Mexican President Begs for Asylum in US But Still Bashes Immigration Policies!

Thursday, 20 May 2010

Calderon Addresses Congress, Pisses on American Flag While Begging for Asylum!
Mexican President Felipe Calderon, using the opportunity of a State Sponsored dinner by El Presidente Barry 'Chingedara' Obama, cited increased death threats as his reason for seeking political asylum in the US last night.

With over 22,000 violent homicides in his country in the past 4 years, and the toll rising, and more policemen, politicians and drug czars losing their heads, Calderon pleaded his case at the elaborate state dinner attended by a horde of Hollywood liberals and a special mariachi band flown in from Chicago along with a famous Kenyan chef noted for his elaborate Mexican food creations.

According to an aide with the State Department, Calderon is seeking permanent asylum and tax free status to live in San Antonio, Texas, where he has recently purchased a sprawling , walled 55 acre Hacienda, where he plans to maintain his everyday rule over Mexico using his Blackberry, 250,000 street cams, and the $400B stimulus recently promised to him by members of the House Banking Committee, and Treasury Secretary, El Senor Tim Geithner.

Calderon claimed, while seeking the stimulus, that unless he had the money, the drug cartels would be able to pay his law enforcement team and army generals more than the Mexican Government. The stimulus assures Calderon that he can at least keep his country afloat "for two more months' before he is forced to call on the IMF and the UN for additional help.

Ignoring Mexico's own stringent immigration policies, Calderon continued to rail against the 10 page law recently passed in Arizona which merely confirms that the state will start enforcing federal laws that have been on the books but ignored for years by Washington.

Mexico , which deports over 250,000 'illegal immigrants' a year, has stringent measures enacted against non Mexicans and their enforcement agencies are charged with strictly enforcing them.

A few highlights of the measure demand that anyone coming into the country show evidence of self sufficiency on financial matters, and that anyone granted status CAN NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY POLITICAL campaigns or DEMONSTRATIONS. All immigrants who apply for extended rights in Mexico must pass a rigorous test, and prove FLUENCY IN SPANISH.

Any immigrant who has any dealings with any Mexican official, MUST VERIFY his status in the country, ie: SHOW THEIR PAPERS.

The state dinner, only the second for Obama as he has refused to honor any of America's FORMER allies, was closed to the press since the elaborate shindig was sure to cause an uproar with the millions of unemployed in the nation.

Michelle Obama said that a great deal of expense was saved by supplying many of the vegetables and herbs for the dinner from her own White House Hypocrisy Garden, and the two kids 'helped' hand make the thousands of butterflies that hung above the White House lawn to celebrate the Monarch butterfly migration to Mexico.

One wag whispered he thought that the butterfly symbolism was ironic, since it was 'about the only wild life heading south into Mexico under the present circumstances.'

Joe Biden was heard to whisper to Bill Clinton, "I hope this isn't going to be a big f cking deal, but those refried beans are making me fart....!"

The presidential families retired to the White House movie theater for a rerun of "Remember the Alamo". Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that Calderon was gratified that Obama pledged to name June 1 a holiday in remembrance of Mexican General Santa Ana, and also to put pressure on Taco Bell to sponsor a Poncho Villa 'all you can eat taco day ' very soon.

I cannot wait for this Taco Bell to sponsor a Poncho Villa 'all you can eat taco day '

WE Don't Have To Show You No Stinkin' Badges!
PHOENIX, AZ - Mexican President Felipe Calderon today was detained by police in Phoenix, for probable cause of being an undocumented non-resident alien, while walking down the street eating a Taco Bell Supreme Taco and whistling Herb Alpert's, "The Lonely Bull."

In addition, President Calderon happened to be walking with President Barack Obama at the time of his run-in with the law.

"Even though they were wearing nice suits and surrounded by guys in sunglasses talking into their sleeves, I just thought it was a black guy and a suspicious-looking Mexican," said Phoenix patrol officer Bud Szlibowicz. "I'm 11 months from retirement, just trying to uphold a really stupid policy."

President Obama was outraged, as is his way. "FIRST Arizona holds out on honoring the Dr. King birthday holiday, then THIS outrage. It's an outrageous flouting of a racist practice. This state is really beginning to piss me off!" said the angry leader.

"I was just looking for upside-down properties to buy and flip," said President Calderon. "Your Senator McCain does it all the time!"

Phoenix Police Chief Al O. Cacti offered his profuse apologies to both Presidents. Officer Szlibowicz has not been seen since the incident, but is presumed to be on patrol somewhere, in a really bad neighborhood.

Calderone Addresses Congress in Spanish saying "me cago en la hostia" to Standing Ovation from Dems!
Last Illegal Immigrant from Arizona Heading Home to Mexico!


Mexican President Felipe Calderon, head of the dysfunctional, anarchist country to the south of the US borders of California, Texas and Arizona, lectured the US Congress today, calling his neighbors 'Gilipayas' (Bastards) and in no uncertain terms said he 'shit on his hosts' (me cago en la hostia.)

A contingent of Democrats led by Attorney General Eric Holder, Home Land Security Director Janet Napitalano, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, VP Biden, and Barack Obama, assuming Calderon was thanking them for their support, rose to led a standing ovation from the Left Side of the Isle, while Republicans, though furious, were trying to hide their hysterical laughter concerning Calderon's remarks and the Dem's ignorance.

SC Rep Joe Wilson was the only one on the Republican side with the balls to yell out 'Vete a la mierde' in response to Calderon's outrageous and hypocrital lecturing to the August Body, which was barely heard over the chanting of the Dems shouting 'Viva Zapata!" to acknowledge Mexico's Revolutionary Screen Hero as played by Marlon Brando after being briefed by Sean Penn prior to the Congressional Address.

Mexico, with exports now limited to Corona Beer, cans of Menudo, heroin, cocaine, low grade marijuana (California now producing much better product thanks to rich soil in National Parks,) car wash attendants, and non union activists, is on the verge of economic collapse.

While Calderon has dispatched units of the Mexican Army to HIS southern borders to prevent the illegal immigration of Spanish Speaking asylum seekers from countries in worse shape than his, he has not been able to control the unmitigated murder, mayhem, corruption and rampant anarchy occurring in his own cities close to the border, or even in tourist hot spots such as Acapulco.

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, noted for his foul mouthed diatribes, was watching the proceedings on closed circuit TV and laughing his ass off.

"Chinga tu Madre!' he shouted at the screen at one point, then turning to his aide said, "that Felipe...what a pisser, a real hijo de puta...he'd fit right in around here....lying sack of mierde...but I just love the F******g guy!"

UN Names Arizona as Most Dangerous Terrorist State


The United Nations - Taking bribes and defending psychotic dictators so you don't have to.


UNITED NATIONS - Arizona, one of America's 50 states, has been sternly criticized for its recent human-rights policies, with Mexico and China receiving the most media attention as they gave scathing condemnation.

President Felipe Caldero, Mexico: "Millions of AK-47's have entered Mexico from across the United States border. Of the 23,000 people that have been murdered in Mexico over the past four years, all of them were killed by assault rifles made in Arizona, a land of Wall Street bankers that brazenly violate the patent rights of Russia by illegally producing nearly all of the world's AK-47's."

Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary General: "Citizens of the world, recently you may have heard from two highly enlightened nations speaking to defend human rights of people trapped in a filthy hive of villainy and scum known as Arizona. Mexico and China are considered by many to be the Utopian dream of social justice, prosperity, and freedom for all. However, shocking tips from an anonymous source, only hours ago, have forced me to declare Arizona as the world's greatest threat, and the only true terrorist state."

The UN Secretary General named Arizona as the primary responsible party in the following crimes against humanity:
1930's - murdered more than 20 million in the Soviet Union.
1940's - murdered nearly 6 million in Germany.
1950's - murdered at least 50 million in China.
1980's - Chia pets.
1994 - murdered 800,000 in Rwanda.

At the end of the press release, Ban Ki Moon gave a "shout-out" to President Obama, saying that Air Force One was "a totally freakin' awesome ride."

In contrast, when this reporter called the Chinese embassy it was discovered that their government expressed little interest in Arizona law. Instead, the embassy translator relayed the following message: "Dear American bitches ... we want our money."

In addition, the Chinese wished to clarify their point of view in meeting with US Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner.

President Hu Jintao, China: "Talks with Mr. Posner were disappointing. He would always say Arizona this, or Arizona that, and treated our precious time with contempt. As a friendly warning, should I encounter Mr. Posner in Beijing, he may find himself with a red ball-gag in his mouth, a chain leash around his neck, and then led naked to Shanghai to sniff the butt of every dog in the streets until the soldiers of the People's Army are sufficiently amused."

Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law
By JACQUES BILLEAUD and AMANDA MYERS Associated Press Writers © 2010 The Associated Press
July 28, 2010, 12:24PM

PHOENIX — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.
The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues.
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law at 12:01 a.m. Thursday and protesters were planning a large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them their immigration status.
The volume of the protests will be likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona — the busiest illegal gateway into the country — to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.
The opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."
The law was signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections.
The law has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.
It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries.
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.

Seems like a partial victory for justice.
S.

Judge Blocks Key Parts of Immigration Law in Arizona
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Published: July 28, 2010


PHOENIX — A federal judge, ruling on a clash between the federal government and a state over immigration policy, has blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law from going into effect.


In a ruling on a law that has rocked politics coast to coast and thrown a spotlight on the border state’s fierce debate over immigration, United States District Court Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix said some aspects of the law can go into effect as scheduled on Thursday.

But Judge Bolton took aim at the parts of the law that have generated the most controversy, issuing a preliminary injunction against sections that called for officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times.

Judge Bolton put those sections on hold while she continues to hear the larger issues in the challenges to the law.

“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely preempted by federal law to be enforced,” she said.

“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” she wrote. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”

The judge’s decision, which came as demonstrators opposed and supporting the law gathered here and after three hearings in the past two weeks in which she peppered lawyers on both sides with skeptical questions, seemed unlikely to quell the debate.

Just as the law has fueled rhetoric on the campaign trail, Judge Bolton’s ruling seemed destined to do the same, with Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, an opponent of the law and a potential rival in a campaign for governor against her, quick to praise the ruling and condemn Ms. Brewer.

“Rather than providing the leadership Arizona needs to solve the immigration problem, Jan Brewer signed a bill she could not defend in court which has led to boycotts, jeopardized our tourism industry and polarized our state,” he said.

Ms. Brewer was traveling in Tucson but was preparing a comment of her own.

The ruling came four days before 1,200 National Guard troops are to report to the Southwest border to assist federal and local law enforcement agencies there, part of the Obama administration’s response to growing anxiety over the border and immigration that has fed support for the law.

Lawyers for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican who signed the law and is campaigning on it for election, were expected to appeal, and legal experts predict the case is bound for the United States Supreme Court.

The law, adopted in April, was aimed at discouraging illegal immigrants from entering or remaining in the state.

It coincided with economic anxiety and followed a number of high-profile crimes attributed to illegal immigrants and smuggling, though federal data suggests crime is falling in Arizona, as it is nationally, despite a surge of immigration.

Seven lawsuits have been filed against the law, challenging its constitutionality and alleging it will lead to racial profiling.

The Justice Department lawsuit was among the more high profile, filed after President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder condemned the law.

It also lead to mass demonstrations in Phoenix, for and against it, and a national campaign by civil rights groups to boycott the state.

The Mexican government warned its citizens about traveling to the state and filed a brief in court supporting the lawsuits. Its human rights commission was sending inspectors to the border in anticipation of an escalation in deportations.

But the law also has attracted support, with polls showing a majority of Americans support the notion of local police assisting in federal immigration enforcement.

The Obama administration struggled to respond. After the law was adopted it defended its handling of the border and immigration while urging Congress to enact a sweeping change in immigration law.

Judge Bolton conducted three hearings on the lawsuits.

Justice Department lawyers argued the state law amounted to regulation of immigration, the exclusive authority of the federal government. They said the law goes too far in requiring local police to make immigration checks and that federal agencies would be overwhelmed in responding to the requests.

In addition, they argued that the law could lead to harassment of legal residents and citizens who fell under suspicion by the police and could damage relations with Mexico and other countries the United States relies on for cooperation with law enforcement and other matters.

Judge Bolton at times did not sound open to the federal government’s arguments.

“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” she asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler last week.

“It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does,” he replied, echoing arguments from other lawyers who have warned against a patchwork of state and local immigration laws.

At another point, she asked, “Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?”

She suggested the immigration agency could simply refuse to pick up someone referred by the police, a tact federal officials have hinted could be their response if the law goes forward. But she seemed reluctant to accept that local police making the inquiry intruded on federal authority.

John Bouma, a lawyer for the state, said the law closely hews to federal statutes and follows the intent of Congress to give states a role in enforcing immigration laws.

He said Arizona was being irreparably harmed by the flow of immigration across the border — more people are apprehended crossing the border in Arizona than any other state — and the state should not be penalized for stepping in where the federal government has not.

“The status quo is simply unacceptable,” he said.

But Judge Bolton seemed flustered by vague wording in the law and questioned, among other things, if people arrested for any crime would be detained for unusually long periods while their immigration status was being determined, as the law requires.

She also questioned whether local police could arrest somebody without a warrant if they believe they have commited a deportable offense. Determining who gets deported is typically left to a judge.

Contradictions Galore

Updated July 28, 2010, 08:46 PM
John C. Eastman is the former dean of the Chapman University School of Law, and currently holds the Donald P. Kennedy Chair there.

Judge Susan Bolton’s 36-page opinion in the Arizona immigration case is about to become one of the most closely scrutinized legal opinions ever written by a trial-court judge. Truth be told, I don’t think it will hold up well.

One way or the other, Arizona’s ability to protect its citizens from illegal immigration is going to be upheld.
For supporters of the Arizona law, though, let me start with the good news in the opinion. Arizona’s prohibition on local officials interfering with the enforcement of federal immigration law was upheld, as was the ability of ordinary citizens to bring suit for violations of that prohibition. Sanctuary cities are out.

In addition, the new state law crime for impeding traffic while stopping to pick up day laborers, the state law crime for knowingly transporting or harboring illegal aliens, and the state law crime for knowingly employing illegal aliens, were all upheld. Those go into effect on Thursday, July 29, as originally scheduled. As Judge Bolton noted in footnote 19, state laws addressing illegal immigration that merely criminalize specific conduct already prohibited by federal law are not unconstitutional.

That last point is important, and legally correct. But it is hard to square with the earlier part of Judge Bolton’s opinion, where she enjoins enforcement of other parts of the Arizona law because, in her view, the federal government was likely to prevail in its argument that the Arizona law was pre-empted by federal law. For three of the four provisions blocked by Judge Bolton, the state law merely criminalized specific conduct already prohibited by federal law. There is nothing unconstitutional about that.

Take the provision that has garnered most of the national attention, Section 2, which requires local law enforcement to check the immigration status of arrestees if there is reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally. Federal law – Title 8, Section 1373(c) — already requires the Department of Homeland Security to respond to immigration status requests from state and local law enforcement “for any purpose authorized by law.”

Buried in a footnote in the opinion, Judge Bolton concedes that state and local law enforcement already have the discretion to verify immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion. But in her view, the state’s mandate to its own law enforcement officers to do what they already had discretion to do would somehow create such a burden on Homeland Security that the Arizona law must be preempted in order to protect the Federal Government’s apparently scrawny resources.

I’ve got a recommendation for Homeland Security — call Blockbuster and see how they verify identity before renting a movie.
I’ve got a recommendation for Homeland Security — call Blockbuster and see how they verify identity before renting a movie. They do it millions of times a day without too much difficulty. And I’ve got a recommendation for local law enforcement in Arizona as well — exercise your discretion to check on immigration status whenever you have a reasonable suspicion; the mandate may be blocked for now, but your discretion is not!

Judge Bolton also blocked enforcement of the new state law requirement that aliens carry immigration papers proving they are in this country legally. But again, this merely parallels a requirement of existing federal law, specifically, Section 1304(e) of Title 8, which requires an alien to carry a certificate of alien registration. In fact, the Arizona law expressly incorporates the federal law in its provision, and the penalty for violation is identical to that provided by federal law--$100 fine and up to 30 days in jail.

Judge Bolton also makes several technical but important errors in her legal analysis. She broadly interpreted one provision of the law, over a narrower interpretation given by Arizona officials to its own law, and then held that, as broadly interpreted, the law was probably invalid. Not the way it is supposed to work. Courts normally will give a statute a narrow interpretation if to do so saves it from being unconstitutional.

Judge Bolton also went out of her way to speculate how the law “might” be implemented in unconstitutional ways, but on a facial challenge, as this was, the requirement is whether the law would be unconstitutional in all or most of its applications, not whether it might be unconstitutional in a hypothetical application.

Arizona will undoubtedly appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and if the state gets an honest legal assessment from that court, the injunction should be lifted in short order. If not, well, there is always the Supreme Court, and the Ninth Circuit is the most frequently reversed Circuit Court of Appeals in the nation. One way or the other, Arizona’s ability to protect its citizens from the onslaught of illegal immigration, by simply directing its law enforcement officers to enforce federal law, is going to be upheld.