Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Video of the day

Here's some video from Voice of the People's anti-immigrant rally in Harrisburg on Saturday. The subject of the video isn't as interesting as the crowd shots. This video shows a) just how sparse the crowd was and b) the significant skinhead presence. Even the photographer observes the skinheads gathering around the guy who was being taunted from the podium.

The most generous person in our group gave VOP attendance of 150, which is what the Times Leader said. The Patriot News overblew the crowd at 200 (and miscounted ours by half), VOP had delusions of grandeur with their claim of 300-400, and the Standard Speaker was off the chain with a claim of 600 (and gave us double what we had). It would be nice if the Standard Speaker actually attended the events they report on.

The only media that called out the obvious skinhead presence was The Times Leader, but CBS 21 in Harrisburg made it pretty obvious with their video.

Meanwhile, American Humanity points out that at least one white supremacist group, Stormfront, is bragging about its turnout at the VOP rally.

Andy in Harrisburg

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I bet it really grates on your nerves that the immigration laws requiring the deporation of illegal immigrants are ultimately on their side. No matter how much you cheer them on, this country will conduct a campaign of attrition against the illegal aliens in this country. The people have spoken throught their laws and you take on the shameful crusade to defeat our Constitutionally consonant laws. Its as I've said before, the ACLU is taking a side on illegal immigration, and is no longer apolitical and should lose its tax exempt status. Look for a friend of the court brief to that effect in tax court. As the voice of the ACLU in PA, you've sealed its fate with your own lips.

4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This story gives great credence to Hazleton's contention that crime by illegal immigrants is on the rise in their town and discredits the ACLU's position that illegal aliens are angels to be defended. This is a loser for you, Andy.

Alleged ringleader nabbed: Drug operation brought $31M of cocaine into area, authorities say

Alleged ringleader nabbed: Drug operation brought $31M of cocaine into area, authorities say
Thursday, 06 September 2007
Staff Writer
The alleged leader of a drug trafficking ring that authorities say was responsible for bringing millions of dollars of cocaine into the area is now in custody.
Law enforcement officials hope that the arrest of the suspected leader, Jorge “The Don” Rivera, 39, as well as 31 other suspects, will damage the area’s drug trafficking trade.
On Thursday, Attorney General Tom Corbett announced the arrests of individuals who were allegedly responsible for selling more than $31 million in cocaine in the Hazleton area over the past three years.
One of the suspects is an alleged leader of the Hispanic “Latin Kings” gang, and a few are suspected illegal aliens, authorities said.
The Attorney General’s Bureau of Narcotics Investigation and the Luzerne County Drug Task Force worked with area police departments as part of “Operation Boomerang,” which began in February. Law enforcement officials began a daylong drug sweep Wednesday morning and took almost 20 of the suspects into custody. The others remain at large, but Corbett said he is confident police will locate them.
Corbett, who made his announcement in Hazleton City Hall, said the drugs were brought into the area from New York City and said two individuals alone were responsible for fielding thousands of calls for drugs.
The attorney general explained that the investigation began when two confidential informants contacted the Hazleton Police Department and the county Drug Task Force about the sale of crack cocaine in the area.
The alleged ringleader was later identified as Rivera of 15 E. Broad St., West Hazleton.
Agents said the Rivera organization was distributing two kilograms – about 4½ pounds – of cocaine each week in the Hazleton area.
The organization pulled made about $200,000 each week.
According to the criminal complaint, undercover agents made numerous controlled buys of up to one ounce of crack from Rafael “Andy” Lebron, 36, the operator of a barber shop in the city, and Jose Gonzalez, 32, a high-ranking member of the Latin Kings.
Agents allege that they arranged to purchase crack cocaine from Lebron, of 678 N. Vine St., Hazleton, and Gonzalez, 308 W. Green St., West Hazleton, by calling them on their cell phones.
On May 16, an undercover officer allegedly made a controlled purchase from Gonzalez in a parking lot near West Hazleton Elementary/Middle School. Corbett said the officer saw Gonzalez divide and weigh a large quantity of cocaine during the buy.
Officers developed sufficient probable cause against the two and placed wiretaps on their cellular phones, which were allegedly used to conduct drug trafficking activities, according to information from Corbett’s office.
The wiretaps revealed that Lebron and Gonzalez were getting their cocaine from Rivera. Rivera, in turn, was getting the cocaine from several sources in New York City, authorities said. He used other people to transport the drugs, Corbett explained.
“This investigation demonstrates that gang members from New York City are moving into the Hazleton area to corner the drug market,” Corbett said. “The pipeline of drug- and gang-related activity is constantly flowing from large cities, and as long as there is a demand it will continue.”
The affidavit stated that between April 19 and July 11, Gonzalez’s phone had more than 17,000 calls while Lebron’s had more than 21,000. Many of the calls were drug-related conversations between the two and their customers, according to the affidavit.
In addition, the wiretaps showed that Rivera had a substantial customer base in Hazleton and allegedly dealt cocaine both on his own and through Lebron and Gonzalez.
In August, Corbett said, Rivera and Lebron talked about “problems with the police” as well as a robbery of $8,000 in cocaine from their stash house. Later that month, Lebron used his juvenile girlfriend to deliver drugs and gave her a cell phone to use, authorities said. She allegedly told Lebron during her drug deliveries that “too many people are calling” and that she was running out of drugs.
“Subsequent conversations between Rivera and members of the organization revolved around the amount of money they had made, saying they had pocketed $11,000 in two days, as well as an argument over whether the price of a kilo of cocaine should be $27,000 or $26,000,” Corbett said.
The criminal charges were filed before Hazleton Magisterial District Judge Joseph Zola.
Deputy Attorney General Robert O’Hara of the Attorney General’s Drug Strike Force Section will prosecute the case in Luzerne County.
Corbett thanked the Hazleton, West Hazleton and Butler Township police departments and the Luzerne County Drug Task Force for their help in the investigation. Representatives from each agency were on hand for Thursday’s announcement.
Rivera is charged with one count each of corrupt organization, criminal conspiracy, possession with the intent to deliver cocaine, delivery of cocaine and criminal use of a communication facility.
Gonzalez is charged with 15 counts of delivery of cocaine and one count each of corrupt organizations, criminal conspiracy, possession with the intent to deliver cocaine and criminal use of a communication facility.
Both are being held on $500,000 straight cash bail.
Lebron is charged with 15 counts of delivery of cocaine and one count each of corrupt organizations, criminal conspiracy, possession with the intent to deliver cocaine and criminal use of a communication facility. He has not been picked up by police.

9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andy, you're not going to win in the end. The mental midgets at the ACLU beware.
This by P.A. Madison http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/city_of_hazleton_munley.html#more:

City of Hazleton: Judge Munley v. U.S. Constitution

In striking down Hazleton, Pa.'s "Illegal Immigration Relief Act" on July 26, 2007, federal Judge James Munley, with the support of twisted and outright erroneous federal precedent, invalidated Hazleton’s ordinance under the doctrine of federal preemption (Supremacy Clause). In addition, plaintiffs asserted that Hazleton violated the United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause and exceeded its Police Powers.
Below I will discuss each of these claims under the letter of the United States Constitution.

Federal Preemption

The doctrine of federal preemption as allowed to be practiced today is, frankly, hogwash. In order to give the doctrine of federal preemption any validity, one is required to close their eyes and pretend Congress was clothed in unlimited powers, while also pretending there is no such thing as either reserved rights belonging to the people or any concept of independent self-government.

Judge Munley said that “Congress has in fact enacted a comprehensive legislative scheme with regard to the employment of unauthorized aliens and occupies the field to the exclusion of state law.”

Oh really?

Hamilton said the Supremacy Clause so far from being ipso facto exclusive, never ousted the power of the States previously existing, unless “where an exclusive authority is in express terms granted to the Union, or where a particular authority is granted to the Union and the exercise of a like authority is prohibited to the States.”

The court had consistently laid down the same rule as Hamilton outlined. In the License Cases for example, the court effectively said if you want invalidate some State law under the preemption doctrine the burden is on the plaintiff to point to the clause in the United States Constitution that exclusively delegates Congress the authority to make the law, and point to the express prohibition against the States to touch it. Simply having two conflicting laws is not enough; the burden is on the Federal Government to show its law is in pursuance to the Constitution and that it is an area expressly prohibited to the States to act upon, and thus, giving the law national supremacy.
Scenarios for which the Federal Government can claim supremacy is very limited by design under our form of republican government. James Madison Jr. explained local “inviolable sovereignty” this way:

[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority is subject to them within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one, since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all objects.
To support federal preemption in matters of immigration, federal court’s enjoy quoting without question DeCanas v. Bica that said the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.”
At first blush, that would appear to make a strong case for the Federal Government to claim preemption. The trouble though is it is entirely made up.

The DeCanas court relied on the old passenger case of Henderson v. Mayor of City of NY to support this above conclusion. However, anyone who bothers to study that case will find the court made no such determination at all. The opinion of the Henderson court was not directed towards the question of internal regulation of immigration within State jurisdiction, or their right to do so, but commerce.

Attempting to link “immigrants” themselves as something of commerce would require treating them as imported commodities that can be bought and sold, something only the most ill-informed justice would contemplate. It would also go against the defined meaning of the language before the constitutional conventions and later Supreme Court rulings, which held persons, are not articles of commerce.

The authority over the migration of people was strictly withheld from the Federal Government. Even in the Constitution itself, words strictly prohibit Congress from any interference with the migration of people to and from the States.

The Migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
What does that mean? We will let James Wilson (second only to James Madison in importance in the framing of the U.S. Constitution) explain it:
The gentleman says that it means to prohibit the introduction of white people from Europe, as this tax may deter them from coming amongst us. A little impartiality and attention will discover the care that the Convention took in selecting their language. The words are, 'The migration or importation of such persons, &c., shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation.' It is observable here that the term migration is dropped when a tax or duty is mentioned, so that Congress have power to impose the tax only on those imported.
What Wilson makes clear is Congress' only limited power over the migration of people are those who are imported as articles of trade to be bought and sold. The migration of people, who are not imports of trade, cannot be taxed by any authority of Congress, and thus, eliminating the only known delegated power Congress could exert over them in attempt to prevent their entry.

On the other hand, the States did not surrender their absolute authority over persons within their jurisdictions, and unlike the general government, could impose stringent rules and taxes on aliens entering their respective limits. Even post Fourteenth Amendment adoption, John Bingham acknowledged the States inherent right to impose head taxes or banishment laws in regards to aliens.

I will let Alexander Hamilton have the final word here:

But it will not follow from this doctrine (supremacy) that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.
Due Process
Judge Munley suggested Hazleton’s IIRA ordinance is unconstitutional because “the IIRA does not provide notice to challenged employees or tenants, does not inform the employers and owners/landlords of the types of identity information needed, and provides for judicial review in a court system that lacks jurisdiction, it violates the due process rights of employers, employees, tenants and owners/landlords. It is therefore unconstitutional.”

It has always amazed me how the courts in modern times can misapply such an ancient, well-understood principle as due process, for which has been part of the U.S. Constitution for over 200 years. For which the same identical language had been imported into the Fourteenth Amendment, and made clear that it carried the same operation as it had always, could be applied by the courts to operate in an entirely different manner then had always before.

This is not justice or judgment, but tyranny against the people.

The terms "due process of the law" and "by law of the land" has always been recognized as being identical imports from Article 39 of the Magna Carta (1215). The Fourteenth Amendment’s primary drafter of the first section, Rep. John A. Bingham (OH), said the amendment changed nothing in regards to whom the phrase inhibits under the first section of the fourteenth article of the U.S. Constitution. Due process is only a limitation upon the executive officer or the courts, not any legislative body.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit any State legislature, or municipal government from operating under their own laws of due process, nor gives any power to Congress or the federal courts to impose their own idea of procedures of due process as they please. Instead, the language is simply a declaration that whatever those general laws of the State may be, they cannot be denied before depriving anyone of their life, liberty, or property.

The court in Hurtado v. California described due process under the Fourteenth Amendment this way:

In the Fourteenth Amendment, by parity of reason, it refers to that law of the land in each State which derives its authority from the inherent and reserved powers of the State, exerted within the limits of those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and the greatest security for which resides in the right of the people to make their own laws, and alter them at their pleasure.
Due process, or “by law of the land,” protects individuals from being deprived of life, liberty or property by arbitrary acts unsupported by existing laws. No arbitrary deprivation or penalties are sanctioned by Hazleton’s ordinance in question.
What Hazleton has done is simply enacted summary procedures that have always existed under statute laws, and extended to private parties. For example, landlord's have long enjoyed summary procedures authorized under law in taking possession of demised premises and property within by the prompt dispossession over tenants who hold over after default in paying rent.

Do such summary proceedings as approved by statute violate anyone’s "due process"? No because the proceedings are sanctioned by law. Some tenants might not like it, but they have no constitutional grounds to invalidate the statutes in question under some twisted ruse of violating due process.

Police Powers

Under plaintiffs' ninth cause of action, they alleged Hazleton’s ordinance exceed its legitimate police powers. Hazleton responded the ordinance was a legitimate exercise of its police powers.

Judge Munley concluded that because Hazleton had violated the Constitution elsewhere, they in return exceeded their police powers because “enacting an unconstitutional ordinance is in itself a violation of the defendant's police powers.”

Police powers used to be held sacred and beyond encroachment under any pretense – even after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. So when did the people surrender their authority over local order and security, or more importantly, where can it be found documented through consent of the people?

It is this “inviolable sovereignty” that Madison spoke of is why all leading statesmen of this nation and Supreme Court went to great pains to make clear that all internal domestic concerns, especially those of internal security (police), were beyond approach of federal encroachment under any pretense. Prigg v. Pennsylvania:

To guard, however, against any possible misconstruction of our views, it is proper to state, that we are by no means to be understood in any manner whatsoever to doubt or to interfere with the police power belonging to the states in virtue of their general sovereignty. That police power extends over all subjects within the territorial limits of the states; and has never been conceded to the United States.
Justice Grier's affirming opinion in a much-cited case in recent immigration case law (The Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. 283, 7 How. 283) wrote:
This right of the States has its foundation in the sacred law of self-defense, which no power granted to Congress can restrain or annul. It is admitted by all that those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may be more properly called the internal police, are not surrendered or restrained.
One doesn’t need to look for Supreme Court rulings to come to the same conclusion as Justice Grier did, for this inviolable principle shines as a bright beacon due to the fact of being deeply embodied in events of our history and expressed throughout the U.S. Constitution. The same Congress who introduced, debated and adopted the Fourteenth Amendment firmly shared the same conclusion as Justice Grier after it was made part of the Constitution.
Austin Blair (MI), a strong advocate for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and human rights activist, had this to say about federal encroachment on local matters on April 19, 1871:

If gentlemen say that the powers of the General and State governments for the protection of life, liberty, and property are concurrent and that we can go everywhere throughout the United States and do by the General Government everything that can be done by any State government, then I grant this power might exist; but until I am shown that, I am unable to see it. As I have said, I have always supposed that there were certain powers and certain rights that belong to the States that the General Government has no right to interfere with. This right of local self-government, as I supposed, it was not the intention of the Constitution of the United States in any case to take away from the States, and I cannot see how it is possible that this power could exist without taking it away.
The chairperson of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lyman Trumbull in the same year: “I do not know where in the Government of the United States gets the constitutional authority to go into the States and establish police regulations.” James Garfield went on to add:
These systems of local government by counties and cities are adopted by the States as instrumentalities to aid them in the wise and judicious regulation and protection of the local and domestic interests of their citizens. It will never do to say that they may be tampered with, impeded, or arrested in the discharge of their duties, as this bill proposes. It would be fatal to the success and very existence of local self-government. It has many times been solemnly decided by the Supreme Court that these agencies adopted by the States to aid in local administration are above the touch or control of any power, are subject only to the exclusive regulation of the States.
John Farnsworth, member of the Committee on Reconstruction said:
The Supreme Court of the United States has decided repeatedly that the Congress can impose no duty on a State officer. We can impose no duty on a sheriff or any other officer of a county or city. We cannot require the sheriff to read the riot act or call out the posse comitatus (sic) or perform any other act or duty. Nor can Congress confer any power or impose any duty upon the county or city. Can we then impose on a county or other State municipality liability where we cannot require a duty? I think not.
Jefferson wrote from Monticello on June 12, 1823, “Can it be believed that under the jealousies prevailing against the General Government at the adoption of the Constitution, the States meant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral duties, and restraining vice, within their own territory?”
All the above simply demonstrates that there was never any recognized authority before or after the adoption of the 14th amendment for the Federal Government to oust local municipal authorities in administering laws for the security, welfare and social order under their respective jurisdictions.

If a local municipal is exceeding its police powers, then the only known authority to interfere is the State judiciary under State laws.


What these charges against the City of Hazleton boils down to is this: Plaintiffs sought relief from the consequences of a lawfully enacted regulation, not any deprivation of due process contrary to any existing general law of the State.

Judge Munley’s ruling, aided by past divisive, unsanctioned precedent, exceeded federal jurisdiction into the affairs of the people in exercising their solemn right to self-government under the United States Constitution. The ruling is simply, repugnant to our form of constitutional government and finds no support in the spirit and letter of the great compact that forms our Union of States.

2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like these long rants! The longer, the less likely anyone will read them!

9:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just tuned into one of the speakers at the VOP rally on YouTube... A fellow named Frank Jorge.

Civil War! Political Assassination! Lock and Load! The REVOLUTION has begun!

If any normal person shows up for a VOP rally, the sort of wing-nuts that are behind the anti-immigration hysteria will be apparent. Well, so much for this "movement".

9:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Alan, anything longer than two sentences exceeds your attention span.

9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been known to read 4, maybe 5, right in a row! But they actually have to make some sort of sence.

8:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

".........sort of sence."

Maybe if you could spell you could wade through the rest. I presume that you meant to say ".....sort of sense." You probably picked the spelling a random, so I should be greatful that you didn't spell it as "cents".

2:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually I meant to spell "scents". Thanks for pointing out my mizztake! Very descent of you.

If you are the same anonymous who posted the interminable cut-n-paste from another web site, here is some advice. You will get more interest if you make a pithy remark or two (something other than I'm right and you are doomed) and then put in a LINK to the rambling diatribe. You will actually get a few visits to the site. The way your doing it, you just get eye-rolling and rapid scrolling.

Be sure to throw in some spelling errors also; that always generates genuine interest!

8:28 PM  
Blogger ACLU of Pennsylvania said...

Only the nativists and the xenophobes will use the recent drug arrests to tell us that undocumented immigrants are hardened criminals. They arrested 40 people, and a whopping two were undocumented. Five more were legal residents. The other 33 were US citizens.

If you're so concerned about crime, go after your fellow Americans.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
After a seven-month investigation, the state Attorney General's Office announced Thursday that it had charged 40 people - all of them suspected dealers - with involvement in a Northeast Pennsylvania cocaine ring that allegedly made $31 million over three years and is based in Hazleton.

Among those charged were two illegal immigrants and five or six other noncitizens with green cards who, if convicted, would be deported after serving prison sentences, said Frank Noonan, a regional director for the Attorney General's Office and the agent in charge of the investigation.


9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a nationalist, as were our Founding Fathers. I love my country, respect its laws and will oppose those who would degrade mine and my fellow citizens right to control our national sovereignty. You, on the other hand, are apparently a neutered liberal.

If I see illegal immigration as a smoke screen for the migration of criminal elements from Latin America, I will oppose that and demand that we crack down on all illegal aliens to rid this country of all illegal aliens to assure that the criminal element is also deported. Frankly, I care for my country more than I care for adopting poor and illiterate illegal aliens who do not fit into ours and the first world nations policy of having a literate society. Here's a trite one for you, Andy, America, love it or leave it, but don't divide your allegience between your country and others.

"Only the nativists and the xenophobes will use the recent drug arrests to tell us that undocumented immigrants are hardened criminals."

This is the trite retort of ultraliberals willing to sacrife their own citizens for illegal aliens. I'm immune to this insult, so it doesn't bother me. It does reveal your character, however. If I had a nickel for every repetition of that comment I'd be a billionaire.

In reference to my posting about Hazletons drug problem, the incidents are germaine to the ACLU's claim that that city has no problem. They do have a gang problem, and apparently a drug problem, and I'd trust those who live there before I'd trust any bunch of foolish outsider interferring liberal lawyers whose agenda is to destroy the finances of a city that is defending itself against an invasion of illegal aliens. By the spirit and intent of our immigration laws, Hazleton has the right to rid itself of illegal aliens. If the federal government fails to do it for them, then its encumbent of the mayor of that city to do his best for his constituency, the citizens of that town.

The difference between illegal aliens and the ordinary criminal is that the former was never legitimately in this country to begin with. This is no different from our concern over terrorists entering this country. Over the long term, drug dealers are as destructive as terrorists, as they often ruin lives and ultimately kill people. Drug dealing and felonious illegal aliens should never breached our borders or be permitted to stay.

"If you're so concerned about crime, go after your fellow Americans."

I'm not surprised that you use the third person "your fellow Americans", as it was typical of communists and now commonly being used by the internationalists who show no loyalty to their own countries. There you go Andy, your a communist and I'm a xenophobe.

11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hell, why wait for Hazleton to stop them maraudin' agricultural workers - If we don't need no Federal Govmnt, then we don't need no local Govmnt. Descent folk ought to just go out there with a gun and do the job themselves.

At least that's what I gathered from the VOP rally speakers!

(Spelling errors compliments of Microsoft spellcheck.)

12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"At least that's what I gathered from the VOP rally speakers!"

Those with preconceived notions often listen to the opposition and spin it to meet expectations that are not evidenced by fact. The belief that everyone who espouses opposition to illegal immigration is a member of the KKK or of that ilk is a delusion prevalent among the amnesty advocacy groups. The fact is the opponents of illegal alien are comprised mainly of concerned citizens who believe in our immigration laws and in retaining control of their country. Alan, you are wrong in stereotyping your opponents, and in underestimating their numbers you and your friends will ultimately be disappointed by your failed efforts.

1:38 PM  
Blogger ACLU of Pennsylvania said...

Anonymous, I don't think anyone would deny that there are issues in Hazleton. Any time a town's population expands, growing pains are expected, including crime. It is interesting that Hazleton's crime rate actually dropped, though, over the time that its population was increasing by nearly 50%.

The point we've made all along is that Barletta used undocumented immigrants as a scapegoat for the problems he was having controlling crime in his town without a shred of evidence that they were actually responsible for crime. He played on anti-immigrant sentiment to deflect attention from his own failures.

As I wrote on this blog during the trial, it's remarkable that Hazleton's crime rate actually went down at a time when its population was increasing and after the mayor had cut the police department from 42 officers to 23. Today the Hazleton PD is still not back up to its 2000 levels of staffing, despite a budget surplus and claims from Barletta that the city is crumbling under the weight of illegal immigration.

Go back to my post from March 20, 2007, for more info...if you care about those pesky little facts. I know, I know, facts have a liberal bias.


1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem here, Andy, is the all of the growth is from an excludable category, illegal aliens. Our immigration laws say that these people are not entitled to become residents, and are deportable, period, ephemeral hope for changing our laws to their benefit nothwithstanding. I believe Hazleton has a gang problem, caused by the criminal element who follow illegal aliens and prey on them. Take away the prey, and vultures go away. Hazleton has every right to be free from illegal aliens and vulltures. The ACLU should be working to this end, but it is evident that they have a different agenda. Once the ACLU defended the KKK, a pariah in this country, on the issue of free speech, but today the ACLU won't even defend the people against an invasive presence of anarchist advocacy groups and their illegal alien constituents. I ask you one question, Andy. Does the U.S. have the right to control its borders and to deport illegal aliens. This is a yes or no answer, so I don't want you equivocating.

11:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home