Now we are getting down to it. The real root cause of why the zealots are pushing the racial profiling bill. The President is sending troops to the border and $500M in Cash. The AZ Anti CIR advocates are salivating. They are going to hire all of their cronies to incarcerate in their private prisons all those they racially profile and the landscapers, maids and nannies they're arresting. Their tactics are so obvious even Fox News is noticing.Fox News reports:
President Obama's $500 million request for border protection and law enforcement activities has some U.S. lawmakers and state officials along the border screaming, "Show me the money!" Obama is expected to send a proposal to Congress next week that calls for sending as many as 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border and for $500 million to fund programs for Drug Enforcement Administration, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The Arizona attorney general, Terry Goddard, has set up a 10-person team to prosecute crimes that occur related to the border. The state already has $94 million dedicated but expects the Feds to chip in some of that $500 million in supplemental spending for it because border-related crime is a federal issue. "I believe that's an important commitment of national attention to the real problem we're facing in Arizona and throughout the Southwest, and that is the violent crime fomented by criminal drug cartels (that's funny. reports indicate AZ has their lowest violent crime rate in years)," Goddard said at a news conference this week.
At a White House news conference Thursday, Obama touted his request for additional resources, saying, "if we are doing a better job dealing with trafficking along the border, we've also got to make sure that we've got prosecutors down there who can prosecute those cases." (LOL..what are they going to do when all they've arrested is gardeners?) One Republican congressman wants Obama to request $2 billion and send 25,000 additional troops.
"The president's proposal is about 24,000 men short of what's needed," Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, said in a written statement, adding that 1,200 troops will do nothing but provide the administration with a photo op. (Those greedy fat cats want the Feds to send them even more money!)
nailed it Dee. Follow the money!
ReplyDeleteThe sanctimonious Jim Gilchrist pimping his "endorsement" for $6-10,000 dollars a pop.
William Gheen "If there wasn't any money in the immigration issue, I'd have nothing to do with it"
Minuteman Shawna Forde murdering a child and her father, for the money.
The theme of every anti website and organization out there is "send me money"!
Omigosh! Do you mean to tell me Obama has cronies in the detention business that he is rewarding? I thought it was just W who did that and Obama was going to "change" everything.
ReplyDeleteThe 1200 troops are just window dressing. Unless they have the same training and authority as the border patrol they will be useless. They have to be able to pursue, stop, apprehend, detain and hold illegals for ICE.
ReplyDeleteAnd the ICE needs to put them to work on border infrastructure before they are repatriated.
Arizona is also Indian Country - Killing our souls - Is a boycott of the United States a possibility or even feasible? - Civilizational clash about what is Human !
ReplyDeleteInternational Boycott of USA ??
This question is very rhetoric and even foolish at the present time, because the United States is very powerful in all areas - But it is also very interesting in a Future Negative Utopia or Pessimistic Science Fiction - Nothing is impossible !
Counter Punch Organization
A Critical Resistance Boycott
Arizona and the Big Picture
By Roberto Rodriguez, professor University of Arizona
May 25, 2010
http://www.counterpunch.org/rodriguez05252010.html
Some excerpts :
On the surface, it is about migration issues. Yet if we probe a little deeper, it’s about power and the future demographic (voter rolls) makeup of the state. Translated: The Browning of Arizona. Probe some more and you will see that much of the hate has little to do with peoples’ legal status. That’s where English-Only and the new anti-ethnic studies law comes in. It is not simply about our physical presence (red-brown), but about our culture – which is thousands of years old and Indigenous to this continent. In this sense, it is beyond physical removal and even beyond thought-control; this is about our souls.
...................
One thing about Arizona is that it is also Indian Country – a factor in considering who/what gets boycotted, etc.
In the end, the solution to the migration crisis has to be national and international in scope. These policies cannot or will not be solved at the state or even national levels. The administration has the responsibility to create a solution, but any solution – including agreements with other nations – have to have human beings at the center. Any solution that does not recognize migrants as full human beings with corresponding full human rights is but a recipe for legalized human smuggling, a new bracero program, maximum exploitation and dehumanization and the further militarization of both the border and nation.
...............
Is a boycott of the United States a possibility or even feasible? Already, both of these laws in question were denounced last week by UN human rights experts in Geneva. Arizona is not hyperbole, but rather, a laboratory or a spear point for hate and racism. These and similar laws are in clear violation of international laws – laws that clearly single people out for both their color/race and culture. And at the moment, whom they are singling out are not simply Mexicans/Central Americans – but generally, those with Indigenous features (and their/our ways of thinking). That’s why many of us say that this is the culmination of a 518-year war – centering on issues of legalities and illegalities. This is also why Indigenous leaders from throughout the continent last year unanimously proclaimed that peoples from this continent cannot be illegal on this continent. Any boycott must affirm this principle.
.................
This truly is a civilizational clash – between those that believe, vs. those that don’t believe, that all peoples deserve to be treated as full human beings with full corresponding human rights – regardless of where they/we live.
For many of us, this is the context of the boycott, and yet, it is beyond a boycott.
Raciality.com
Vicente Duque
What's with the dehumnanization nonsense? I guess that must be part of the ethnic studies curriculum. Words like that are prima facie evidence of a deep-seated paranoia. Time to get the chip off your shoulder and start acting like a loyal American rather than a treasonous member of the 5th column that wants to replace the brightest, most productive, most inventive,most innovative culture in America with one which has no commparable qualities to offer at any level.
ReplyDeleteGood luck with that destructive approach! It will convert America into just another banana republic with all the ills of Latin America and all the lack of creative genius.
Why is it so many violate the borders and then want to change society to make it look like the one they fled their homelands to escape? Any logical person would see that as pretty stupid. Instead they should be emulating those who designed, developed, and built America -- that is assimilating to American culture.
ReplyDeleteThe question has never been about whether illegals are human. They obviously are and those who suggest that some consider them subhuman is just trying to create tension between those who believe in the rule of law and those who don't. Unfortunately, they are succeeding.
ReplyDeleteThen we have the question of human rights. Some like to think of these as supranational or universal and that is true to some extent. It implies that the citizens of every country have certain inalienable rights that should not be trampled on by governments. But I don't think the concept of human rights confers on each individual the right to ignore national boundaries and, as illegals, to expect to enjoy all of the rights enjoyed by citizens -- like the right to vote or the right to live anywhere without the proper documents.
Some define human rights in a much broader way, especially if they have an unwritten agenda of some kind, that would serve that defintion. But the best guide to the definition of human rights is to study the policies of the major nations of the world to see how they have incorporated human rights into their laws and constitutions. Some countries like China and islamic countries have very repressive ideas about human rights, some based on ideology, others on religion.
Most other non-Communist countries have something that amounts to a bill of rights which circumscribes the human rights accorded their citizens. Such umbrella rights documents do not generally apply to illegal aliens. The rights of illegal aliens are usually embodied in special bills or laws such the one requiring everyone who is ill to be treated at emergency rooms. The right to violate national boundaries or ignore national sovereignty is not considered to be an inherent human right.