A Mesa landscaper from Mexico was arrested by police and accused of exposing him to his friend's daughter in a trailer park while she slept.
The girl told police she saw the man standing next to her bed, committing an apparent sex act, and that she screamed when he attempted to climb in bed with her, according to a Mesa police report.
The incident occurred on Saturday night at a trailer park in the 2200 block of West Main Street. The man had been working with the victim's father that day, and he invited the suspect to spend the night after they had been drinking, the report said.
Police arrested Gonzalo Morales Eufrazio, 37, and accused him of indecent exposure and possession of a narcotic drug after they found a small bag of cocaine in his pocket. Eufrazio was identified in the report as an undocumented worker from Mexico and had no form of identification.
THe agenda reeks of propoganda to further the amnesty / shamnesty debate... what a load of bunk... -J Steele
U.S. heroes are villains at cemetery in Mexico
Chris Hawley Republic Mexico City Bureau May. 26, 2007 12:00 AM
MEXICO CITY - From the beaches of Normandy to Manila in the Philippines, Americans will gather at military cemeteries around the world on Monday to honor soldiers who died defending freedom. Except at one cemetery, where the Americans are seen as invaders, not heroes.
At the U.S. National Cemetery in Mexico City, American dignitaries will quietly pay tribute on Memorial Day to 750 soldiers who died during the 1847 invasion of the Mexican capital, a campaign that forced Mexico to cede about 40 percent of its territory to the United States.
Unlike other U.S.-run war cemeteries in Europe and the Philippines, it's the only place where the buried Americans are considered villains.
"In our World War I and World War II cemeteries, we were the liberators, we were going over to fight tyranny," said Mike Conley, spokesman for the American Battle Monuments Commission, which runs the cemetery. "That definitely puts Mexico City in a different niche."
On Monday, the U.S. ambassador and a Marine honor guard will hold a Memorial Day ceremony at the Mexico City cemetery, just as Americans do at the other 163 national cemeteries worldwide.
But Mexican government officials are not expected to attend. Even some of the cemetery's neighbors view the event with contempt.
"As a Mexican, I don't like it at all," said Maria Trejo, 55, who has lived near the cemetery for 30 years.
"Those soldiers should be buried in the United States, where they belong," Gustavo Martel, 33, said as he played in a nearby park with his nephew.
Most Mexicans, however, have never heard of the site. The 1-acre cemetery is hidden behind a high wall next to a roaring expressway, and there are no signs other than the "U.S. National Cemetery" spelled out in wrought-iron letters above the gate.
The cemetery doesn't appear on most city maps, and few guidebooks mention it.
More than 763,000 Americans visited Mexico City last year, but only 2,500 people, mostly Mexicans, stopped by the cemetery. The U.S. cemetery in Normandy, France, gets about a million visitors annually, the monuments commission says.
"Some days, we don't get any visitors at all," cemetery superintendent Hector de Jesus said.
That's a shame, he said, because the battle for Mexico City was one of the most dramatic episodes in U.S. history. American soldiers who would later face each other in the Civil War were comrades here. Their victory reshaped North America and fueled Mexican anger that still taints relations between the two countries.
The battle was the climax of the 1846-48 Mexican-American war, which began as a dispute over the boundaries of Texas.
The Mexico City campaign's most famous confrontation was on Chapultepec Hill, where teenage cadets at the Mexican military academy fought to the death against the American troops. Every Mexican schoolchild is taught the story of cadet Juan Escutia, who wrapped himself in the Mexican flag and threw himself from a cliff rather than be captured by the Americans.
The American cemetery sits beside the former San Cosme causeway, where Maj. Robert E. Lee's troops fought their way into the center of the city after the Chapultepec battle.
A young lieutenant, Ulysses S. Grant, commanded a howitzer that pounded Mexican troops from the bell tower of the San Cosme church.
Lee and Grant later became foes during America's Civil War, fought from 1861 to '65. When Lee met with Grant in Virginia to surrender in the village of Appomattox Court House, the two men reminisced about their time in Mexico, according to accounts of the meeting.
The capture of Mexico City led to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in which Mexico gave up what is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming.
After the war, the U.S. government collected the remains of unidentified soldiers buried in shallow graves around the city. It opened the cemetery in 1851, making it the oldest of the 24 national cemeteries outside the United States.
The bones of the 750 soldiers are buried in a common grave under a white monument in the center of the cemetery. Along either side are vaults containing 813 other Americans, mainly diplomats, ex-soldiers and their families, who lived in Mexico City and were buried in the same plot.
Some of those dead are U.S. Confederate officers who fled to Mexico after the South's defeat in the Civil War.
The highest-ranking occupant is Confederate Gen. James E. Slaughter. He fought in the last battle of the Civil War, in Brownsville, Texas, on May 12-13, 1865, after much of the Confederate army had already surrendered.
The cemetery was closed to new burials in 1924. In the 1970s, the U.S. government sold half of the original 2 acres to make way for construction of Mexico City's Interior Circuit highway. Bodies of the 813 identified Americans were dug up and put into aboveground crypts, each marked with a white headstone.
"Some of the people who come here, the Mexicans, they do have regrets about the Americans having this place," de Jesus said. "I try to explain to them the reason why we're here: It's to preserve history."
As he spoke, a lone visitor, college student Antonio de Alcazar, 23, walked through the gate and began reading the tombstones.
"I don't see anything wrong with them being here," Alcazar said "In the end, we're all human beings, and it doesn't matter who's buried where. Eventually, we all go into the ground."
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines The Rule of Law
The most controversial component of the Senate's Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 is Title VI, euphemistically ntitled "Nonimmigrants in the United States Previously in Unlawful Status." It would create a new "Z" visa exclusively for illegal aliens. This title would change the status of those who are here illegally to legal, essentially granting amnesty to those "previously in unlawful status." This seriously flawed proposal would undermine the rule of law by granting massive benefits to those who have willfully violated U.S. laws, while denying those benefits to those who have played by the rules and sometimes even to U.S. citizens.
Flawed Provisions The following are ten of the worst provisions—by no means an exhaustive list—of Title VI of the bill:
A Massive Amnesty: Title VI of the bill grants amnesty to virtually all of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the country today. This amnesty would dwarf the amnesty that the United States granted—with disastrous consequences—in 1986 to 2.7 million illegal aliens. It is also a larger amnesty than that proposed in last year's ill-fated Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. Indeed, the Senate's bill imposes no cap on the total number of individuals who could receive Z-visa status.
To initially qualify for a Z visa, an illegal alien need only have a job (or be the parent, spouse, or child of someone with a job) and provide two documents suggesting that he or she was in the country before January 1, 2007, and has remained in the country since then. A bank statement, pay stub, or similarly forgeable record will do. Also acceptable under the legislation is a sworn affidavit from a non-relative (see Section 601(i)(2)).
The price of a Z visa is $3,000 for individuals—only slightly more than the going rate to hire a coyote to smuggle a person across the border. A family of five could purchase visas for the bargain price of $5,000—some $20,000 short of the net cost that household is likely to impose on local, state, and federal government each year, according to Heritage Foundation calculations.
Expect a mass influx unlike anything this country has ever seen once the 12-month period for accepting Z visa applications begins. These provisions are an open invitation for those intent on U.S. residence to sneak in and present two fraudulent pieces of paper indicating that they were here before the beginning of the year.
That is precisely what happened in the 1986 amnesty, during which Immigration and Naturalization Services discovered 398,000 cases of fraud. Expect the number of fraudulent applications to be at least four times larger this time, given the much larger applicant pool.
The Permanent "Temporary" Visa: Supporters of the bill call the Z visa a "temporary" visa. However, they neglect to mention that it can be renewed every four years until the visa holder dies, according to Section 601(k)(2) of the legislation. This would be the country's first permanent temporary visa. On top of that, it is a "super-visa," allowing the holder to work, attend college, or travel abroad and reenter. These permissible uses are found in Section 602(m).
A law-abiding alien with a normal nonimmigrant visa would surely desire this privileged status. Unfortunately for him, only illegal aliens can qualify, according Section 601(c)(1).
And contrary to popular misconception, illegal aliens need not return to their home countries to apply for the Z visa. That's only necessary if and when an alien decides to adjust from Z visa status to lawful permanent resident ("green card") status under Section 602(a)(1). And even then, it's not really the country of origin; any consulate outside the United States can take applications at its discretion or the direction of the Secretary of State.
Hobbled Background Checks: The bill would make it extremely difficult for the federal government to prevent criminals and terrorists from obtaining legal status. Under Section 601(h)(1), the bill would allow the government only one business day to conduct a background check to determine whether an applicant is a criminal or terrorist. Unless the government can find a reason not to grant it by the end of the next business day after the alien applies, the alien receives a probationary Z visa (good from the time of approval until six months after the date Z visas begin to be approved, however long that may be) that lets him roam throughout the country and seek employment legally.
The problem is that there is no single, readily searchable database of all of the dangerous people in the world. While the federal government does have computer databases of known criminals and terrorists, these databases are far from comprehensive. Much of this kind of information exists in paper records that cannot be searched within 24 hours. Other information is maintained by foreign governments.
The need for effective background checks is real. During the 1986 amnesty, the United States granted legal status to Mahmoud "The Red" Abouhalima, who fraudulently sought and obtained the amnesty intended for seasonal agricultural workers (even though he was actually employed as a cab driver in New York City). But his real work was in the field of terrorism. He went on to become a ringleader in the 1993 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center. Using his new legal status after the amnesty, he was able to travel abroad for terrorist training.
Amnesty for "Absconders": Title VI's amnesty extends even to fugitives who have been ordered deported by an immigration judge but chose to ignore their removal orders. More than 636,000 absconders are now present in the country, having defied the law twice: once when they broke U.S. immigration laws and again when they ignored the orders of the immigration courts.
The Senate's bill allows the government to grant Z visas to absconders. Though the bill appears to deny the visa to absconders in Section 601(d)(1)(B), Section 601(d)(1)(I) allows U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials to give an absconder the Z visa anyway if the absconder can demonstrate that departure from the United States "would result in extreme hardship to the alien or the alien's spouse, parent or child."
This is a massive loophole because so many things can be construed to constitute "extreme hardship." This might include removing a child from an American school and placing him in a school in an impoverished country, or deporting a person with any chronic illness. Attorneys representing aliens would also argue that if any member of an absconder's family is a U.S. citizen, then the other members must remain in the United States, because the separation of family members would constitute extreme hardship.
This would also be a reward to those who have defied U.S. immigration courts. Those who have successfully fled justice could receive the most generous visa ever created, but those who complied with the law and have waited years to enter legally would have to wait longer still. (Indeed, the massive bureaucratic load caused by processing Z visas would undoubtedly mean longer waits for those who have played by the rules.) Further, those who have obeyed the law and complied with deportation orders would not be eligible for Z visas.
The effect of this provision may already be felt today. Why would an illegal alien obey a deportation order while this bill is even pending in Congress? If the alien ignores the deportation order, he may be able to qualify for the amnesty; but if he obeys the order, he has no possibility of gaining the amnesty.
Reverse Justice: The bill would effectively shut down the immigration court system. Under Section 601(h)(6), if an alien in the removal process is "prima facie eligible" for the Z visa, an immigration judge must close any proceedings against the alien and offer the alien an opportunity to apply for amnesty.
Enforcement of Amnesty, Not Laws: The bill would transform Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from a law enforcement agency into an amnesty distribution center. Under Sections 601(h)(1, 5) if an ICE agent apprehends aliens who appear to be eligible for the Z visa (in other words, just about any illegal alien), the agent cannot detain them. Instead, ICE must provide them a reasonable opportunity to apply for the Z visa. Instead of initiating removal proceedings, ICE will be initiating amnesty applications. This is the equivalent of turning the Drug Enforcement Agency into a needle-distribution network.
Amnesty for Gang Members: Under Section 602(g)(2) of the bill, gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty. This comes at a time when violent international gangs, such as Mara Salvatrucha 13 (or "MS-13"), have brought mayhem to U.S. cities. More than 30,000 illegal-alien gang members operate in 33 states, trafficking in drugs, arms, and people. Deporting illegal-alien gang members has been a top ICE priority. The Senate bill would end that. To qualify for amnesty, all a gang member would need to do is note his gang membership and sign a "renunciation of gang affiliation."
Tuition Subsidies for Illegal Aliens: The Senate bill incorporates the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act). The DREAM Act effectively repeals a 1996 federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1623) that prohibits any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens unless the state also offers in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens. Ten states are currently defying this federal law. Section 616 would allow these and all other states to offer in-state tuition rates to any illegal alien who obtains the Z visa and attends college.
The injustice of this provision is obvious. Illegal aliens would receive a taxpayer subsidy worth tens of thousands of dollars and would be treated better than U.S. citizens from out of state, who must pay three to four times as much to attend college. In an era of limited educational resources and rising tuitions, U.S. citizens, not aliens openly violating federal law, should be first in line to receive education subsidies.
Further, legal aliens who possess an appropriate F, J, or M student visa would not receive this valuable benefit. Nor would they be eligible for the federal student loans that illegal aliens could obtain by this provision.
Taxpayer-Funded Lawyers for Illegal Aliens: The Senate's bill would force taxpayers to foot the bill for many illegal aliens' lawyers. Under current law, illegal aliens are not eligible for federally funded legal services. Section 622(m) of the bill would allow millions of illegal aliens who work in agriculture to receive free legal services. Every illegal alien working in the agricultural sector would have access to an immigration attorney to argue his case through the immigration courts and federal courts of appeals—all at taxpayer expense. This provision alone could cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
Amnesty Before Enforcement Triggers. Proponents of the Senate approach have consistently claimed that it would allow delayed amnesty only after certain law enforcement goals are met. The text of the bill, however, tells a different story. Section 1(a) allows provisional Z visas to be issued immediately after enactment, and Section 601(f)(2) prohibits the federal government from waiting more than 180 days after enactment to begin issuing provisional Z visas.
These provisional Z visas could be valid for years, depending on when the government begins issuing non-provisional Z visas, according to Section 601(h)(4). Moreover, the "provisional" designation means little. These visas are nearly as good as non-provisional Z visas, giving the alien immediate lawful status, protection from deportation, authorization to work, and the ability to exit and reenter the country (with advance permission). These privileges are listed in Section 601(h)(1).
Conclusion What becomes unmistakably clear from the details of the Senate's bill is that it is not a "compromise" in any meaningful sense. Indeed, the sweeping amnesty provisions of Title VI cripple law enforcement and undermine the rule of law.
Kris W. Kobach, D.Phil, J.D., professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, served as counsel to the U.S. Attorney General in 2001-2003 and was the attorney general's chief adviser on immigration law. Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Close the flippin border and then we'll talk about all the rest of this bullshyte immigration they are tryin to force down our throats. Nothing before then. -J Steele
Lovely, wouldn't this also translate that that indocrination is coming from the mosque's from the Religion of Peace. It is going to take the elder muslims to stop this cycle of jihad mentality. - J Steele
Some US Muslims justify suicide attacks
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida, a poll says.
The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country's Muslims, revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society. Its largely mainstream members express nearly as much happiness with their lives and communities as the general public does, show a broad willingness to adopt American customs, and have income and education levels similar to others in the U.S.
Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent.
While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.
That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.
"It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.
He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation — a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel
U.S. Muslims have growing Internet and television access to extreme ideologies, he said, adding: "People, especially younger people, are susceptible to these ideas."
Federal officials have warned that the U.S. must be on guard against homegrown terrorism, as the British suffered with the London transit bombings of 2005.
Even so, U.S. Muslims are far less accepting of suicide attacks than Muslims in many other nations. In surveys Pew conducted last year, support in some Muslim countries exceeded 50 percent, while it was considered justifiable by about one in four Muslims in Britain and Spain, and one in three in France.
"We have crazies just like other faiths have them," said Eide Alawan, who directs interfaith outreach at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Mich., one of the nation's largest mosques. He said killing innocent people contradicts Islam.
Andrew Kohut, Pew director, said in an interview that support for the attacks represented "one of the few trouble spots" in the survey.
At a later news conference, he said much of that support could be attributed to age because the findings were consistent with numerous other surveys showing young people more inclined to violence and to support wars.
The poll briefly describes the rationales for and against "suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets" and then asks, "Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"
The question did not specify where a suicide attack might occur, who might carry it out or what was meant by using a bombing to "defend Islam."
In other findings:
_Only 5 percent of U.S. Muslims expressed favorable views of the terrorist group al-Qaida, though about a fourth did not express an opinion.
_Six in 10 said they are concerned about a rise in Islamic extremism in the U.S., while three in four expressed similar worries about extremism around the world.
_Yet only one in four consider the U.S. war on terrorism a sincere attempt to curtail international terror. Only 40 percent said they believe Arab men carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
_By six to one, they say the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq while a third say the same about Afghanistan
— far deeper than the opposition expressed by the general U.S. public.
_Just over half said it has been harder being a U.S. Muslim since the 9/11 attacks, especially the better educated, higher income, more religious and young. Nearly a third of those who flew in the past year say they underwent extra screening because they are Muslim.
The survey estimates there are roughly 2.35 million Muslim Americans. It found that among adults, two-thirds are from abroad while a fifth are U.S.-born blacks.
By law, the Census Bureau does not ask about people's religions.
Telephone interviews were conducted with 1,050 Muslim adults from January through April, including some in Arabic, Urdu and Farsi. Subjects were chosen at random, from a separate list of households including some with Muslim-sounding names, and from Muslim households that had participated in previous surveys.
The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.
THe Bobblehead exploding ALlah does not approve of Jerry Steele
".... 9 out of 10 Jihadies agree to issue fatwah on Jerry...
UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND
Frontline News From the Real Source and Not Commander Piglosi, Kommandant Traitor Harry Reid nor Blue Helmet Chickie Schumer" http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx
