Home > Uncategorized > It’s Official, “The United States not defined by its borders”, Barrack Obama

It’s Official, “The United States not defined by its borders”, Barrack Obama


It’s Official, “The United States not defined by its borders”, Barrack Obama

By Tony Dolz
May 24, 2010

In the 21st Century we are not defined by our borders but by our bonds” – Barrack Obama, at the Rose Garden, on his welcoming address for Mexico’s President Calderon, May 19th, 2010. (1)

Obama’s foreign policy statement is a departure from the U.S. Constitution which in Article IV, Section 4 reads, “”The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

President Obama’s executive powers do not include the power to re-define or erase the United States borders, nor can he legally or ethically dishonor his Oath to protect and defend the Constitution -regardless the century that we find ourselves in.  The president has the Constitutional obligation to protect the border of the state of Arizona and every sovereign state of the Union and anything else is an abrogation of his sworn duties.   What measures should Congress take to remedy this failure?

During World War II the United States had a strong bond of camaraderie with the Communist Soviet Union; yet after the Soviets killed up to 20 million of its own people who opposed Marxist redistribution of income, this bond collapsed during the Cold War.  Over the years the United States has had bonds of friendship with a number of countries and people and these have come and gone.  Mr. Obama’s Border Doctrine calling for waving borders contoured by contemporary “bonds between people” violates his Oath of Office to protect the territorial integrity of the sovereign states of the Union and leaves the United States militarily vulnerable, socially unstable and subject to innumerable legal conflicts.

Abortions are legal in a number of states but it is illegal in Mexico.  If a woman has an abortion in a state where it is legal, it is not a crime.  If the same woman has one foot over the legal and physical border with Mexico, she would be committing a crime.  Many states have a death penalty but Mexico does not.  Whether one would be sentenced to death or not for a border area crime would depend on which side of the border one stood when the crime was committed. 

Obama’s Border Doctrine would also create a tax jurisdiction nightmare.  What if Juan Smith’s residence straddle Mexico’s disappearing borders under the Obama Borders Doctrine? Would Juan Smith pay United States federal and state taxes or Mexico’s?   

What would be our citizenship under Obama’s Border Doctrine and what constitutionally protected rights would you have?  In the United States we believe we have Natural Rights endowed by the Creator; and the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from infringing on them.  Among these rights are the natural inalienable right of Speech, Assembly, Religion and Petition; and the right to own and bear arms.  Can President Obama and his temporal administration guarantee us that our Natural Rights will be recognized and protected by the regimes that share a blurred virtual border with the United States under the Obama Border Doctrine?

 More fundamentally, what does citizenship mean under the Obama Border Doctrine? Under the Obama Border Doctrine based on “bonds of friendship and trade” citizenship credentials would necessarily become questionable.  Citizenship laws vary from country to country.  The most common forms of acquiring citizenship are Jus Sanguinis (“blood” right) and Jus Solis (birthplace right).  In a number of countries such as Israel and Denmark, birth is acquired exclusively through the citizenship of the mother and it does not matter the citizenship of the father or the place of birth of the child.  In the United States it is believed, although it has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court, that all children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens regardless the status of the parents, except for the children of foreign military and diplomats.  The Obama Border Doctrine based on “bonds” undermines the legal meaning of citizenship.

The blurring of our border has begun in Arizona.  Second only to Mexico City, Phoenix is the kidnap/murder capital of the world.  Yes, the world. (2) Kidnapping in Phoenix is almost exclusively related to Mexican drug, human and arms trafficking, a $140 billion criminal enterprise.    Last year there were approximately 22,000 border area murders, many of them in Ciudad Juarez a walking distance from the state of Texas.  In Ciudad Juarez alone, 700 women have been sexually abused and murdered in recent years and many others have disappeared.   Border related crime has spread north to California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas.  In March of this year 3 people with ties to the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez were murdered (3).  Incursion into the United States by uniformed rogue Mexican army personnel at the service of Mexican drug cartels and protecting the illicit trade routes now number in the hundreds since the terror attack on 9/11.  A number of U.S. border patrol agents have been injured and killed in the last few months alone.

The “bonds of friendship borders” are moving north.  Arizona victims are on the rise.  On March 27th Robert Krentz, a southern Arizona rancher was murdered by suspected Mexican drug traffickers.  The Mexican drug, human and arms traffickers and President Obama agree; the borders should be unprotected and defined by the bonds between Mexico and the United States and not the law. (4)

Most pundits whether they advocate for amnesty for illegal aliens or for the enforcement of existing immigration laws agree that the Obama Administration doesn’t have the Democrat Party votes it needs to pass an amnesty bill this year.  Amnesty (comprehensive immigration reform) is defined as a law that allows foreigners who have violated our physical borders, committed tax and identity fraud, and unlawfully received tax paid social benefits, among other crimes; and who have jumped the line ahead of lawful immigrants, a pass to stay in the country and keep the jobs they currently hold illegally.

The penalty for violating United States immigration laws is deportation, anything else is a amnesty. 

The Obama Administration claims that border arrests are down from two years ago, but this has to be tempered by crime and corruption creeping north and a lax attitude about law enforcement from this administration (5).  A lower number of arrests may simply mean that less effort is put into sealing the border.  Paradoxically, Border Patrol in Arizona reports a 6% increase in arrest in February from a year ago. (6)   The Obama Border Doctrine would in practice de-criminalize immigration law violations without an amnesty by erasing the borders.

The Obama Borders Doctrine would face many legal challenges because of the number of Other Than Mexican (OTM) foreigners that cross the border without authorization.  OTMs include foreigners from the government’s list of countries that harbor and train terrorists.  Without physical borders we would be unprotected not only from Mexican crime cartels but also from OTM crime and terrorist threats. (7)

Obama enigmatically states that in order to offer 12 or more million illegal aliens amnesty (immigration reform) he needs the support of the Republican Party and Independents.  The truth is that Obama counts with a filibuster-proof Democrat Party super-majority in the house and is only one vote short in the Senate.  He does not need a single Republican or Independent for a simple majority vote to pass trillion dollar bailouts, mandatory government controlled healthcare, financial reform with exclusions for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae; and amnesty for illegal aliens.   The delays and resistance to easy passage of Obama’s bills expanding the size and cost of the federal government comes from moderate members of the Democrat Party and especially from Party members that face re-election in November of 2010.

Why did President Obama invite Mexico’s President Calderon to the Whitehouse at this time? Why did he applaud President Calderon’s unsubstantiated and disrespectful accusations against the state of Arizona and the current immigration laws approved by the United States Congress?  Some pundits are suggesting that Calderon’s visit was electioneering by the Democrat re-election team and intended to prop up Obama’s image with disgruntled illegal-alien-amnesty special interest groups.

Mexican President Calderon has a lot of explaining to do and so does President Obama and the members of Congress who applauded him in the U.S. Congress.  Two people in Obama’s administration who rose to their feet the fastest, stood the straightest and applauded most loudly were Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Nancy Napolitano, both of whom have railed against the Arizona law enforcement bill while admitting that they have not read the law.

John Morton, the Chief of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency responsible for enforcing immigration law (he gets his orders from President Obama and Nancy Napolitano), told the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune on May 19th, that the Arizona law is “not good government” and that “his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials” or any similarly situated state. (8)

Obama has repeatedly called the Arizona law, “misguided” and has made his opposition clear and this position resonates from the top down the chain of command.  Atty. Gen., Eric Holder; Homeland Security Chief, Nancy Napolitano; Assistant Secretary of State, Michael Posner and State Department Bureau of Public Affairs Assistant Secretary, Philip J. Crowley have all admitted that they have not read the law, but they all never-the-less vigorously oppose it.  John Morton by his candid remarks to the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board has fully exposed the strength of President Obama intent of focusing on amnesty and putting border security on the back burner.  In other words, President Obama’s “well guided” operational goals include open borders and amnesty as his top law enforcement establishment has revealed.

President Calderon batching of the United States included a swipe at the U.S. citizen’s personal right to own and bear arms which he linked to illegal arms trafficking by crime syndicates through the Mexico/USA border that neither Obama nor Calderon want to protect.   What other constitutionally protected right would President Calderon like Congress to deny U.S. citizens?

While President Calderon scolded the United States and Arizona, he conveniently ignored Mexico’s strict immigration laws.

The Mexican Constitution of 1917 is remarkable by its nationalism, protection of its sovereignty and borders and its strict consideration of who may migrate to Mexico; and what is the treatment given to those foreigners that violate its borders.

These are Articles covering immigration in the Mexican Constitution of 1917 (9)

  • Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
  • Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
  • Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
  • Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
  • A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86
  • A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
  • Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
  • Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
  • Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118
  • Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working without a permit — can also be imprisoned.
  • Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says, “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
  • Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law: A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
  • Foreigners who “attempt contempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

Is it just me, or does President Obama owe us an apology for suggesting that our borders have become an anachronism in 21st Century America and by allowing a foreign president to criticize the laws that Congress itself has passed.

 

(1)    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K63xEbqO4FY&feature=player_embedded

(2)    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6449034n

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592767,00.html

(3)    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/14/AR2010031401148.html

(4)    http://www.kvoa.com/news/hold-for-now-krentz-family-releases-statement/

(5)    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-23-borderagent_N.htm

(6)    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iWncEXYbQ7ysmaeR3jIOdAYRQpcQD9FPH6K01

(7)    http://www.texastribune.org/blogs/post/2010/may/11/tribblog-perry-releases-updated-security-plan/

(8)    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/19/20100519arizona-immigration-law-ICE-chief-opposes.html#ixzz0osPNl3lk

(9)    Mexican Constitution   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Constitution_of_the_United_Mexican_States

Tony Dolz
www.Dolz.com
www.ArticlesofFreedom.us

www.CC2009.us

tony@dolz.com

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized Tags: ,
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: