Hispanics "accounted for more than one-half of all US population growth."
America's going non-white! It's been long reported that the U.S. is projected to be minority-majority by 2042. Now researchers from Cornell and the University of New Hampshire say, "for America's children and youth, that future is here already": In the Census year that ended in July of 2008, 48 percent of the children born in the U.S.A. were from minority-group parents.
The growth is mainly among Hispanic parents. Between 2000 and 2008, says the report by Professors Kenneth Johnson and Daniel Lichter, Hispanics "accounted for more than one-half of all US population growth."
Also, while the nation's African-American population is still "concentrated disproportionately in the largest and oldest US central cities," Hispanics are spreading to the hinterlands; the report says the Hispanic population "is dispersing rapidly -- though selectively -- from traditional gateway cities in the Southwest," not only to surrounding suburbs, but also "rapidly in many rural parts of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North Carolina, and Georgia."
Professors Johnson and Lichter suggest the growth is due to an influx of fertile Hispanic women. They're having an average of 2.99 babies apiece, while white women are having 1.87.
Please show this report to an old bigot near you. Then play 'em some Black Flag!
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/03/hispanic_kids_4.php
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archi
-- Modified on 5/8/2012 9:39:53 PM
Mexican born Araceli Sanchez – the wife of an American serviceman whose application for legal residency had not been completed – set off in her car to buy her 3 year old daughter a birthday present. But she made –gasp – an illegal left turn and was stopped by Arizona police.
Sanchez had no papers to prove her legal right to be in the country as the wife of an American service man. Even worse, she had brown skin and no speaka da English very well. So Arizona police decided she must be an illegal immigrant and turned over to federal authorities for detention.
Now, in arguing before the Supreme Court, Arizona’s attorney told the Court – "if there are mistakes, it’s no problem. It only takes the feds about 10 minutes to verify someone’s residency.”
It ain’t necessarily so, as Ms. Sanchez found out. A fed agent drove her to Blythe California and then back to Yuma, Arizona where he offered her free transportation to Mexico, She refused, explaining she was legally in the country as the wife of an American citizen.
So the feds locked her up with some mean, nasty ugly looking people in the immigration cell for two nights. Then she was taken to a third detention center operated by a private contractor. She was not allowed to speak with her husband by phone.
Finally, the feds figured out she was not here illegally, even though she did not have her “papers.” And they let her go.
The lawsuit –stay tuned –it’s a coming.
Board righties –still like this law?
Sanchez had no papers to prove her legal right to be in the country as the wife of an American service man. Even worse, she had brown skin and no speaka da English very well. So Arizona police decided she must be an illegal immigrant and turned over to federal authorities for detention.
Now, in arguing before the Supreme Court, Arizona’s attorney told the Court – "if there are mistakes, it’s no problem. It only takes the feds about 10 minutes to verify someone’s residency.”
It ain’t necessarily so, as Ms. Sanchez found out. A fed agent drove her to Blythe California and then back to Yuma, Arizona where he offered her free transportation to Mexico, She refused, explaining she was legally in the country as the wife of an American citizen.
So the feds locked her up with some mean, nasty ugly looking people in the immigration cell for two nights. Then she was taken to a third detention center operated by a private contractor. She was not allowed to speak with her husband by phone.
Finally, the feds figured out she was not here illegally, even though she did not have her “papers.” And they let her go.
The lawsuit –stay tuned –it’s a coming.
Board righties –still like this law?
...a minute, if the Feds pay for their incompetence, that means Timbow and the rest of us will have to pay. Still so cavalier, Timmy?
We all know how most who work for the Federal government are too incompetent to get private sector jobs. This story just exemplifies what we all know.
Sanchez had no papers to prove her legal right to be in the country as the wife of an American service man. Even worse, she had brown skin and no speaka da English very well. So Arizona police decided she must be an illegal immigrant and turned over to federal authorities for detention.
Now, in arguing before the Supreme Court, Arizona’s attorney told the Court – "if there are mistakes, it’s no problem. It only takes the feds about 10 minutes to verify someone’s residency.”
It ain’t necessarily so, as Ms. Sanchez found out. A fed agent drove her to Blythe California and then back to Yuma, Arizona where he offered her free transportation to Mexico, She refused, explaining she was legally in the country as the wife of an American citizen.
So the feds locked her up with some mean, nasty ugly looking people in the immigration cell for two nights. Then she was taken to a third detention center operated by a private contractor. She was not allowed to speak with her husband by phone.
Finally, the feds figured out she was not here illegally, even though she did not have her “papers.” And they let her go.
The lawsuit –stay tuned –it’s a coming.
Board righties –still like this law?
just because you don't have the proper "papers" on you if you happen to look Mexican. If they had stopped me as white guy this would never have happened. They would have just given me a ticket.
This lady was thrown in jail because she couldn't prove her right to be here. That's not how we do things in America,
Whether a third party is negligent later on in the process shouldn't matter bc it is the unconstitutional state law that throws you into the system.
Sanchez had no papers to prove her legal right to be in the country as the wife of an American service man. Even worse, she had brown skin and no speaka da English very well. So Arizona police decided she must be an illegal immigrant and turned over to federal authorities for detention.
Now, in arguing before the Supreme Court, Arizona’s attorney told the Court – "if there are mistakes, it’s no problem. It only takes the feds about 10 minutes to verify someone’s residency.”
It ain’t necessarily so, as Ms. Sanchez found out. A fed agent drove her to Blythe California and then back to Yuma, Arizona where he offered her free transportation to Mexico, She refused, explaining she was legally in the country as the wife of an American citizen.
So the feds locked her up with some mean, nasty ugly looking people in the immigration cell for two nights. Then she was taken to a third detention center operated by a private contractor. She was not allowed to speak with her husband by phone.
Finally, the feds figured out she was not here illegally, even though she did not have her “papers.” And they let her go.
The lawsuit –stay tuned –it’s a coming.
Board righties –still like this law?
-- Modified on 5/5/2012 1:49:37 PM
and, pursuant to the “parole in place” policy of the Obama admin, illegal immigrants who are spouses, parents and children of American citizens serving in the military are permitted to complete the process of becoming legal residents without having to leave the U.S.
This was an illegal detention under federal law and the initial seizure was unconstitutional. Next time we'll discuss why the South Carolina law is just as bad. In the meantime, you better "carry your papers" Tim.
This was an illegal detention under federal law and the initial seizure was unconstitutional. Next time we'll discuss why the South Carolina law is just as bad. In the meantime, you better "carry your papers" Tim.
Quote :
After Sanchez told the officer she didn’t have a driver’s license or a Social Security number, she was taken into custody and her car was towed. She was turned over to the Border Patrol, which then handed her over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE began legal proceedings to deport her, according to her lawyer, immigration attorney Richard Green of Huntington Beach, Calif.
the Feds not the state law messed her up.
Quote:
Green told msnbc.com that Sanchez should never have been turned over to immigration agents in the first place because she produced a military spouse ID card.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/03/11525729-immigration-nightmare-army-soldiers-wife-detained-after-arizona-traffic-stop
""Trish Carter, a spokeswoman for the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office, said there was no indication in the police report that Sanchez showed her military spouse card.""
Shit happens when you run afoul the law.
was anything she produced legit ...or fake??? fake id allow you to stay out of jail?
-- Modified on 5/5/2012 2:46:48 PM
You're right. I'm just waiting for GaGambler to pop up and send all the immigrants back from whence they came. ha.
This lady was thrown in jail because she couldn't prove her right to be here. That's not how we do things in America,
Whether a third party is negligent later on in the process shouldn't matter bc it is the unconstitutional state law that throws you into the system.
Sanchez had no papers to prove her legal right to be in the country as the wife of an American service man. Even worse, she had brown skin and no speaka da English very well. So Arizona police decided she must be an illegal immigrant and turned over to federal authorities for detention.
Now, in arguing before the Supreme Court, Arizona’s attorney told the Court – "if there are mistakes, it’s no problem. It only takes the feds about 10 minutes to verify someone’s residency.”
It ain’t necessarily so, as Ms. Sanchez found out. A fed agent drove her to Blythe California and then back to Yuma, Arizona where he offered her free transportation to Mexico, She refused, explaining she was legally in the country as the wife of an American citizen.
So the feds locked her up with some mean, nasty ugly looking people in the immigration cell for two nights. Then she was taken to a third detention center operated by a private contractor. She was not allowed to speak with her husband by phone.
Finally, the feds figured out she was not here illegally, even though she did not have her “papers.” And they let her go.
The lawsuit –stay tuned –it’s a coming.
Board righties –still like this law?
These xenophobic laws that have been advocated by the Constitution wielding Tea Party and other, are destroying the founding principals of this country.
Maybe they should "read" the Constitution, instead of just waving it at rallies!
will learn to adjust to the law.
Do you deny she was here illegally? Do you deny she was driving without a license?
Sounds like a scofflaw to me.
No ID, no license, no speaka da ingles.
Yeah, it's only cuz of the brown skin....pretty flimsy dude.
and had filed the paper work to obtain this status. Her application was pending and the ICE provided that while her application was pending she could be deported as an illegal immigrant. So while she did enter the country illegally she was not "illegal" at the time they demanded she produce her papers.
You don't get thrown in jail for driving without a license, do you? A scofflaw? She was driving to buy supplies for the daughter's birthday, not buying drugs. Why should she have to prove she was legal before they put her in jail? They wouldn't do that to you, would they Mr. NoTrouble. How do you justify the difference?
And the state police had no probable cause to believe she was her illegally - they just engaged in ethnic profiling.
"Her application was pending and the ICE provided that while her application was pending she could be deported as an illegal immigrant."
she was here illegally, we agree on that. your statement (or misstatement) above should be clarified.
no, i would'nt be thrown in jail for not having a license because i obey the law and have it when i drive. my english is pretty damned good and I don't have a status 'pending". in the story you provided it said the illegal turn was made to evade
"""Sanchez was stopped for driving onto private property to avoid a traffic control device, according to sheriff’s records."""
I know you want to ignore all of the above and try to convince everyone this is about BROWN SKIN but that's obviously BS.
Look, shit happens. Were it not for the terrible abuses by illegal scofflaws in the first place something like this would'nt have to happen. She is part of the problem.
You don't get thrown in jail for driving without a license, do you? A scofflaw? She was driving to buy supplies for the daughter's birthday, not buying drugs. Why should she have to prove she was legal before they put her in jail? They wouldn't do that to you, would they Mr. NoTrouble. How do you justify the difference?
And the state police had no probable cause to believe she was her illegally - they just engaged in ethnic profiling.
about that. Nor was he traffic stop based on profiling.
Bu the state police did not arrest her for the traffic violation. Instead they turned her over to the feds bc they suspected she was an illegal immigrant. But they had no grounds to suspect this other than her skin color and language, as far as the reported facts show. That is what is illegal and improper. They had to have at least a reasonable suspicion she was an undoc other than her race and lack of documents.
But yes I agree she entered the country illegally - but that all changed once she married.
I think the inability to speak the language and inability to identify yourself is sufficent probable cause. You ignore these and leap to skin color.
This is why Grandma and little Sally get the rubberhose treatment at airports.
To satisfy people like yourself that EVERYONE is treated "fairly".
And the state police had no probable cause to believe she was her illegally - they just engaged in ethnic profiling.
-- Modified on 5/6/2012 11:07:06 AM
Shit happens when you are caught driving without a drivers license. Are we supposed to feel sorry that she isn't above the law? I don't get it.
And considering that she is married to an American for so many years, why didn't she bother to get a green card? Is it because they denied her for being involved in a sham marriage, because she can't produce any evidence that she knew her husband prior to the day that they got married? ICE agents that do those immigration interviews are wise to all of those immigration scams.
County’s Monthly Welfare Tab for Illegal Aliens $52 Million
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/09/07/countys-monthly-welfare-tab-for-illegal-aliens-52-million/
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
8 out of the 12 baby's born in the USA or born to illegal
laws now or focusing on having no automatic citizen ship for kids born to parents of illegals
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/anchor_babies.html
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/should-anchor-babies-be-allowed-citizenship/question-1062069/
Hispanics "accounted for more than one-half of all US population growth."
America's going non-white! It's been long reported that the U.S. is projected to be minority-majority by 2042. Now researchers from Cornell and the University of New Hampshire say, "for America's children and youth, that future is here already": In the Census year that ended in July of 2008, 48 percent of the children born in the U.S.A. were from minority-group parents.
The growth is mainly among Hispanic parents. Between 2000 and 2008, says the report by Professors Kenneth Johnson and Daniel Lichter, Hispanics "accounted for more than one-half of all US population growth."
Also, while the nation's African-American population is still "concentrated disproportionately in the largest and oldest US central cities," Hispanics are spreading to the hinterlands; the report says the Hispanic population "is dispersing rapidly -- though selectively -- from traditional gateway cities in the Southwest," not only to surrounding suburbs, but also "rapidly in many rural parts of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North Carolina, and Georgia."
Professors Johnson and Lichter suggest the growth is due to an influx of fertile Hispanic women. They're having an average of 2.99 babies apiece, while white women are having 1.87.
Please show this report to an old bigot near you. Then play 'em some Black Flag!
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/03/hispanic_kids_4.php
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archi
-- Modified on 5/8/2012 9:39:53 PM
ANCHOR BABIES is the term
http://www.americanpatrol.com/09-FEATURES/090930-FEATURE/LA-POPULATION4.jpg
$22 billion annually to provide illegal immigrants with welfare perks that include food assistance programs such as free school lunches in public schools, food stamps and a nutritional program (known as WIC) for low-income women and their children
County’s Monthly Welfare Tab for Illegal Aliens $52 Million/month
As the mainstream media focuses on a study that reveals a sharp decline in the nation’s illegal immigrant population, monthly welfare payments to children of undocumented aliens increased to $52 million in one U.S. county alone.
The hoopla surrounding last week’s news that the annual flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. dropped by two-thirds in the past decade overlooked an important matter; the cost of educating, incarcerating and medically treating illegal aliens hasn’t decreased along with it, but rather skyrocketed to the tune of tens of billions of dollars annually.
Those figures don’t even include the extra millions that local municipalities dish out on welfare payments to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, commonly known as anchor babies. In Los Angeles County alone that figure increased by nearly $4 million in the last year, sticking taxpayers with a whopping $52 million tab to provide illegal immigrants’ offspring with food stamps and other welfare benefits for just one month.
About a quarter of the county’s welfare and food stamp issuances go to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their anchor babies, according to the figures from L.A. County’s Department of Social Services. Nationwide, Americans pay around $22 billion annually to provide illegal immigrants with welfare perks that include food assistance programs such as free school lunches in public schools, food stamps and a nutritional program (known as WIC) for low-income women and their children
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/should-anchor-babies-be-allowed-citizenship/question-1062069/
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/anchor_babies.html