Beware: New Amnesty For Illegals Lurking

Right Side News

Watch out. As the Health Care issue fades, Immigration reform is lurking. And it does not spell good news.

Immigration Reform is more correctly known as – “amnesty for illegals.” The new proposed bill is looming as we speak. And if you think it’s all about compassion, think again. There’s a far more sinister motive, as articulated by Eliseo Medina, VP of Service Employees International Union (SEIU). A frequent visitor to the White House and advisor to the president, Mr. Medina had this to say at a Washington conference in June of 2009:

“We reform the immigration laws, it puts twelve million people on a path to citizenship and eventual voters.” According to Medina, Latinos and immigrants “voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates (liberals) in 2008. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three? Can you imagine eight million new voters who care about our issues and will be voting? We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”

That says it all, folks. It’s all about power.

Click here: Obama adviser: Amnesty to ensure ‘progressive’ rule

Enter: HR 4321, (House Bill) introduced by Rep. Luis Gutierrez in December of 2009, who hails from the same Chicago district, ironically, where the president served as state senator. In summary:

* The bill nullifies all state and local laws that enforce laws on illegal immigration.

* It overthrows laws like those in Arizona, Oklahoma, and Georgia that punish companies for hiring illegal aliens.

* It eliminates the 287(g) program in which local law enforcement helps identify and detect illegal aliens for federal agencies.

* Job verification would no longer be possible, because this bill would basically eliminate E-Verify! All our gains in verification over the last decade would be destroyed if this bill were to become law.

* All Illegal Aliens in U.S. will be given amnesty, clouded as “path to citizenship.”
* The only ones not given the amnesty would be those who’ve committed (been convicted) a “serious crime.”

Folks can dicker all they wish saying this is just another partisan issue…that’s one way of glossing over a very serious problem that will negatively affect us all, no matter what party you belong to. Fact is, legitimizing illegals sends a message to the world, that laws in the United States were meant to be broken, and breaking them has its rewards.

Bear in mind, also, the bill doesn’t just refer to illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America. It covers illegals world wide, including Asia, Europe, Africa and the mid-east.

This is not the America envisioned by Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and for that matter, Martin Luther King, Jr. Passage of this bill spells the eventual collapse into third world status.

Please don’t tell me about jobs that Americans won’t do. Americans will do those jobs, if they are paid properly. So what if the price of tomatoes goes up. It’s worth it if we are to preserve the integrity, and laws, of this nation.

Please don’t tell me about Bush and McCain…and the Republicans support for amnesty. They were just as removed from mainstream America as their counterparts.

Yes, most of us are products of immigrants. My grandparents on both sides, came from Norway and Lithuania through Ellis Island and obtained their status legally. Then, they assimilated and told their children, “Speak English. You are an American now.”

Alas. Is it the same America?

I could write pages over pages, but the truth remains: This is a VERY bad bill, and it’s being proposed for a bad reason.  Power. They have nine months left to accomplish that mission.

If you never wrote your congressional representatives before, now’s the time. The far left constituency in power today wants to get this passed before November of 2010, when they are certain to lose much of their power base.

We can all do our part. Let’s do it.

Some relevant links, for your perusal:

Click here: Rep. Gutierrez Introduces Mass Amnesty Bill

Click here: H.R. 4321: The Amnesty Mob’s ‘Greatest Hits’

The bill in entirety:

Click here:

Story Source:

Sen. Shelby puts hold on all Obama nominees

The Hill

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) on Thursday placed a blanket hold on all of President Barack Obama’s nominees before the Senate, according to the office of Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Shelby’s holds mean that the Senate cannot vote on a nominee unless the hold is broken using a cloture vote that requires 60 senators or if the senator lifts the hold.

A spokeswoman for Reid’s (D-Nev.) office said that regardless of his concern, Shelby should not put a hold on more than 70 nominees over a parochial issue.

But Shelby’s spokesman only said that the holds have been placed on “several pending nominees.”

Shelby applied the holds because of a dispute over a contract to build Air Force refueling tankers. The original deal was awarded to Northrop Grumman, which would have constructed the planes in Mobile, Ala.
But Boeing protested the award to the Government Accountability Office, which negated the deal in a report that faulted the Pentagon’s selection process.

The Pentagon then reopened the competition, but Northrop has argued that it has given Boeing an unfair advantage in that process by disclosing price information to Boeing. It has threatened to pull out of the competition, and has been conducting a lobbying and public-relations campaign criticizing the competition.

Though holds on nominees are commonly used to protest unrelated issues, blanket holds occur less frequently and affect a wider swath of nominees before the Senate.

The Defense Department “must recognize” that the tanker deal “needs to be significantly and substantively changed,” Shelby spokesman Jonathan Graffeo said in a statement.

Shelby is also not happy with the Obama administration’s decision to hold back funding for an FBI facility in Alabama dedicated to research on explosives used by terrorists.

“If this administration were as worried about hunting down terrorists as it is about the confirmation of low-level political nominations, America would be a safer place,” Graffeo said.

Obama decried such use of holds at his question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats this week.

The president said that holding nominees because of unrelated issues is disruptive and that holds should only be applied if a senator has a specific concern with an appointee.


What is a Natural Born Citizen?

The question that the court must decide is whether a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth could be considered a natural “born citizen” of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The question remains unanswered in any United States court.
The Obama File Position
The Obama File takes the position that the US Constitution, applicable case law, and US Code recognizes four classes, or types, or citizenship:
1.  “Natural born” citizen
2.  “Native-born” citizen
3.  “Foreign born” citizen
4.  “Naturalized” citizen

All four are “citizens” of the United States of America.

1.  A “natural born” citizen is any person born of US citizen parents (that’s two) on US soil — parentage important AND birthplace important — think Ronald Reagan.

2.  A “native-born” citizen is any person born on US Soil.  One or both of the parents may be foreign nationals — parentage not important AND birthplace important — think Barack Obama.

3.  A “foreign born” citizen is any person born of US citizen parents (that’s two) on foreign soil — parentage important AND birthplace not important — think John McCain.

4.  A “naturalized” citizen is a citizen as the result of a process — parentage not important AND birthplace not important — think Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The controversy arises then because of the distinction between “natural born,” “native-born,” and “foreign-born.”  Everybody accepts that a “naturalized” citizen is not eligible.

At any rate, The Obama File supports the contention that only a case 1, “natural born” citizen of the United States is eligible to serve as President of the United States of America and its Commander-in-Chief.

This page presents copious documentation supporting this position.

I have just become aware of the “foreign” type of citizenship and am waiting from feedback from legal counsel to update the following chart — 2/4/2010.

The Chart
People are confused because they don’t understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms.  This chart shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in caselaw by the Supreme Court.

For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. under the Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and the 14th Amendment, Section 1, and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).  As you can clearly see, Obama is a citizen of the United States, but he’s not a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was not a U. S. citizen.

Your browser does not support inline frames or is currently configured not to display inline frames.

I have just become aware of the “foreign” type of citizenship and am doing the research to update this chart — 1/29/2010.

Citizenship Types

The graphic above demonstrates the distinction between George Bush, a “natural born” citizen and Barack Obama, a “native-born” citizen.”

The child in the left graphic is a “natural born” citizen because he or she was born in the United States of America (jus soli) and both parents are citizens (jus sanguinis).  The child meets both tests.

The child in the right graphic is a “native-born” citizen because he or she was born in the United States of America and both parents are not citizens.  The child meets only one test.

…is not a “natural born” citizen because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject, as was Obama, “at birth.”  The Obama Campaign describes Barack Obama Sr. as, “a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children,” on it’s website.

…is a “native-born” citizen because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii.  The Obama Campaign describes Barack Obama as a “native-born citizen” on it’s website.

…is a “citizen” because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii — assuming he was born in Hawaii.  If Obama was not born in Hawaii, all bets are off.

See:  Right there on Obama’s own website, where it says, “The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate” — “The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a “native citizen of the United States of America.”

If you cursor down the page, Obama’s citizenship status is described:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire.  As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

John Jay — The First Chief Justice Of The U.S. Supreme Court
The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”

That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention.  Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.

John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”


The Post & E-Mail

Editorial by Harry Hunter

Page one of the original U.S. Constitution

This paper’s readers know that the 2008 presidential campaign was a fraudulent farce.  Some guy from Nicaragua had his name on the ballot in a number of states.  Hillary Clinton—or, more accurately, Billary Clinton—came within a whisker of success even though returning the Clintons to the White House would clearly violate the two-term limit on presidential power specified in the 22nd Amendment.  John McCain was born in Panama—and not on a military base—but the Senate took it upon itself to declare him to be a natural born citizen anyway, in essence annulling a Constitutional eligibility requirement.  And of course the mother of all frauds was the nomination and election of Barack Obama, who was born a citizen/subject of Great Britain, as our president and commander-in-chief.  Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of this country as required by the Constitution.

In a republic there are rules by which government is constrained.  If the rules are not followed, there is no republic but just a power-sharing arrangement between competing forces, which is America’s present form of government.  The prevailing law, then, is the law of the jungle:  might makes right.

Many citizens are OK with jungle-law as long as it favors their interests.  I know people who have no objection to Barack Hussein Obama being president EVEN IF he is not eligible for the office.  He won the election, did he not?  So live with it, they say.  Bush violated the Constitution, too, one person told me, without specifying how Bush did it, so Obama has a right to do likewise.  Two wrongs make a right, don’t you know.   These people do not believe in constitutional governance.

Complete Story:

Obama’s Auntie Still Freeloading

The Obama File

Michael Graham says Here’s another Obama sweetheart deal you won’t see on C-SPAN.

This morning, the fate of Boston’s most infamous illegal immigrant, Zeituni Polly Onyango (also known as “Aunt Zeituni”) will be determined in a closed-door hearing.

Why in secret?  Because Auntie’s saga reveals every embarrassing truth that amnesty advocates and open-borders liberals like Mayor Tom Menino and Gov. Deval Patrick try to hide.

The most important being that illegal immigrants don’t get that way without first doing something, well, illegal.

Barack Obama’s Aunt Zeituni admits she illegally overstayed her visa.  Instead of obeying the law, she went to a judge in 2003 with a bogus request for asylum.  She was turned down.  She ignored the deportation order and instead filed an appeal.  She was told again: It’s illegal for you to stay — she’s still here.

Aunt Zeituni donated $260 to her nephew’s campaign for president — which is also against the law because she’s not a U.S. citizen.  How against the law is it?  Remember when Obama launched his unprecedented attack against the Supreme Court during his State of the Union?  His complaint was that foreigners might donate money to influence U.S. elections.

All these crimes extend from the first crime — violating our immigration laws.  It is simply impossible to stay in this country illegally without committing other crimes, like tax fraud and identity theft.

But it’s not the illegal stuff that Aunt Zeituni’s doing that’s so outrageous.  It’s what she’s apparently able to do legally and openly.

She is shamelessly — and happily — living in taxpayer-subsidized housing intended for citizens and legal immigrants.  Is there some poor American veteran living in a shelter because she’s got this apartment?  Aunt Zeituni doesn’t care — why should she?  Menino and the Boston Housing Authority don’t.

And now she’s back in court, using taxpayer resources with another bogus bid for asylum.  She says she can’t go back to Kenya because of “political turmoil.”  Sorry lady, but if that’s the basis for an appeal, nobody would have been allowed back in the White House since Scott Brown’s election.

Aunt Zeituni’s case puts the lie to the old canard that all criminal immigrants are here to work.  She gets a stipend from a city program, along with her housing.  In fact, as the Center for Immigration Studies points out, illegal immigrant households are far more likely to be on the dole than the average American.  She also highlights the obvious truth of the Heritage Foundation study that our 12 million illegal immigrants are a $2.2 trillion net drain on the taxpayers over the course of their lifetimes.

All of which ignores the most obvious and angering question: Why are Boston taxpayers stuck taking care of the law-breaking aunt of the President of the United States?

She’s got a millionaire in the family right now, one who also happens to live in public housing, by the way.  He’s got room, too.  Worst case scenario, Joe Biden can bunk with Bo.

Instead we get another secret deal that’s almost certain to keep the taxpayers on the hook.  Obama, here’s a problem you can solve with a phone call.  Get your aunt a plane ticket to Kenya, or D.C., or hey — how about Nebraska?

Call it the Ben Nelson version of immigration reform.  We pay for their Medicaid, Omaha pays for your aunt.

Obama could always put Aunt Zeituni up in his Chicago mansion — it’s currently unoccupied.


Justice Department Inspector General Stripped of Investigative Power

Fox News

In response to a Republican lawmaker who requested a probe into dismissed complaints against the New Black Panther Party, the Justice Department’s Inspector General said he has been unable to investigate because he lacks the authority.

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine wrote in a four-page letter to Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia that Congress stripped him of the power to investigate all alleged wrongdoings within his department.

Wolf had asked for an investigation into what he claimed was an “unfounded dismissal” of complaints against the group.

The complaint accused the New Black Panther Party of voter intimidation during the 2008 presidential elections.

Fine wrote in his letter to Wolf that “unlike all other OIGs which have unlimited jurisdiction to investigate all allegations of waste, fraud or abuse within their agencies, the Department of Justice OIG does not.”

“For several years, I have expressed my position that Congress should change this jurisdiction,” Fine wrote.

Click here to read the letter


House Votes to Hike Debt Limit

Fox News

The House of Representatives Thursday voted to raise the debt limit by $1.9 trillion. That vote raises the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, a new high for the amount of debt the U.S. has ever carried.

As recently as 2001, the U.S. debt was only at $5.7 trillion. But exploded throughout the past decade after Sept. 11, 2001, amid record spending by the Bush and Obama administrations.

If Congress doesn’t hike the debt ceiling, the U.S. would be unable make good on Social Security and Medicare payments.

The Senate approved the debt limit increase in mid-January on a 60-40 party-line vote.

The House vote was a close one, 217-212. All Republicans and more than 30 Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling.

Moderate and fiscally-conscious Democrats were suspect of voting to hike the debt.

The debt ceiling increase is part of a broader bill that would impose so-called “PAYGO” rules on the House. In other words, the House would have to pay for all tax cuts or programs it creates so they are budget neutral.