die in deserts of the Southwest, trying to get to a US hospital to have their “American” child.

Contrary to what Jim Stratton asserts as fact, this Amendment ratified in 1868 provides for this very solution, if Congress chooses to solve the problem by law. His assertion that the Supreme Court has held to this result is equally ignorant. The case he refers to, but doesn’t name, concerned the child of two aliens who were in the US legally, not illegally.

I am not picking on Jim Stratton and the Orlando Sentinel. The ignorance they display on this issue is common to most of the local and national reporters who talk about anchor babies. Almost all of them assume, and state, that the problem is built into the Constitution and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment. All of them are either dishonest, because they’ve read the Constitution, and know the legislative power is given to Congress. Or, more likely, they are merely ignorant. They haven’t read the Constitution; they assume because many other reporters have said this, it must be true. Therefore, they don’t look it up.

This is not the first instance, nor the last, of the American press being a copraphage, consuming its own output.

About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.eduThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it He lives in the 11th District of North Carolina.

Last Updated ( Sunday, 30 September 2007 )
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,835
Tokens
Join up today

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=390 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="50%">Introduce your friends & family to NumbersUSA
</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=10 width=380 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=10 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
115.png
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=discussionTEXT align=middle></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Debates Shift Presidential Candidate Stances A Bit

(December 11) As a result of new debates and statements, NumbersUSA's Roy Beck has revised his ratings on 15 Presidential candidates of both Parties. Although every candidate wants voters to think he/she would end future illegal immigration, Roy finds that only six are making promises that rate as "good" or "excellent" in this category. Likewise, only four of these 15 are making promises that rate them as “good” or “excellent” on reducing legal immigration, which is at its highest level in history.

In the Republican race, former Senator Fred Thompson (Tenn.) and former Governors Mitt Romney (Mass.) and Mike Huckabee (Ark.) are outdoing each other to adopt policies to try to look as good as Representatives Tom Tancredo (Colo.), Duncan Hunter (Calif.) and Ron Paul (Tex.). Take a look.

In the Democratic race, only one candidate -- Rep. Chris Dodd (Conn.) -- has broken with the rest to move slightly more toward increased restrictions on illegal immigration. Take a look.
More Members Sign Onto SAVE Act
Rep. Heath Shuler’s (D-N.C.) SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement [H.R. 4088]) now has 129 bipartisan signers. The SAVE Act will require all employers to use the electronic verification system to keep illegal aliens out of U.S. jobs. NumbersUSA believes that this legislation originating on the Democratic side of the House is just the vehicle to give us a chance to actually pass immigration legislation through a Democratic-controlled Congress that would significantly improve the lives of most Americans. "It's the one [immigration] bill that will pass this Congress," said Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus Chairman Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) in an interview with The Hill. "We have to make this about illegal employment and crack down on employers."Click here to view list of signers and to read more information about the SAVE Act.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,835
Tokens
December 19, 2007-SPECIAL REPORT: Mexican truckers planning to block border Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2007 – The long list of opponents to the cross-border trucking program isn’t exclusively made up of groups and truckers in the United States. Motor carriers in Mexico are waging their own fight to shut down the program.

In fact, the Mexican National Truck Drivers Federation is planning to block the border between Mexico and the United States in January 2008 if the program doesn’t come to an end. The threat to block the border was reported in the Mexican newspaper El Financiero.

The union of truckers is upset with the Mexican government for allowing U.S. trucks and truckers into their country.

“It is irresponsible of the Mexican Government, of Felipe Calderon, to allow the interests of a powerful 2 percent of people in the Mexican economy to hand Mexican trucking over to the Americans,” Elias Dip Rame, president of the Mexican National Truck Drivers Federation, told El Financiero.

According to the translated article, the federation has approximately 200,000 members who Dip Rame says will clog the border, effectively shutting down all cross-border traffic. The leader of the Federation cautioned authorities in Mexico to remember the strength of his organization.

As an example, Dip Rame pointed out that in early November it was only 100 trucks that blocked the road in Reynosa, Tamaulipas, preventing 3,000 truckers and vehicles from crossing into the United States, according to the El Financiero report.

OIG begins audit of program
The Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General initiated an audit of the one-year cross-border “demonstration” project, also referred to as a pilot program, with Mexico.

The audit is required by a provision in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 that was signed into law in July.

The specific objectives for the audit will be to determine whether:

The secretary of transportation has established sufficient mechanisms to determine whether the demonstration project is adversely affecting motor carrier safety;
Federal and state monitoring and enforcement activities are sufficient to ensure that participants in the demonstration project are complying with all applicable laws and regulations; and
The demonstration project consists of a representative and adequate sample of Mexico-domiciled carriers that are likely to engage in cross-border operations beyond the United States municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border.
The inspector must submit an interim report to Congress and to the secretary of transportation six months after the program begins. A final report is also required 60 days after the program is completed.

The cross-border program with Mexico began in early September. There are currently 10 Mexico-based motor carriers operating more than 50 trucks in the U.S.

Questions still plague the program
The safety records of some of those trucking companies have been called into question by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association based on information from FMCSA’s own databases.

Monday, Dec. 3, the Association filed a brief in its challenge of the cross-border program with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.

In the brief, Rick Craig, OOIDA’s director of regulatory affairs, dissects data from FMCSA’s own SafeStat database, which was collected and analyzed by OOIDA staff and a paralegal at The Cullen Law Firm, OOIDA’s legal counsel.

Safety inspection reports were collected on four of the seven carriers participating in the cross-border program at the time the brief was filed.

“My review of those inspection reports revealed patterns of unsafe operations by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers in the border areas of the United States,” Craig testified in a declaration filed with the reply brief.

Catherine O’Mara, a paralegal with The Cullen Law Firm of Washington, DC, compiled the safety inspection reports on the Mexican motor carriers and a summary of selected SafeStat data, which shines a light on Craig’s assertion.

O’Mara provided a table summarizing total inspections with violations, total violations, driver out-of-service orders, vehicle out-of-service orders, number of power units and the number of violations per vehicle.

In the span of one year, Sept. 21, 2006, through Sept. 21, 2007, the four Mexican motor carriers amassed more than 1,700 violations. One of the companies averaged more than 112 violations per truck for the 10 power units in its fleet during that year.

“I observe that these motor carriers also received many violations for which an out-of-service order should have been issued, but was not,” Craig testified.

Examples included violations related to lighting, suspension, tires and all other driver violations, such as a non-English speaking driver.

Craig also noted there were numerous other violations that could have been the basis for an out-of-service order, but the inspection report does not provide enough information to make that determination.

Examples included violations related to brakes and inspection or repair and maintenance of parts and accessories.

Legal challenge ongoing
OOIDA’s legal challenge of the cross-border program continues in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.

The lawsuit filed by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association challenging the cross-border program is moving forward in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Initially, OOIDA filed its challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The suit also requested an emergency stay of the cross-border program.

The DC court denied the request for the stay, but did not rule whatsoever on the merits of the Association’s case.

OOIDA isn’t the only group with a case challenging the cross-border program. The Sierra Club is also challenging the program. That group filed its case in the 9th Circuit in California.

Once the DC Circuit ruled on OOIDA’s request for the emergency stay, it assigned the case to a Judicial Panel of Multidistrict Litigation to decide what Court of Appeals would hear the two cases.

OOIDA’s legal team filed a motion on Sept. 28 supporting a transfer of the case to the 9th Circuit.

– By Jami Jones, senior editor
jami_jones@landlinemag.com
http://ooida.com
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
4,935
Tokens
December 19, 2007-SPECIAL REPORT: Mexican truckers planning to block border Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2007 – The long list of opponents to the cross-border trucking program isn’t exclusively made up of groups and truckers in the United States. Motor carriers in Mexico are waging their own fight to shut down the program.

i dont always read what you post in this thread because the information is just overwhelming... but sometimes i'll get a chance to read

this road block is just... asinine :WTF:
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,835
Tokens
i dont always read what you post in this thread because the information is just overwhelming... but sometimes i'll get a chance to read

this road block is just... asinine :WTF:
It means Mexico does'nt want NAFTA either & that only helps our cause to eliminate NAFTA & all this other sp called North American free trade bullshit.I don't want them on our roads do you?..Especially when they don't have to abide by our laws & we're being discriminated again'st More NAFTA info: http://ooida.com
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
4,935
Tokens
lol i think you misread my post... i was actually agreeing with you and the article

no nafta is good... another reason why i support ron paul
 

2009 RX Death Pool Champion
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
13,603
Tokens
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-22-immigration-leaving_N.htm

PHOENIX (AP) — Illegal immigrants in Arizona, frustrated with a flagging economy and tough new legislation cracking down on their employers, are returning to their home countries or trying their luck in other states.

For months, immigrants have taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the state's new employer-sanctions law, which takes effect Jan. 1. The voter-approved legislation is an attempt to lessen the economic incentive for illegal immigrants in Arizona, the busiest crossing point along the U.S.-Mexico border.

And by all appearances, it's starting to work.

"People are calling me telling me about their friend, their cousin, their neighbors — they're moving back to Mexico," said Magdalena Schwartz, an immigrant-rights activist and pastor at a Mesa church. "They don't want to live in fear, in terror."

Martin Herrera, a 40-year-old illegal immigrant and masonry worker who lives in Camp Verde, 70 miles north of Phoenix, said he is planning to return to Mexico as soon as he ties up loose ends after living here for four years.

"I don't want to live here because of the new law and the oppressive environment," he said. "I'll be better in my country."

He called the employer-sanctions law "absurd."

"Everybody here, legally or illegally, we are part of a motor that makes this country run," Herrera said. "Once we leave, the motor is going to start to slow down."

There's no way to know how many illegal immigrants are leaving Arizona, especially now with many returning home for normal holidays visits. But economists, immigration lawyers and people who work in the immigrant community agree it's happening.

State Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, the author of the employer sanctions law, said his intent was to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona.

"I'm hoping they will self-deport," Pearce said. "They broke the law. They're criminals."

Under the employer sanctions law, businesses found to have knowingly hired illegal workers will be subject to sanctions from probation to a 10-day suspension of their business licenses. A second violation would bring permanent revocation of the license.

Nancy-Jo Merritt, an immigration lawyer who primarily represents employers, said her clients already have started to fire workers who can't prove they are in the country legally.

"Workers are being fired, of course," she said. "Nobody wants to find out later on that they've got somebody working for them who's not here legally."

When immigrants don't have jobs, they don't stick around, said Dawn McLaren, a research economist at Arizona State University who specializes in illegal immigration.

She said the flagging economy, particularly in the construction industry, also is contributing to an immigrant exodus.

"As the jobs dwindle and the environment becomes more unpleasant in more ways than one, you then decide what to do, and perhaps leaving looks like a good idea," she said. "And certainly that creates a problem, because as people leave, they take the jobs they created with them."

Pearce disagreed that the Arizona economy will suffer after illegal immigrants leave, saying there will be less crime, lower taxes, less congestion, smaller classroom sizes and shorter lines in emergency rooms.

"We have a free market. It'll adjust," he said. "Americans will be much better off."

He said he's not surprised illegal immigrants are leaving the state and predicts that more will go once the employer-sanctions law takes effect next month.

"It's attrition by enforcement," he said. "As you make this an unfriendly state for lawbreakers, I'm hoping they will pick up and leave."
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,835
Tokens
Shaggy wrote: 7m ago
'Twas the night before Christmas
and through every state
the citizens woke up
and saw it wasn't too late.

The illegals were nestled
all snug in their beds
while visions of freebies
danced in their heads.

When throughout the country
there arose such a clatter
the illegals jumped up
to see what was the matter.

The jobs that were there -
now where did they go?
The citizens just laughed
and said "sorry amigo".

Now Pedro! Now Juan!
Now Jesus and Maria!
Come here legally
or we don't want to see ya!

To the top of the porch!
To the top of the wall !
Now dash away! Dash away!
Dash away all !!!______________________________Source: http://usatoday.com news story Blogs
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,835
Tokens
sunbunny wrote: 3m ago
I received this e-mail the other day from a friend in Colorado.

It brings up some interesting points:

WHAT IF 20 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS VACATED AMERICA?

By Frosty Wooldridge
October 29, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column
titled, "Mexican visitor's lament" -- 10/25/07.

She interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver
last week. Hernandez said,

"They (illegal aliens) pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes..., what happens to
your country's economy if 20 million people go away?"

That's a good question it deserves an answer. Over 80 percent of Americans
demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if
all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers may surprise you!

*
In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it
would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems,
bankrupted hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner,
safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English
became the dominate language again.
*
In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and
grand-kids would move back "home," mostly to Mexico. That would save
Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 BIL) annually in taxes
that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It
means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.
*
Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror
that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don
Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death,
accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.
*
Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop out/flunk out
rate via thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages.
At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado.
Denver's four percent unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.
*
In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to
America, the rule of law and English.
*
In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals,
schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free
experience.

If 20 million illegal aliens returned "home" --

If 20 million illegal aliens returned "home," the U.S. economy would return to
the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage.
Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working
off the books. That would result in an additional $401 billion in IRS income
taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local state and city coffers.

No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American
schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the
educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free
breakfasts and lunches.

We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than
$1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute
$130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country. In cities like L.A.,
20,000 members of the "18th Street Gang" would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!

Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and
gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal
aliens!

Drain on America's economy; taxpayers harmed, employers get rich

Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to their home countries by cash
transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further
drains America's economy which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion debt.

At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us
$109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia
and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupted out of
existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act.
Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.

Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking
our cities It would also put the "progressives" on the horns of a dilemma;
illegal aliens and their families cause 11 percent of our greenhouse gases.

Over one million of Mexico's poorest citizens now live inside and along our
border from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California in what the New York
Times called, colonias, or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas
resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs,
crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water,
streets, electricity, roads or any kind of sanitation. The New York Times
reported them to be America's new Third World inside our own country. Within
20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of
those colonias. (I've seen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it's sickening
beyond anything you can imagine.) By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate
them back to Mexico.

High integrity, ethical invitation

We invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a
better life in Mexico. We invite a million people into our country legally more
than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow
anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation.

It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life.

How many of you out there agree? Disagree?
http://usatoday.com news story blogs
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,835
Tokens
From: Roy Beck, President, NumbersUSA
Date: Saturday 22DEC07 7 p.m. EST


How well does each candidate promise to end future illegal immigration and to resist all amnesties?

DEAR FRIENDS,

We have just updated our ratings on the 14 top Presidential candidates based on 16 immigration categories. Take a look here.

To the right in this email are how the 14 stack up in two categories:


Opposition to amnesty, plus a commitment to cause most present illegal aliens to go home over time through an Attrition Through Enforcement policy


An overall plan for preventing future illegal immigration

Please note that our ratings do NOT amount to endorsements. Nor do they convey anything about the character, the strength or any other positions about the candidates. We know that every one of these candidates has supporters among the users of NumbersUSA for a lot of different reasons.

Also note that these ratings are based on all evidence available as of 21DEC07. We will modify the ratings at any time a candidate changes position.

Our ratings are based overwhelmingly on promises and not on their actions in past political office (you can see our rating for past actions on The Grid).

I have been on the radio nationwide constantly this week, talking about these ratings. Everybody wants to know how these candidates truly stack up. We have received a high volume of email from many of you about our previous ratings. Many of your comments have helped us further refine our ratings for this time. To comment about this Alert or the Candidates Grid, or to request tech help, click here and fill out our Help Form.


WHAT TO DO WITH THESE RATINGS


If you are supporting one of these candidates for reasons other than immigration, please look at the deficiencies of your candidate on immigration and contact the campaign office.

You can view many details about what each candidate says on the website, in debates and to the media by clicking on the photo of that candidate at the top of the Candidates Grid.

Most of the candidates have been moving at least slowly toward our position for sensible immigration policies as the campaign has moved forward. The public is having an effect. You can push the candidates further.


COMMENTS ABOUT THE 'AMNESTY' RATINGS


Overall these are pretty disappointing. Now that Rep. Tom Tancredo has dropped out of the race, only two candidates are left who have vigorous and thorough enough opposition to amnesty to warrant an EXCELLENT rating.

Ron Paul still gets a GOOD rating and could get an EXCELLENT if he would make clear how he plans to handle the illegal aliens here if they don't get an amnesty. We don't find a public commitment to Attrition Through Enforcement, although we feel he probably has it.

Romney and Huckabee were earning themselves a GOOD rating just a couple of weeks ago. But both went on national TV and hemmed and hawed around amnesty questions, thoroughly confusing their message and raising grave doubts about their commitment to Attrition Through Enforcement as the solution for the 12-20 million illegal aliens now in our country. Both seemed defensive and more interested in being liked and thought politically correct by their media questioner than in making clear promises to the voters.

You can read their muddled statements on their Candidate Page by clicking on their photo on The Grid. If these candidates truly understood the promises they have on their websites -- and truly believed them -- they would be able to confidently respond to media questions. At the most charitable, I would say Romney and Huckabee just haven't spent enough time learning the issue.

Top staffers of the Romney and Huckabee campaigns -- like staffers of several others this month -- have been in contact with us. They have promised us that their candidates simply misspoke on these recent network shows and can truly be counted on to stand against amnesties. The staffers made fairly persuasive cases. But their candidates -- and their websites -- have not themselves made new statements that offer that persuasive case to the public. So, the final word for now on their positions has to be found in what they told Tim Russert and Chris Wallace. Perhaps after Christmas.

Hard to believe that Guiliani is in the same BAD category as John 'Amnesty King' McCain. But McCain has improved from his 'ABYSMAL' rating of last summer. He now wants to wait until a little later to reward illegal aliens with a path to citizenship. Guiliani has pretty close to the same position, although not quite as clearly stated. Interestingly, we don't find any sign that Guiliani's website even tries to say that he is opposed to amnesty.

One host of an ABC talk show in Los Angeles yesterday told me that he has been supporting Guiliani for a lot of other reasons but was fully spooked when he saw our immigration Grid. I told him that he and a lot of other Guiliani supporters need to scare a little sense into him on this issue.

And that is my advice for all of you who are supporting Democratic candidates for President. Because NumbersUSA is so thoroughly bi-partisan and works with so many Democratic allies in Congress, I desperately tried to find some way that I could rate at least one Democratic candidate above 'ABYSMAL' on amnesty. But so far, not a one dares step out from the pack and take the anti-amnesty position that polls show the majority of Democratic voters favor.

On one of my Iowa radio shows yesterday, I admonished Democrats in Iowa to push their candidates harder in forums. The host said Democratic voters HAVE been bringing up the issues, but the Democratic candidates just continually dance around the subject and don't get what the voters want. I'm not quite sure what to advise except to ask all of you in contact with Democratic candidates to keep trying.

Right now, all the Democratic candidates are putting themselves at a severe disadvantage to win the fall general election, according to recent polls as described in the article at the bottom of this email.


WOULDN'T YOU THINK THE RATINGS WOULD BE HIGHER FOR 'STOPPING FUTURE ILLEGAL IMMGIRATION?'


These ratings may do more than anything to show how stupid many of these candidates think voters are.

The common response of candidates when pushed on illegal immigration is that "we probably have to find a way to accommodate the undocumented people already here but we definitely need to re-establish the rule of law and stop future illegal immigration."

But only 5 of the 14 candidates of the two Parties earns an EXCELLENT or GOOD for their overall stands on immigration enforcement.

The fact is that under their current promises, 9 of the 14 candidates -- even if they did everything they promise -- would continue to allow huge flows of illegal immigration into the country.

And, yes, one Democratic candidate -- Chris Dodd -- rates higher than the others in this category.

in this email:
Latest AMNESTY Ratings For Presidential Candidates (21DEC07)


Excellent

DUNCAN HUNTER

FRED THOMPSON
They are EXCELLENT in pledging through website and speech to oppose amnesties of all kinds for illegal aliens ... advocating Attrition Through Enforcement to cause present 12-20 million illegals to go home over time

Good

RON PAUL
Does a good job of opposing amnesties of all kinds for illegal aliens

Fair

MITT ROMNEY
Does a fair job in pledging through website & speech to oppose amnesty ... public statements create uncertainty about total opposition and about what eventually happens to the illegal aliens now here

Poor

MIKE HUCKABEE
Does a poor job of pledging clear opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens ... public statements sound like at least a portion will eventually get legalization

Bad

RUDY GUILIANI

JOHN McCAIN
While saying that enforcement measures must come first, they would allow most or large numbers of illegal aliens now here to remain and legalize their status

Abysmal

HILARY CLINTON

BARACK OBAMA

JOHN EDWARDS

BILL RICHARDSON

JOE BIDEN

CHRIS DODD

DENNIS KUCINICH
They assertively advocate for the legalization of most or all illegal aliens now here ... do not even require that tough enforcement measures against future illegal immigration be in place first


Latest Ratings on Promises to STOP FUTURE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION(21DEC07)


These ratings are a composite of ratings on 8 specific illegal categories on The Grid, plus the rating on birthright citizenship

Excellent

DUNCAN HUNTER
Excellent promises to stop future illegal immigration

Good

FRED THOMPSON

MIKE HUCKABEE

MITT ROMNEY

RON PAUL
Good promises to stop future illegal immigration

Fair

JOHN McCAIN

CHRIS DODD

RUDY GUILIANI
Only fair on promises to stop future illegal immigration

Poor

HILARY CLINTON

BARACK OBAMA

JOHN EDWARDS

BILL RICHARDSON

JOE BIDEN
Poor on promises to stop future illegal immigration

Bad

DENNIS KUCINICH
Bad on promises to stop future illegal immigration


actions in brief:
Congress has left town but the fax machines are still on, and skeleton staffs continue to see what voters have to say.

Please consider sending all faxes that are on your Action Buffet corkboard.
donate now:
Please click here to make any sized donation to keep this grassroots phenomenon strong and effective.

Because of widespread internet blocking of our emails this month, we still remain far below our modest monthly goal of receiving donations from just 1% of the users of the website.

At the time this email is being sent, the thermometer goes up only half way to 0.5%. When you open the email, it will reflect donations as of that moment.

For 10 straight months through November, users of the NumbersUSA website have made the 1% goal that provides the income that can support the minimum lobbying, website activism and education programs of NumbersUSA.
how to reply:
Please do not click 'Reply' button to respond to this message.

To comment about this Alert or to request tech help, click here and fill out our Help Form.

Our staff mans the Help Desk 18 hours a day.



I'm afraid these ratings may feel like lumps of coal in your Christmas stockings. But overall they are somewhat better than a few months ago.

Most of you have a presidential primary or caucus in your state sometime immediately after New Year's Day and through the first week of February. Please do what you can to pressure candidates to offer you better options.

I hope all of you have had good holidays throughout this month and wish you a Merry Christmas next week.

A lot of the fate of our nation in terms of congestion, quality of life, national unity, economic fairness, environmental stewardship and individual liberty will be determined in the next few weeks depending on which two candidates win the nomination and what their stances on immigration turn out to be.

THANKS FOR ALL YOU DO,

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=320504

Opinion
Immigration could be a deal breaker for voters
12/22/2007

By Peter A. Brown

It has become conventional wisdom that illegal immigration may be the type of political issue that can rile voters, but perhaps not enough to change votes. And besides, the thinking goes, people far from the border really don't care.

These skeptics about the power of the immigration issue to change votes and elections ought to think again. The focus on immigration in the TV ads blanketing Iowa should convince any doubters.

Candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are learning to read the polls -- not just the horse race numbers, but the back pages in surveys that get at voters' gut views.

Data from the nation's three most important general election swing states clearly show that not only do voters care but politicians who cross them on this issue are taking a serious electoral risk.

A Quinnipiac University poll released earlier this month looked at attitudes toward immigration policy in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, the big three battlegrounds of the Electoral College. No candidate has been elected president since 1960 without carrying two of the three.

What stands out is a consensus that cuts across party lines: Voters want immigration reform focused on stricter enforcement rather than reform that would make it easier to integrate illegal immigrants into American life. And almost a quarter of voters see immigration policy as a potential deal-breaker for them in deciding whom to support for president.

Although the issue is likely to be a bigger deal in the November election -- because in general the likely Democratic nominees are less in favor of strict enforcement than their potential Republican opponents -- it has emerged as a key part of the effort to stop former Gov. Mike Huckabee's fast-rising campaign for the GOP nomination.

Huckabee has zoomed to the top in the Iowa polls, much to the dismay of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who had been leading. Romney's campaign strategy has been built on the idea that he must win Iowa and New Hampshire to create momentum he needs in the larger states that follow. A loss in Iowa would make it very difficult for Romney to win New Hampshire and that would almost certainly doom his candidacy.

That's why Romney has come out swinging hard at Huckabee and he has decided that immigration is the former Baptist minister's Achilles heel. Romney has gone on air with commercials that focus on Huckabee's support for college scholarships for illegal immigrants and for making them eligible for the in-state tuition break available to Arkansas residents, but not U.S. citizens who live elsewhere.

Those are not positions that Huckabee has staked out as a presidential candidate; they are part of his record as governor at a time when immigration was not the hot-button issue that it is today. Huckabee has responded with his own ads that proclaim his support for border security measures, but that do not mention the actions he took as governor -- doing so would give further credence to Romney's charges.

Huckabee and Romney understand which way the wind is blowing on the issue, even in states without large illegal immigrant populations, and that are far from the Mexican border.

The Quinnipiac survey of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania provide the evidence for their response. Asked whether U.S. policy on the issue should primarily move in the direction of integrating illegal immigrants into American society or stricter enforcement of the laws against them, there was little difference in the three states. On average 70 percent favored stronger enforcement, 21 percent favored integrating illegal immigrants into American society.

Voters were then asked if they agreed with a presidential candidate "on other issues," but "completely disagreed on the issue of illegal immigration do you think you could still vote for that candidate or not?"

A sizable majority -- an average of 65 percent of voters in those three states -- said that they would vote for the candidate they agreed with on other issues but not on immigration. But an average of 22 percent said that illegal immigration could be a deal-breaker for them when it comes to voting for a candidate.

Of course the data mean three times as many voters don't think it is a deal-breaker than do, Yet, the sizable number who put it in that category underscore the issue's potential clout in anything resembling a close election.

Most interesting is that 27 percent of independents -- the key swing voters who decide elections -- say immigration could turn them away from a candidate, more than either Democrats or Republicans.

As we are seeing now in Iowa, immigration isn't just an issue in border states anymore.

Peter A. Brown is the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Comment at news@postbulletin.com.



Do you want more or less information?
Do you want fewer emails or to UNSUBSCRIBE from receiving any emails?

As a member of the NumbersUSA Action Network, you have four options about how much email and Alerts you get from us. You can change the frequency of our communication with you at any time by clicking here to go to your Registration Form. There you can choose among Total Activism, Moderate Activism, Limited Activism or No Email. If you feel like you are not getting enough information from us, be sure to change your registration to TOTAL ACTIVISM.

Update your NumbersUSA Interest Survey This may be a good time for you to make sure that you've let us know all of the areas of immigration reform in which you are interested. Click here to further customize your Interest Survey and the type of alerts you receive from us.

P.S. NumbersUSA's financial management meets all the criteria of the IRS as a
non-partisan, non-profit organization, and as an authorized charity of the
Combined Federal Campaign. Handling of donations is overseen and held
accountable by a Board of independent directors and by independent Auditors.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,835
Tokens
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=699 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>
hp.p1.png
</TD><TD rowSpan=2>
space.png
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
hp.p2.png
<MAP name=USAMAP> <AREA shape=POLY coords=71,270,44,259,37,273,36,294,44,308,44,321,48,338,48,347,64,354,72,366,72,372,91,375,99,348,63,302 href="profile_state.php3?District=CA"><AREA shape=POLY coords=113,277,70,265,61,297,97,349,105,328 href="profile_state.php3?District=NV"><AREA shape=POLY coords=100,235,66,224,65,219,59,217,44,249,44,259,93,275,101,253,97,250,108,237,103,232 href="profile_state.php3?District=OR"><AREA shape=POLY coords=108,201,73,192,73,200,68,204,69,197,61,193,57,216,62,219,63,225,102,232 href="profile_state.php3?District=WA"><AREA shape=POLY coords=146,341,107,331,103,339,97,345,98,359,91,377,123,396,139,397 href="profile_state.php3?District=AZ"><AREA shape=POLY coords=135,284,113,279,102,333,144,341,149,298,133,294 href="profile_state.php3?District=UT"><AREA shape=POLY coords=117,203,109,202,99,230,105,238,94,248,98,252,91,272,136,280,141,254,127,257,121,241,119,242,123,229,115,211 href="profile_state.php3?District=ID"><AREA shape=POLY coords=197,343,145,337,138,400,148,401,148,396,191,396 href="profile_state.php3?District=NM"><AREA shape=POLY coords=206,301,150,295,143,336,203,342 href="profile_state.php3?District=CO"><!--<AREA HREF="profile_state.php3?District=PR" COORDS="397, 312, 398, 319, 307, 336, 306, 320, 297, 315, 273, 314, 259, 319, 256, 315, 287, 302, 293, 306, 321, 310, 334, 313, 354, 308, 373, 312" SHAPE="polygon">--><!--<AREA HREF="profile_state.php3?District=VI" COORDS="418, 314, 409, 321, 422, 341, 428, 332" SHAPE="polygon">--><AREA shape=POLY coords=193,259,142,252,133,295,189,301 href="profile_state.php3?District=WY"><AREA shape=POLY coords=198,219,117,204,114,213,121,231,117,244,122,245,127,256,140,256,141,252,191,257 href="profile_state.php3?District=MT"><AREA shape=POLY coords=265,380,238,378,218,370,217,352,194,349,188,395,161,394,175,409,178,424,188,426,195,417,204,418,216,435,221,443,224,452,245,458,241,446,252,432,263,426,274,419,276,405,272,395,272,384 href="profile_state.php3?District=TX"><AREA shape=POLY coords=262,346,192,343,194,350,216,352,215,370,240,378,258,379,267,380 href="profile_state.php3?District=OK"><AREA shape=POLY coords=256,315,204,312,203,342,262,344,264,323 href="profile_state.php3?District=KS"><AREA shape=POLY coords=247,284,192,279,189,298,206,301,205,311,261,312 href="profile_state.php3?District=NE"><AREA shape=POLY coords=245,252,195,248,190,280,248,283 href="profile_state.php3?District=SD"><AREA shape=POLY coords=242,218,197,215,193,251,246,250 href="profile_state.php3?District=ND"><AREA shape=POLY coords=285,306,250,306,260,322,262,349,304,348,310,338,297,328,301,324,295,323 href="profile_state.php3?District=MO"><AREA shape=POLY coords=287,277,248,274,247,281,256,306,291,303,301,285 href="profile_state.php3?District=IA"><AREA shape=POLY coords=304,350,299,350,302,345,264,347,265,377,272,384,297,383,297,374,306,353 href="profile_state.php3?District=AR"><AREA shape=POLY coords=296,384,272,386,273,400,276,409,275,420,290,420,292,417,302,421,312,422,315,412,309,410,311,403,296,403 href="profile_state.php3?District=LA"><AREA shape=POLY coords=323,362,305,362,296,378,299,387,293,403,311,407,310,415,325,408 href="profile_state.php3?District=MS"><AREA shape=POLY coords=343,360,321,360,322,410,331,409,333,402,354,399,353,385 href="profile_state.php3?District=AL"><AREA shape=POLY coords=385,396,358,399,354,398,331,402,331,408,341,406,355,410,362,405,376,413,378,426,391,441,390,445,396,450,405,449,406,434,399,421,394,412,385,399 href="profile_state.php3?District=FL"><AREA shape=POLY coords=361,357,344,359,353,389,353,401,385,396,390,380 href="profile_state.php3?District=GA"><AREA shape=POLY coords=358,340,370,326,361,319,344,316,336,328,316,333,309,344,308,346 href="profile_state.php3?District=KY"><AREA shape=POLY coords=373,338,353,356,304,363,308,345 href="profile_state.php3?District=TN"><AREA shape=POLY coords=359,357,377,349,384,353,392,350,403,357,389,380 href="profile_state.php3?District=SC"><AREA shape=POLY coords=417,326,373,336,355,355,377,350,383,353,392,351,404,359,422,341 href="profile_state.php3?District=NC"><AREA shape=POLY coords=396,302,406,304,406,308,416,311,416,323,362,337,368,328,383,324 href="profile_state.php3?District=VA"><AREA shape=POLY coords=385,302,376,301,364,318,372,328,384,324,390,311,399,299,397,295 href="profile_state.php3?District=WV"><AREA shape=POLY coords=343,286,317,291,321,322,319,331,340,326,345,314 href="profile_state.php3?District=IN"><AREA shape=POLY coords=330,236,293,239,326,260,324,290,353,285,349,262,340,268,341,267,345,259,343,251 href="profile_state.php3?District=MI"><AREA shape=POLY coords=276,246,276,260,291,285,313,283,314,258,312,250,287,239 href="profile_state.php3?District=WI"><AREA shape=POLY coords=258,220,243,219,248,278,289,278,278,262,276,248,286,235,293,227,290,226,286,225 href="profile_state.php3?District=MN"><AREA shape=POLY coords=372,278,342,288,344,317,365,319,378,298 href="profile_state.php3?District=OH"><AREA shape=POLY coords=416,276,412,267,374,276,377,302,419,290 href="profile_state.php3?District=PA"><AREA shape=RECT coords=458,321,478,335 href="profile_state.php3?District=MD"><AREA shape=RECT coords=458,304,478,317 href="profile_state.php3?District=DE"><AREA shape=RECT coords=458,288,477,301 href="profile_state.php3?District=NJ"><AREA shape=RECT coords=458,272,478,285 href="profile_state.php3?District=CT"><AREA shape=RECT coords=458,255,478,268 href="profile_state.php3?District=RI"><AREA shape=RECT coords=458,238,481,253 href="profile_state.php3?District=MA"><AREA shape=POLY coords=413,235,399,246,399,253,382,263,376,276,412,267,424,274,424,254,424,253,422,251 href="profile_state.php3?District=NY"><AREA shape=POLY coords=430,231,417,235,426,258,434,226 href="profile_state.php3?District=VT"><AREA shape=POLY coords=429,227,428,255,444,245 href="profile_state.php3?District=NH"><AREA shape=POLY coords=444,200,433,204,433,225,431,229,441,247,464,216 href="profile_state.php3?District=ME"><AREA shape=POLY coords=496,389,459,380,449,384,434,394,446,404,439,405,431,407,435,414,445,411,445,417,437,420,434,428,438,436,442,434,443,442,455,442,433,462,434,465,465,441,469,432,478,431,494,435,507,442,511,442,522,460,526,455,521,446,511,435,498,432 href="profile_state.php3?District=AK"><AREA shape=RECT coords=457,336,478,349 href="profile_state.php3?District=DC"><AREA shape=POLY coords=314,284,319,292,320,323,312,339,298,327,302,321,297,320,286,308,303,281 href="profile_state.php3?District=IL"><AREA shape=POLY coords=52,405,57,399,96,420,109,437,100,445,97,430,94,422 href="profile_state.php3?District=HI"></MAP></TD><TD vAlign=top align=left><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=147 border=0 hspace="0" vspace="0"><TBODY><TR><TD height=18> </TD></TR><TR><TD>
hp.p4.png
</TD></TR><TR><TD>
hp.p5.off.png
<MAP name=menuMapMap><AREA onmouseover="enact('menu','menu1')" onmouseout="enact('menu','menu0')" shape=RECT coords=74,26,141,46 href="#map"><AREA onmouseover="enact('menu','menu2')" onmouseout="enact('menu','menu0')" shape=RECT coords=3,25,70,46 href="view_all_alpha.php3"></MAP></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
8,834
Tokens
Arizona got all the illegals out of their state ... why can't every other state do the same thing?
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,835
Tokens
Arizona got all the illegals out of their state ... why can't every other state do the same thing?
There are supposed to be triple the Laws passed this year State & Locally because Uncle Sam isnt doing a damn thing & we need to boot out Congressmen & Senators that don't listen to the will of the people...I think a good way to speed up the process is for the whole rest of the Country to put pressure on California & the sanctuary cities http://numbersusa.com/video sends me stuff in the E-mail so I can keep up on all the Immigration news,send faxes & call Congress..Some of those E-mails are in this blog.....Immigration gradecards are there also on the front page.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,118,698
Messages
13,558,473
Members
100,669
Latest member
nhacai68gamebaigreen
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com