Search This Blog

Sunday, April 16, 2006

New Immigration Laws?

From Mr. Minority -


"Thanks to "Jack Lewis" I have a new set of immigration laws that ought to be proposed in Congress.

Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country. This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics.

Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones, even those with green cards.

Only citizens may serve in the military as officers, on airline crews , and chiefs of seaports and airports.

Members of both houses of Congress as well as the Supreme Court must be a citizen by birth.

Immigrants — even legal ones — may not become members of the clergy.

Foreigners, legal or illegal, may not own land.

Any citizen may arrest illegal immigrants and their accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.

Foreigners, legal or otherwise, may be expelled for any reason and without due process.


Pretty hardcore, wouldn't you say? They are the immigration laws of MEXICO!! So where in the hell does Mexico's President Fox and cronies get off telling the US to lighten up our laws to allow millions of his people to enter this country? The Mexican Gov't, like Liberals, are in the "Do as I Say, Not as I Do" category of HYPOCRITES, and surely belong there. And I say someone in Congress, with the cojones, propose these laws, and then tell the American people where they came from. and I bet if you research the immigration laws of other countries, you will find them ALL tougher than America's. This issue is getting real gnarly with all the protests, anti-protests, fighting in Congress, and the American people getting fed up with people entering our country ILLEGALLY. Something needs to be done, and I hope/pray, that the RIGHT thing is going to be done."


This post was too good not to share. Zogby tells us that the recent protest marches have backfired, causing 61% of Americans to have less sympathy for illegal immigrants. Really, what part of "illegal" don't you understand???

PS - Indiana has actual election laws designed to make sure that only citizens vote. Would you believe the ACLU fought against this? Requiring ID to vote? You sure better have ID to cash a check, brother. But the ACLU lost and Indiana citizens win.

10 comments:

DEANBERRY said...

By misusing the American military to steal Iraqi oil you have placed us on the bad side of our LORD and Savior, Jesus Christ.
http://www.deanberryministries.org/index3.html

Johnny said...

Hey, Radar:
Send me a mailing address at abnjumpmaster56m@yahoo.com and I'll send you a CD.
Johnny Proctor

highboy said...

Deanberry: Where is that Iraqi oil we have stolen? Do you have evidence of this? If not, you are committing false witness against a brother in Christ. If the war was over oil we wouldn't be paying $4.00 a gallon. If you have proof we stole something, share it with Congress.

radar said...

Deanberry,

I am stunned at the misinformation on your website! I think you are channeling Cindy Sheehan...

Middle_America said...

Great to hear ACLU fought and lost that one.

Anonymous said...

No blood for $4 a gallon oil! No blood for . . .
Nah, doesn't sound quite right . . .

It's pretty clear that the reason for war involved a desire to head off any threats to our interests in the region, and cement us in a position of strategic dominance. If the area's main natural resource was transitional whale fossils, I doubt any of this would be happening. The (largely imaginary) hardcore WMDs were a helpful selling point; it's possible many administration officials even convinced themselves, though in that case their laxness in ensuring key areas could be secured as early as possible goes beyond incompetence.

(Yo, if you think it will help, pray for a peaceful resolution to the current situation with Iran (preferably one involving a non-nuclear Iran, really). War sucks.)

"PS - Indiana has actual election laws designed to make sure that only citizens vote. Would you believe the ACLU fought against this ? Requiring ID to vote?"

What a horrible idea! Why on earth would they do such a thing!? Well, I suppose we could at least see how they explain themselves . .

"Most Restrictive Rules in Nation Include Photo ID Requirement

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Civil Liberties Union, acting on behalf of a broad coalition including state representatives and advocacy groups, today filed a challenge to a new state law with the most restrictive voting requirements in the nation, including a mandate that government-issued photo identification must be presented in order for most Hoosier citizens to cast their ballots.

"This new requirement puts a substantial and unnecessary burden of time and cost for some potential voters, and thus clearly violates the federal Voting Rights Act, the United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution," said ICLU Legal Director Kenneth Falk.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of State Representative William Crawford, the Indianapolis Chapter of the NAACP, United Senior Action, Indianapolis Resource Center for Independent Living, Indiana Coalition for Housing and Homelessness Issues, the civil rights organization Concerned Clergy and Washington Township Board representative Joseph Simpson.

The groups say they represent Hoosiers who, because of cost, age or disability, will not be able to cast their ballots under Indiana's new law. Although the law allows some photo ID's to be obtained without cost from the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, there is a cost to obtain birth certificates and other documents that are prerequisites for obtaining the BMV identification.

"After serving their country, many of the very people who fought in two World Wars to preserve Americans' right to vote will be prevented from voting if this new law takes effect," said Michelle Niemier, executive director of United Senior Action of Indiana, a statewide advocacy organization representing 14,000 dues-paying members. "To force thousands of older Hoosiers living in nursing homes, assisted living residences or even in their own homes but who no longer can physically get around to go to the absurd step of getting a 'government issued' ID is the biggest disservice I have heard of in a very long time."

Melissa Madill, executive director of the Indianapolis Resource Center for Independent Living, said, "People living in supported and group home settings often do not have access to their ID's. People experiencing mobility impairments, especially those living in rural areas, face transportation barriers making it nearly impossible for them to get to the license branch to acquire ID's. Additionally, with an unemployment rate of nearly 70 percent, the poverty level of this population makes it difficult for them to 'purchase' state issued identification." . . .
"

And can you think of any reason - any historical reason, perhaps - why people might tend get a little squinchy over stringent voting requirements, whether or not the concern is well-founded?

Dan S., who has no photo id acceptable for his current state, and cannot find a copy of his birth certificate (although luckily I have the time and saavy to get a replacement).

Anonymous said...

By the way, "Concerned Clergy and Washington Township Board representative Joseph Simpson" is a pretty clunky title for a civil rights organization, I have to admit . . .

: )

-Dan S.

highboy said...

"The (largely imaginary) hardcore WMDs were a helpful selling point; it's possible many administration officials even convinced themselves, though in that case their laxness in ensuring key areas could be secured as early as possible goes beyond incompetence."

Or, there were actually WMDs, like enriched uranium, chemical weapons agents, and chemical warheads.

"This new requirement puts a substantial and unnecessary burden of time and cost for some potential voters, and thus clearly violates the federal Voting Rights Act, the United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution," said ICLU Legal Director Kenneth Falk."

Um, unnecessary costs? Do they mean the $9 dollar money order to go get an ID? Or are they worried the illegals won't be able to come up with proofs of legal residence that fast? Probably the latter.

TRUTHMONGER said...

highboy -- PERHAPS JEWBOY WOULD BE A MORE APPROPRIATE MONIKER. JUST A THOUGHT. -- said...

Deanberry: Where is that Iraqi oil we have stolen? Do you have evidence of this? -- HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF TV? NAMELY, JEWSNEWS (FOX)? PLEASE WATCH IT SOMETIME. AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM 'EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE'? IF YOU AMERINAZIS AREN'T IN IRAQ FOR THE OIL, THEY WHY ARE YOU THERE? AND YOU CAN'T USE WMDS, 9/11, OR THE KURDS. YOU ALREADY TRIED BUT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC COULD SEE RIGHT THROUGH THEM. -- If not, you are committing false witness against a brother in Christ. If the war was over oil we wouldn't be paying $4.00 a gallon. -- A VERY STUPID ARGUMENT BUT ONE YOU AMERINAZIS CONTINUE TO MAKE. HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK GAS WILL BE WHEN THE AMERINAZIS/EDOMITES HAVE COMMANDEERED ALL THE WORLD'S OIL? YOU'LL WISH IT WAS $4 AGAIN. YOU'RE HELPING THEM, BY THE WAY. JUST LIKE THE AVERAGE GERMAN HELPED HITLER. -- If you have proof we stole something, share it with Congress. -- SO WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS, THAT OIL JUST EVAPORATED. I THOUGHT CRUDE OIL WAS TOO THICK TO EVAPORATE. IF AMERICA HASN'T TAKEN CONTROL OF IRAQI'S OIL (THE THIRD LARGEST OIL RESERVES IN THE WORLD) WHO HAS? I'LL SIT HERE WAITING FOR YOUR LAME RESPONSE.

WARNING: YOU ARE VIEWING AN EDOMITE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JEWISH) BLOG FUNDED BY THE EDOMITE (ISRAEL) LOBBY. THERE IS NO TRUTH TO BE FOUND HEREIN.
-- DEAN BERRY MINISTRIES

TRUTHMONGER said...

AND RADAR SAYS THERE IS MISINFORMATION OF MY WEBSITE BUT, PREDICTABLY, COULDN'T RISK ELABORATING ON WHAT IT MIGHT BE.

WARNING NETSURFERS: YOU HAVE STUMBLED UPON AN EDOMITE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JEWISH) BLOG FUNDED BY THE EDOMITE (ISRAEL) LOBBY. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH, YOU'D BE WELL ADVISED TO CONTINUE ON.
-- DEAN BERRY MINISTRIES