Out My Window

Yes... The President has announced that there will be one more barrier for immigrants in their trek to the United States. In addition to dodging dangerous drug traffickers and immigration officials, the latest obstacle is emerging: a wall will be completed between Mexico and Guatemala.

Oh, I forgot to say it is the Mexican President.
According to Mexico’s National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH), 500,000 people from Central America cross into Mexico illegally every year. In addition, smugglers reportedly use the Suchiate River to move goods across the international border without paying duty taxes.

According to the head of customs for Mexico’s tax administration, Raul Diaz, the Mexican border state of Chiapas is constructing a wall along the country’s southern border with Guatemala, along the river Suchiate which divides the countries. Diaz says the purpose of the wall is to prevent the passage of contraband, but admits, “It could also prevent the free passage of illegal immigrants.”

Did he say "illegal immigrants?" Here in the US, we prefer to call them "new citizens". I think that is the term Obama wants us to use.

Mexico is now receiving a great deal of criticism from Guatemalan officials. Guatemalan civil and government organizations have called the move “senseless,” saying a border fence will not prevent undocumented migrants from crossing the border.

Despite eyewitness reports of Mexican border fence construction having commenced — including the mayor of the western Guatemalan municipality of Ayutla — Guatemalan authorities say the Mexican government has yet to comment on the project.

In 2010 alone, the United States has given $450 million to Mexico, for the expansion and development of it's security agencies.
How much does a fence cost to build if you don't have immigrants to do the work... wait...

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has halted the construction of a fence on America’s own southern border and the U.S. Department of Justice is seeking to prevent the adoption of localized border state laws attempting to curb the flow of illegal immigrants and drug-related violence.
While the Obama administration condemns the efforts of Arizona and the calls from many Americans who insist on constructing a fence on the country’s southern border, will the U.S. government continue to funnel millions of taxpayer dollars to Mexico as they build their own border defenses?

I think we might have to look for help from Guatemala on this. Maybe their leader can visit Mexico and be treated like royalty. The Mexican lawmakers could give him a standing ovation. The President of Mexico could be moved enough by the voting power that he brings a law suit against Chiapas to stop building the fence and overturn laws aimed at curtailing illegal entry to Mexico.

Yeah, they might do that but they would have to be pretty damn dumb to do so, wouldn't they?
No offense, really!

So which is it?
Feds sue to block Arizona illegal immigrant law
"In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the lawsuit says. "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."

So we have to guess that Obama doesn't want States to enforce the laws because... well, we are not really sure why.

They do word things in the article that would make you think that Arizona is making some kind of immigration laws when what they are really doing is enforcing federal laws. The article states, "The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents." That is not so. The federal laws states that legal immigrants must carry their documents with them for five years.

"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."

Wouldn't you think he is implying that Arizona and "other states" are writing immigration laws?
We do have a "clear national standard!" Enforce it!

To make things worse...
Obama presses 11 Republican senators to revive support for immigration reform

he also turned a spotlight on 11 Republican senators who had backed reform attempts in 2006, arguing that progress is being "held hostage" by "political posturing, special-interest wrangling and . . . the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics."

Hold outs for Obama's immigration reform all have the same prospective:
"The president needs to work with Congress on a step-by-step approach, focusing first on securing our borders and then establishing a temporary worker program,"

We have seen it happen before. Obama is getting ready to push some kind of reform down our throats even if we don't want it. His supporters are saying it is just too early to spring it on the people right after his Health Care Reform. He is afraid the bad taste it left in our mouths will taint his agenda.

I am just wondering if we can back charge Mexico for taxes we have spent along the border on lands we have abandon back to them.
Another possibility could be militia, volunteers, and mercenaries in each state to protect ourselves if Obama won't.

Here is one to really make you think.

The Dept. of Homeland Security has claimed that you or your possessions have no rights under the constitution until you clear customs and this has been backed up by the Obama Administration. This means that any of your possessions can be held in limbo and searched without warrants when re-entering the United States. Under a "supervisors" authority, of course, because they are trained so well to identify threats. They are able to seize them without warrant for ANY crime. Yeah, parking tickets.

Stay with me on this because I do want to connect the dots.

Where do we draw the line on child pornography? How many of you have those embarrassing pictures of you on a woolly rug, bare-ass naked? Now think about old Aunt Clara showing those pictures to your classmates. Should she be locked up? Should the DHS rush to find the photographer and jail them?

Consider the case of Andrew Hanson who returned from vacation to South Korea in January of 2009.
When his laptop, memory cards, camera, CDs, and DVDs were searched, they found [a picture of] an adolescent girl covered with mud, standing on a beach, and not wearing any clothes. He was charged with transportation and possession of child pornography in September 2009. He has pleaded not guilty.

Customs agents also searched Hanson's laptop three times in February 2009, with the first search taking place about a week after he entered the country and turning up no evidence of child pornography. The second and third searches allegedly did.
I am certainly not taking sides here. We don't know what the last two searches came up with. More little girls playing on the beach or something horrific?

What I am asking you to think about is where do we draw lines?
I have taken pictures of my grand daughters in the sink having a bath. I'm sure I have copies at least on DVD if not on my drive. If the DHS bust in my door right now and took my computer, am I going to prison to be b*****cked for the rest of my life?

What gives some Homeland Security Agent (i.e. rent-a-cop) the authority to decide if the picture is pornographic? She might have just been a perv that really got off on seeing little naked girls. It's not like we made these people take a test. One day they were guarding cross-walks at an airport, the next they are laughing at your privates on an x-ray machine.

And lastly, how far can the DHS take this immunity to the Constitution thing?
I won't go into whether they have the authority to enforce child pornography laws or not because I think we all have the right to do that, with a gun, if need be.

Turns out that Joran Van der Sloot is a serial killer but not a very good one as far as the classic ones go.

Most serial killers get away with their crimes on their wits, slinking in the dark. Joran Van der Sloot got away with his crimes because his family was rich, police bumbled the case, and he kept moving along in the life style he was accustom to undaunted by Holloway's relentless search for the truth.

He made many mistakes but was never, ever called on it by authorities. He was free to trade drugs, sex, humans, and kill when ever it suited him.

Stephany Flores Ramirez is dead because this monster was allowed to live his lavish life-style over the last several years. Aruba's police and Joran's family and friends killed Stephany just the same as if they had broken her neck themselves.

And the cost? Thirty-five years! He will only be 57 when he gets out a free man.
Here is hoping his legal fee's eat up his fortune and no one is interested in publishing his book.

Did anyone else notice this?

First Obama bows to the Arabs, he apologizes to China for being a superpower, now he walks arm in arm with the leader of a foreign nation that has threatened sanctions against one of our own states. Who is this guy working for?

This compounds the earlier humiliation of having to listen to this foreign leader as he shook his finger in our face because Arizona dares to try to enforce a seventy year old Federal Law and having congress dems give him a standing ovation! Who are they working for?

Attorney General Eric Holder said he was ready to sue Arizona over "their" new law... and he has never even read it. Who is this jerk working for?

The law in question is only ten pages... go read it!
It says: If a cop stops someone that does not have an ID and can not prove who he is, the cop MUST call an ICE hotline that was setup by the immigration enforcement office fifteen years ago for this purpose.
In other words: Officers MUST obey the Federal Immigration Enforcement policies.

Obama may have been a little teensy bit arrogant when he said, "What it means is if you are in Arizona and you take your kids to get ice cream, you will be harassed."
Well, you might be right, Barry. That is if you and your kids are carrying automatic weapons into the ice cream store. Jackass!
(Oh, Barry, don't you wish we were a Marxist Fascist state right now so you could have me shot for calling you that? I love America!)
But then I had better watch out. He does have a couple of years to go.

And it seems the tide is turning. As the nature of the law comes to light and the opposition to enforcing immigration from the Dems, the administration, and our Commander and Chief, more and more approve of the new law.
In the latest poll of Arizona Latinos, they are split 50/50. Since statewide it is 70% for and Arizona has a 35% Latino population... hey! Other states are getting on board too. Not just in the South. New York wants to look a little closer at it.

Is it profiling if we stop everyone that crawls under that fence?