by JOHN SEXTON28 Aug 2015

A day after Hillary Clinton compared GOP candidates to terrorists, she has suggested an opponent’s plan to deport illegal immigrants is reminiscent of the Nazis.

At a press conference Friday in Minneapolis, Hillary was asked how she planned on dealing with the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. “I’m glad you asked me that,” Hillary replied. Without offering any plan of her own, she immediately attacked a GOP rival’s plan to deport illegal immigrants.

“I find it the height of irony that a party which espouses small government would want to unleash a massive law enforcement effort– including perhaps National Guard and others–to go and literally pull people out of their homes and their workplaces,” Hillary explained. Then she added an image which evoked the Nazis: “Round them up, put them, I don’t know, in buses… boxcars, in order to take them across our border.”

The picture Clinton paints of placing people in boxcars is a potent one because, during World War II, Jews were forced into boxcars and transported to Nazi concentration camps as part of Hilter’s final solution. Clinton’s choice of the words appears extemporaneous but not accidental. She mentions buses then pauses and adds “boxcars,” rather than simply saying “trains.”

A video produced by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement department shows actual immigrant removal operations taking place using an airliner.

The “boxcars” statement comes just one day after Clinton made another controversial attack on her Republican rivals. At a speech in Cleveland Clinton compared Republicans to terrorists, saying, “Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups. We expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world. But it’s a little hard to take coming from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States.” Clinton’s terrorism comparison was widely reported, though some observers wondered why it didn’t get even more media attention, given how extreme her statement was.

Allison Moore, national press secretary for the RNC, put out a statement blasting Clinton’s remarks: “Not 24 hours removed from calling Republicans terrorists, Hillary Clinton reached a new low today hurling Holocaust references at her political opponents,” she said. “Hillary Clinton may be getting desperate over her sinking poll numbers and growing email scandal, but that’s no excuse for this kind of inflammatory and extreme rhetoric.”

In July, GOP candidate Mick Huckabee used a Holocaust reference during a radio interview with Breitbart News’ Alex Marlow on Sirius XM Patriot. Speaking of President Obama’s Iran deal, Huckabee said, “he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.” For making this reference, Huckabee was widely criticized in the media. He said later that “maybe the metaphor is not a good one.”


FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrStumbleUponRedditLinkedInAOL MailBlogger PostDeliciousShare
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mexico warns Texas not to refuse its immigrants’ babies U.S. birth certificates

The Mexican government is warning that Texas’ denial of birth certificates for U.S. children born here to undocumented immigrants stands to imperil the relationship between Mexico and the Lone Star State.

The concern was raised in an amicus brief filed Monday evening to lend support to immigrants parents who sued Texas after being denied birth certificates for their U.S.-born children, even after showing their “matrículas,” the ID cards issued by the Mexican Consulate to undocumented immigrants.

Mexico says the practice stands in stark contrast to the historical practice among countries to accept passports or other forms of ID to issue birth certificates.

“[It] not only jeopardizes their dignity and well-being, but could threaten the unique relationship between Mexico and Texas,” the Mexican government said in a brief tied to a lawsuit filed against the state by Texas Civil Rights Project and Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid.

The lawsuit, the Texas Tribune reported, was filed on behalf of six U.S. citizen children and their undocumented parents, who came from Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala. Other groups since have joined the suit.

A main point of contention is the all-out refusal at some county registrars offices to accept as a valid form of ID anything short of a U.S. visa or consulate ID card, the Tribune said.

The families who are suing say that Texas is violating the 14th amendment and that the state is superseding federal immigration laws.

Texas officials are claiming sovereignty issues and argue that the United States cannot fight them.

They long have said that consulate-issued identification cards are not considered reliable forms of ID.

The Mexican government is requesting that Texas be clear about what two forms of ID it will accept in order to give the children U.S. birth certificate.

“Our argument isn’t ‘yes matrícula, no matrícula,’” said attorney Jennifer Harbury, who represents the families, to the Tribune. “The argument is ‘what will you take that people can actually get?’ They have to take something. [The children] were born here. They are U.S. citizens.”

The amicus brief also claims that denying the children U.S. birth certificates blocks their claims to Mexican citizenship. A child born to Mexican parents has that right but must show proof of identity. Infringing on that is a violation of international law, the brief states.

Mexican Consulate officials argue that the matrícula is, in many ways, more secure because it includes biometric technology, unlike the driver’s licenses in some states.

They say a parent’s undocumented status should not affect a child’s ability to obtain a birth certificate.

“We think that they are not immigration authorities,” said Consul Carlos González Gutiérrez from the Mexican Consulate General’s office in Austin. “The passport is the official way to identify oneself.”


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Brace for illegal aliens – with guns!


Americans are being warned that the danger from the porous United States borders has increased because of a federal appeals court’s determination that illegal aliens have a right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

“Just think: Illegal aliens who are about to be deported have standing to sue for gun rights, but the sheriff of the fourth largest county located near the border, Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, has no standing to sue Obama for violating the law and flooding his jurisdiction with illegal immigrants,” wrote Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review.

The outrage came on the heels of a ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said people “living in the United States illegally” share in the Second Amendment right.

In the ruling, which conflicts with the decisions of several other appeals courts, the Chicago-based court ruled one particular illegal alien was barred from possessing weapons because of a federal statute.

But the three-judge panel said Mariano Meza-Rodriguez is among “the people” cited in the Constitution and thus would be granted the right “to keep and bear arms” if not for the federal law.

He was found to have a bullet in his pocket when he was apprehended, but he argued that the charges that ensued should be dismissed because he possesses Second Amendment rights.

The author of the opinion, Judge Diane Wood, wrote, “We see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded.”

See the WND Superstore’s vast library of details on the Second Amendment, from David Kenik’s “Armed Response” and the best of bumper stickers to “The Heller Case” and “Shooting Back.”

So is a flood of armed illegal aliens looming?

WND columnist Jeff Knox explained recently that the driver’s licenses progressive groups are demanding be issued to illegal aliens are the most common form of identification used to purchase firearms legally.

“A dozen states currently offer licenses regardless of immigration status, and of course the proponents of this idea object to any suggestion that these driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants include any indication that the holder is not a fully vested citizen with all the rights and privileges of citizenship. They say that providing a license that is any different than a normal driver’s license would be an invasion of the person’s privacy and an invitation for discrimination,” he wrote.

“Considering that the driver’s license is the predominant form of ID used for most purposes, including voting and in firearm purchases, and is usually the only form of ID used, this means that, not only is this practice potentially enabling voter fraud, but it also invites people who are prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms an easy means of buying them through legal channels,” he wrote.

He said the 7th Circuit decision raises all sorts of questions on others issues, “such as the right to vote.”

“No matter how the court ruling turns out, the issue remains that it is illegal for persons in the country illegally to be in possession of firearms or ammunition, but the mechanism that is supposed to prevent them from purchasing guns is easily bypassed with the driver’s licenses ‘progressives’ want them to have,” he wrote.

Horowitz pulled no punches in his commentary.

“How much longer are we going to sit idly by and allow the courts to violate our sovereignty and Republican form of government, flip the Constitution on its head, and confer rights and privileges on those in the country in contravention to the laws duly passed by the people’s representatives?”

He continued: “Forget about birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, the leftwing activists disguised as judges on the federal bench have suddenly discovered a newfound alacrity for the Second Amendment. … The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals conferred Second Amendment rights … on illegal aliens!

“It’s not enough that we allow criminal aliens to stay here illegally, let’s give them guns too.”

The decision conflicts with rulings from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said in 2011, “Illegal aliens are not ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ or ‘members of the political community,’ and aliens who enter or remain in this country illegally and without authorization are not Americans as that word is commonly understood.”

A year later, the 4th Circuit agreed, ruling the “Second Amendment does not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens are not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance.”

The ruling may eventually find its way up to the Supreme Court, which would present the Obama administration, which has been ardently anti-gun and pro-illegal alien, with what undoubtedly would be an uncomfortable choice.

Horowitz noted the irony “at a time when the political class is trying to infringe upon the gun rights of U.S. citizens.”

The court precedent had been, Horowitz explained, “phrases like ‘we the people’ and ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ cannot apply to those who forcibly infiltrate the people – defined as a sovereign citizens (or immigrants legally and consensually admitted) of a society.”

Horowitz noted that dating back to the 1880s, “the courts have ruled that those here without lawful consent don’t even have procedural due process rights to prove their eligibility to enter or remain in the country.”

But the 7th Circuit, he said, “has now ratcheted up the insanity of conferring rights on illegals to a new level.”

At Guns.com, Jared Morgan reasoned that if the Second Amendment applies to illegal aliens, it follows that other rights would also apply.

“The court rejected the DOJ’s argument that the noncitizen cannot be part of the ‘the people’ because of the lack of commitment to basic obligation to U.S. society, according to analysis from Josh Blackman, an associate professor of law at the South Texas College of Law. The court rejected that notion, Blackman wrote, saying the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.”

The progressive website Think Progress suggested the ruling could have “profound ripple effects.”

“The Fourth Amendment also refers to a right belonging to ‘the people,’ so if that term does not include undocumented immigrants, their rights to be free from abusive police tactics could be severely curtailed. Similarly, the First Amendment refers to ‘the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’ Those rights could also potentially be stripped from undocumented immigrants if the Justice Department’s arguments prevail.”

Bob Owens at Bearing Arms said, “I don’t think for a second that the Founding Fathers would support the concept of granting criminal invaders the same legal status as legal immigrants, legal resident aliens, and citizens.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/brace-for-illegal-aliens-with-guns/#fEywisuxTIQotUyY.99


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment