Happy Birthday OICW65 RACE RELATIONS

The first steps

Exactley one year ago today That Race Relations began it's journey into the contraversial and un-known. Since that last day June 2010, which began with an article entitled "U.S. immigration law and Arizona," which was and still is a very contraversial topic, which was a very big step in race relations digital life.

Now as a one year old toddler, blessed with all the curiosity of a child looking for something to get into, I will continue to bring cutting edge editorials steeped in

intrigue, wonder and fact, because fiction has never been a strong point of mine, so I wont go there and most folk go to the movies for their monthly dose of the fiction drug.

I have over the course of this past year, met and learned much from the material I've absorbed and been given by you, The People Of This world that have spared their precious time to see what I've been thinking of in my thoughtless moments of my day, and to my amazment, I've been somewhat entertaining and informative for many, the archive tell the story.

Surprize, surprize

I owe a debt of graditude the liberal left. That's right, this is what happens when two seperate but like liberal  ideologies come together and consummate, you get a stanch right leaning conservative that has lived and experience the liberal mind-set. It does not take long for the true conservative soul to rebel from it's liberal surroundings and become a clear and concise thinker.

In this first year of exsistance, I have absorbe both Quran and Hadith looking for the reason why a great race of people wont progress into the 21 century and stay locked in a time of ignorence and cruelty and express a deep desire for the rest of the world to regress and join in their suffering. Now that same region of the world is on fire with the cries of freedom from repression of their leaders.

I have closely examined illegal immigration and the damage it causes our weak employment outlook and the

snarling process of Legal immigrates. to which the liberal left say that there are no such things as "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATES". Funny how how she did that, wouldn't you say, but never mind her, this is about the sites birthday. This is Liberalism at full throttle and it cannot be maid up or spun, I suppose there's a need to have an 'ANTI-FREEDOM" element in the face of freedom, Would you agree to that question? god I hope you don't agree.

The Islamic Caliphate


During this past year we all witnessed a foreign statesman take the leader of the free world to task on boarder security and defenseability, perhaps the 1400 year old threat is close at hand and our leader is simply a facilatator of the caliphate that I pray NEVER happens.

We have also wiotnessed our executive leaders time after time baulk at giving this nation an anual budget and increase the debt limit rather than show a smigion of fiscal responsibility, or, does he dream of an America that bows before small nation leaders?

But it RR's birthday, an nothing can stop the passing of, but we can stop the policies that Will make this nation Insolvent in November 2012, and if you'd like to know what YOU can do to return an responsibily, simply let me and EVERY conservative inform you of the process.

Tomorrow Race Relations will take it's first step in it's second year of exsistance, WILL YOU BE THERE TO HOLD MY HAND AS I TEETER? KEEP ME FROM FALLING?

Racial Gerrymandiering: How both parties view Blacks

Racial Gerrymandering

During Reconstruction, Mississippi created a "shoestring" congressional district, sweeping so many blacks into a narrow district along the river that other districts had comfortably large white majorities. This was racial gerrymandering deplored by liberal democrats.

After the 1990 census determined that North Carolina was 22 percent black, the state's redistricting created a black-majority congressional district. President George H.W. Bush's Justice Department deemed this insufficient under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Hence the creation of North Carolina's 12th District, which slithers 160 miles down Interstate 85.

This was racial gerrymandering applauded by liberal democrats. And by cynical Republicans. While preening about their civil rights sensitivity, Republicans could concentrate black voters into electoral ghettos, thereby making contiguous districts more Republican.

Two days after the 44th anniversary of the Selma march that helped pass the 1965 act, the Supreme Court took a timid step toward limiting the perverse use of that act to create political set-asides -- elective offices to which certain preferred minorities are entitled.

This ruling revisits the strange career of racial gerrymandering -- how that practice went from execrable to virtuous to mandatory, and became yet another manifestation of the entitlement mentality.

In 1965, the VRA was enacted to combat racial discrimination that denied equal access to voting. Because of judicial interpretations and legislative amendments, it now requires racial discrimination in the name of guaranteeing effective voting by certain preferred minorities (ie; blacks and Hispanics). Effectiveness is understood as successful racial or ethnic bloc voting, with success understood as electing members of those blocs. Such results -- minorities electing minority candidates -- have come to be regarded as necessary and sufficient proof of real voting rights.

In 1982, the act was amended (Section 2) to say that a violation occurs if nominating and electing processes "are not equally open to participation" by minority voters in that they "have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." Note that there is no mention of "vote dilution."

But the amended VRA has been construed as follows: Equal "participation" of an "opportunity" for minorities means their ability to elect candidates of their choice, and that must mean minority candidates. Otherwise there has been illegal dilution of the minority vote.

Such repellant reasoning expresses two tenets of liberalism's racial fatalism:  (1) Identity politics (your political identity is your race, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation) and (2) categorical representation (members of an identity cohort can only be understood, empathized with and represented by members of that cohort).

Racial gerrymandering having thus become a moral imperative, North Carolina's Legislature created a "majority-minority" (a voting-age population 56 percent black) state legislative district after the 1990 census. But the 2000 census revealed that demographic changes had made that district just 35 percent black. So the Legislature tinkered with the district's shape to make it 39 percent minority. But it did so by again dividing two counties, which North Carolina's Constitution forbids.

This time Pender County sued. A state court said the VRA's Section 2 required splitting Pender, but North Carolina's Supreme Court held that Section 2 only protects against vote dilution in drawing district lines when a minority group is a majority.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed -- even though Section 2 says nothing whatever about a bright numerical line like this "50 percent rule."

In an opinion joined only by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito, Justice Anthony Kennedy lamented that "racially polarized voting" is "not ancient history." Well, yes. It is federal policy: By codifying the assumption that people of a particular race will and should think and vote alike, the VRA now encourages such voting by treating it as normal, and hence sort of admirable.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, endorsed only Kennedy's conclusion. Thomas rejected Kennedy's argument, noting the glaring fact that Section 2's text provides no basis -- none -- for "any vote dilution claim, regardless of the size of the minority population in a given district." The VRA, properly read, concerns only "access to the ballot."

But it has been improperly read by result-oriented lawyers skillful at creative construing, and by judges legislating their own notions of racial rectitude. The VRA was written to protect each individual's right to vote. Having been twisted to serve group rights --certain groups' entitlements to win quotas of offices -- the VRA has become emblematic of both the noble flourishing and the ignoble decline of the civil rights movement.

"What is Black Liberation Theology?"



An American Black Liberation Soldier




Black liberation theology is an offshoot of the South American liberation theology, which is largely a humanistic mindset, attempting to focus Christian theology on the plight of the poor. Essentially, black liberation theology focuses on Africans in general, and African Americans in particular, being liberated from all forms of bondage and injustice, whether real or perceived, whether social, political, economic, or religious.



Black liberation theology focuses primarily on the African-American community with its goal to “make Christianity real for blacks.” The primary error in black liberation theology is its focus. Black liberation theology attempts to focus Christianity on liberation from social injustice in the here and now, rather than in the afterlife. Jesus taught the exact opposite, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Have blacks/Africans and especially African Americans been treated unfairly, unjustly, and evilly in recent history? Absolutely! Should one of the results of the Gospel be the end of racism, discrimination, prejudice, and inequality? Again, yes, absolutely (Galatians 3:28)! Is deliverance from social injustice a core principle of the Gospel? No.

The message of the Gospel is that we are all infected with sin (Romans 3:23). We are all worthy of eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23). Jesus died on the cross, taking the punishment that we deserve (1 John 2:2), providing for our salvation. Jesus was then resurrected, demonstrating that His death was indeed a sufficient payment for the sin penalty (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). If we place our faith/trust in Jesus as Savior, all of our sins are forgiven and we will be granted entrance into Heaven after death (John 3:16). That is the Gospel. That is to be our focus. That is the cure for what is truly plaguing humanity.

When a person receives Jesus as Savior, he/she is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), and the indwelling Holy Spirit begins the process of conforming him/her to the image of Christ (Romans 12:1-2). Only through this spiritual transformation can racism truly be conquered. Black liberation theology fails because it attacks the symptoms, without truly addressing the disease. Sin/fallenness is the disease; racism is just one of the many symptoms. The message of the Gospel is Jesus' atoning sacrifice for our sins and the salvation that is therefore available through faith. The end of racism would be a result of people truly receiving Jesus as Savior, but the end of racism is not a part of the Gospel itself.

Because of its extreme over-emphasis of racial issues, a negative result of black liberation theology is that it tends to separate the black and white Christian communities, and this is completely unbiblical. Christ came to earth to unite all who believe in Him in one universal Church, His body, of which He is the head (Ephesians 1:22-23). Members of the Body of Christ share a common bond with all other Christians, regardless of background, race, or nationality. “There should be no division in the body, but . . . its parts should have equal concern for each other” (1 Corinthians 12:25). As such, we are to be of one mind, having the mind of Christ, and have one goal, glorifying God by fulfilling Christ’s command to “go into all the world,” telling others about Him, preaching the good news of the Gospel, and teaching others to observe His commandments (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus reminds us that the two greatest commandments are to love God and love others as ourselves, regardless of race (Matthew 22:36-40).

So what's the real agenda of black liberation theology?

Black liberation theology is a product of the dreary leftist politics of the twentieth century, the very vehicles employed by the left to advance statism. For the left, black liberation theology makes for close to a perfect faith.  It is a political creed larded with religion, kind of like Islam.  It serves not to reconcile and unite blacks with the larger cultural, but to keep them separate. The Washington Post reports that  Reverend Wright translates the Bible into lessons about...the misguided pursuit of ‘middle-classness.'"


All the talk about the government infecting blacks with HIV is a fine example of how the left will promote a lie to nurture alienation and grievance. The model for blacks is alienation, deep resentment, separation and grievance.  All of which leads to militancy.  Militancy is important.  It's the sword dangled over the head of society. 

Keeping blacks who fall into the orbit of a Reverend Wright at a near-boil is a card used by leftist agitators to serve their ends: they want bigger and more pervasive government -- and they want badly to run it.
  

James H. Cone


If any further proof is needed that black liberation theology has nothing to do with the vision of Martin Luther King -- with reconciliation, brotherhood and universality -- the words of James H. Cone, on faculty at New York's Union Theological Seminary, may persuade.  Cone, not incidentally, originated the movement known as black liberation theology.  He said:

 "The Christian faith has been interpreted largely by those who enslaved blacks, and by the people who segregated them"

No mention of the Civil War involving the sacrifices of tens of thousands of lives; no abolition or civil rights movements. No Abraham Lincoln. No Harriet Beecher Stowe. No white civil rights workers who risked and, in some instances, lost their lives crusading in the south to end segregation. And since the civil rights movement, society hasn't opened up; blacks have no better access to jobs and housing; no greater opportunities. The federal government, led by a white liberal, Lyndon Johnson, did not pour billions of dollars into welfare programs and education targeted at inner cities in an attempt to right old wrongs.

In the closed world of Cone, Wright and Moss, Jefferson Davis and Bull Connor are alive and well. Black victimhood is the doing of white society, not the doing of angry black leaders and leftists, who see advantage and profit in keeping too many people in black communities captive.

Barack Obama knows all this, as a seventeen year congregant at Wright's church, and as a liberal community activist prior to his election to the Illinois Senate. That he feigns innocence, or that he professes forbearance for some of Wright's words because of the goodness of others, is not the line one expects from a post-racial politician. It is what is expected from a man whose career is steeped in racial politics, a politics that does great harm to the very people it purports to serve.

This theology used Marxism to take over churches in Africa and Central America. They use “Christian” terminology, they promote violence to overthrow governments and populations. It especially became popular in Nicaragua in the 1980’s with the pro-sandanista dictatorship. It used Marxist strategies to be an impetus for the people to rebel where violent revolution was used. In some churches Jesus was represented as Sandinista soldier identifying with the oppressed.

In the african american theological framework Jesus becomes a liberator of the oppressed masses which are black. This is in contrast to the word faith prosperity message preached by numerous black pastors today. Black Liberation theology describes Jesus as a poor black man who lived in oppression under “rich white people” which makes this particular view racially based, accentuating the tensions of being Black. The notion of “Blackness” is not merely a reference to skin color, but rather is a symbol of oppression that can be applied to all persons of color who have a history of oppression (except Whites, of course).”

Authentic Christianity transcends race and ethnicity. There is no black or white cultural value system in the Bible- there is a humanity system, recognizing that we are all made in the image of God, being sinners in need of redemption the same way- through Jesus Christ.

Jesus plus Marxism equals Black liberation theology and according to its teaching Jesus is against the oppressor who happens to be white to this theology because Jesus is a black man sent to free the oppressed (I thought Moses was sent to free the oppressed, Jesus was sent to set us free from SIN).

To those who espouse this worldview and philosophy white greed is the problem (I didn’t know greed had a particular color attached to it). This theology embraced Marxism/humanism as the vehicle to correct the wrongs of the white oppressors. Marxism which is the very opposite of Christianity in its application. So it is not a marriage made in heaven. This theology is not found in the mainstream of the church but is on the fringe. Even the Vatican has condemned it twice. It has recently been publicized in the media because of the controversial statements of Rev. Wright.



Trinity United Church of Christ is now the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ, a megachurch with anywhere from 8-10,000 members. The United Church of Christ denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, and women as ministers. It is at the forefront of liberal churches that do not hold to the Scripture in a Christian manner (this is the church that President Obama and his family attends).

Whitewashing black racism



Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright




Barack Obama sat under the preaching of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. Though he claims he didn’t know Wright was a Marxist racist, such a claim is laughably incredible.

With the suspicious dismissal of the Black Panther voter intimidation case, the whole question of exactly what black racists like the Panthers believe is once again before us as a nation. If predators like the Black Panthers are going to be set free on society to harass and intimidate voters, and if our nation’s Justice Department is going to be the agency setting them free, it behooves the people to learn all they can about those they may face as they attempt to vote…and about those who have ensured they are free to harass and intimidate.





Do you remember when national media outlets reported on the vile and violent rants of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) thugs whose 2008 voter intimidation tactics got a pass from the Obama administration? Simple: Radical black racism doesn't fit the Hope and Change narrative. There's no way to shoehorn Bush-bashing into the story. And, let's face it, exposing the inflammatory rhetoric of the left does nothing to help liberal editors and reporters fulfill their true calling -- embarrassing the right.



J. Christian Adams


Justice Department whistleblower J. Christian Adams came forward with damning public testimony about how Obama officials believe "civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities." In the wake of Adams' expose on how the Obama DOJ abandoned default judgments against the NBPP bullies for the sake of politically correct racial politics, a shocking video clip of one of the lead defendants in the Philadelphia voter intimidation case resurfaced on the Internet. It shows bloodthirsty King Samir Shabazz during a 2009 National Geographic documentary interview spewing:

"You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"

These NBPP death threats and white-bashing diatribes are nothing new to those who have tracked the black supremacy movement. In August 2009, nearly a year ago, I reported on a sign on display outside NBPP defendant (and elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee) Jerry Jackson's home. It reads: "COLORED ONLY: No Whites Allowed." In July 2009, I interviewed poll watcher/witness Christopher Hill, whom Shabazz and Jackson called "cracker" several times while Shabazz brandished his baton.

"They physically attempted to block me," Hill recounted. He also saw a group of elderly ladies walk away from the polling site without voting while the duo preened in front of the entrance. "If you're a poll watcher, you shouldn't be dressed in paramilitary garb," Hill said, as he wondered aloud at what would have happened if he had showed up in the same sort of costume.

In May 2009, a report on the affidavit of civil rights attorney and poll watcher Bartle Bull, who witnessed the NBPP thuggery in Philadelphia and reported on billy club-wielding Shabazz's election day boast: "You're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

In the fall of 2008, just days before he showed up to hector white poll workers, Shabazz told the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"I'm about the total destruction of white people. I'm about the total liberation of black people. I hate white people. I hate my enemy... The only thing the cracker understands is violence... The only thing the cracker understands is gunpowder. You got to take violence to violence."

The desire to kill, subordinate and demonize white people is a staple of NBPP propaganda. An NBPP Trenton, N.J., chapter "block party" music video posted on YouTube calls on black followers to "bang for freedom," "put the bang right into a cracker's face," and "if you're going to bang, bang for black power ... hang a cracker ... if you're going to bang, bang on the white devil ... burying him near the river bank with the right shovel ... community revolution in progress ... banging for crackers to go to hell, we don't need em."

Chanting "Black Power," Minister Najee Muhammad, national field marshal for the New Black Panther Party, and Uhuru Shakur, local chairman of the Atlanta NBPP chapter, issued a pre-Election Day 2008 threat to "racists and other angry whites who are upset over an impending Barack Obama presidential victory." Said Muhammad: "Most certainly, we cannot allow these racist forces to slaughter our babies or commit other acts of violence against the black population, nor our black president."

That's rich, given that the only racists talking about slaughtering babies are the ones with New Black Panther Party patches on their puffed chests.

If a Tea Party activist threatened to kill the babies of his political opponents, it wouldn't just be front-page news. It would be the subject of Democrat-led congressional investigations, a series of terrified New York Times columns about the perilous "climate of hate," a Justice Department probe by Attorney General Eric Holder, a domestic terror alert from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and another Important Teachable Moment Speech/Summit from Healer-in-Chief Barack Obama.

But with the racism shoe on the other foot, Team Obama and its media water-carriers are exhibiting the very racial cowardice Holder once purported to condemn. Thanks to Obama's feckless Department of Injustice, these black supremacist brutes are free to show up on the next national Election Day at polling places in full paramilitary regalia with nightsticks, hurling racist, anti-American epithets at those exercising their right to vote and at those protecting the integrity of the electoral process.

The reaction of our national media watchdogs: Shhhhhhhh

Black Liberation Thiology

Juan Williams: My Words Were 'Not A Bigoted Statement'

      Juan Williams, the news analyst who had his contract with NPR terminated earlier today after comments he made about Muslims were deemed by editors to violate the network's standards, has now posted a piece on FoxNews.com with the headline "I Was Fired For Telling The Truth." In it, he writes that in his opinion NPR has:

Juan Williams, the news analyst who had his contract with NPR terminated earlier today after comments he made about Muslims were deemed by editors to violate the network's standards, has now posted a piece on FoxNews.com with the headline "I Was Fired For Telling The Truth." In it, he writes that in his opinion NPR has:

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller told the network's David Folkenflik earlier today, though, that "our reporters, our hosts and our news analysts should not be injecting their own views about a controversial issue as part of their story. They should be reporting the story."




Meanwhile, the Tribune bureau in Washington writes that Williams has signed "a new three-year contract for nearly $2 million" with Fox News.

If you're just catching up to this story, scroll down and "read up" if you prefer to see things chronologically.

Later, when Fox News' O'Reilly Factor goes on the air at 8 p.m. ET (Williams will be a guest), we'll be back to update The Two-Way with what's said.

Update at 3:30 p.m. ET. NPR CEO Vivian Schiller just released this statement:


"I spoke hastily and I apologize to Juan and others for my thoughtless remark."

That follows; as you'll see below, her comment earlier today that now-former NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist."

Update at 3 p.m. ET. NPR Ombudsman: Williams Should Have Been Given Choice:

Rather than terminating news analyst Juan Williams' contract, "probably the better thing for NPR to have done is to have said 'Juan the situation is not working,' " NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepherd just said on Talk of the Nation.

Then, she continued, Williams could have been given a choice: If he wanted to stay at NPR, he would have to stop doing commentary on Fox News Channel. Or, if he preferred to continue with Fox, he and NPR could part ways.

We noted earlier that Alicia has previously written about the perceived conflicts between Williams' roles at NPR and Fox. She's planning to publish a post about his termination within the hour.

Update, at 2:20 p.m. ET: NPR CEO Vivian Schiller says Williams should have kept his views about Muslims to himself, "his psychiatrist or his publicist."

Update at 12:40 p.m. ET:

Since we first put this post up at 8:38 a.m. ET, the story of the termination of news analyst Juan Williams' contract with NPR over remarks he made on Fox News Channel about Muslims has only gotten hotter.

Williams was on Fox this morning and defended what he said earlier this week on The O'Reilly Factor — that he gets "nervous" if he's at an airport and sees "people who are in Muslim garb."

"It's not a bigoted statement," Williams said today on Fox. "I said what I meant to say, that it's an honest experience. ... I have a moment of anxiety, of fear, given what happened on 9/11."

Meanwhile, reaction continues to pour in:

— It's "total censorship," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-GA, said on Fox News this morning. He called on Congress to investigate.

— Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who now hosts a show on Fox, issued a statement saying "I will no longer accept interview requests from NPR as long as they are going to practice a form of censorship, and since NPR is funded with public funds, it IS a form of censorship. It is time for the taxpayers to start making cuts to federal spending, and I encourage the new Congress to start with NPR."

For the record, here's a link to charts that break down where NPR and its member stations get their money.

— Former Alaska governor, 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee and Fox News contributor Sarah Palin tweeted that "NPR defends 1st Amendment Right, but will fire u if u exercise it. Juan Williams: u got taste of Left's hypocrisy, they screwed up firing you."

— As for the liberal side, Earl Ofari Hutchinson writes at The Huffington Postthat if NPR "had the ounce of integrity and fairness that it incessantly brags about (it) should have dumped Williams a long time ago for his equally great offense. And that's his two decade con job as a liberal, civil rights expert and even supporter."

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly (it was on his show where Williams made the comment about Muslims), just said on the air that Juan will be back on The O'Reilly Factor tonight.


Our original post — "After Comments About Muslims, NPR Terminates Juan Williams' Contract":
"NPR News has terminated the contract of longtime news analyst Juan Williams after remarks he made on the Fox News Channel about Muslims," the network's David Folkenflik writes this morning. It's some of the hotter news on the Web right now.


Here's the statement NPR from CEO Vivian Schiller and Senior Vice President for News Ellen Weiss released just after midnight:

"Tonight we gave Juan Williams notice that we are terminating his contract as a Senior News Analyst for NPR News.

"Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years and we did not make this decision lightly or without regret. However, his remarks on The O’Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a News Analyst with NPR.

"We regret these circumstances and thank Juan Williams for his many years of service to NPR and public radio."

As for what Juan said on O'Reilly, as David writes:

"O'Reilly has been looking for support for his own remarks on a recent episode of ABC's The View in which he directly blamed Muslims for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Co-hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off the set in the middle of his appearance.

"Williams responded: 'Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.'

"Williams also warned O'Reilly against blaming all Muslims for 'extremists,' saying Christians shouldn't be blamed for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh."

Conservative bloggers and commentators, such as Michelle Malkin, are weighing in. She says NPR "caved into left-wing attack dogs." From the left, Salon's Glenn Greenwald sees what Juan said as "anti-Muslim bigotry."

NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard has previously blogged about "Juan Williams, NPR and Fox News" and that he has been a "lightning rod" for things he's said while providing commentary on Fox. We won't be surprised if Alicia writes about Juan's termination in coming days. You can send comments to her here.

Juan told David late last night that he isn't ready yet to talk about what's happened.

U.S Immigration Law and Arizona

Hello:

And welcome to “Race Relations”. A new blog that will this week be examining Arizona’s get tough stance on illegal immigration. Arizona’s decision to finally enforce immigration laws that were already on the books has set off a fire storm of debate, protest and controversy from those that are here in this country illegally. Before we examine the cons (arguments against this law) let’s first take a look at the law. (Click to view law) There has been a steady steam of un-documented workers coming up from Mexico and Central and South America for years, and Arizona is fed up with the drugs and human trafficking, strain on hospitals, welfare systems and schools. The economic, social, and political aspects of immigration have caused controversy regarding ethnicity, economic benefits, jobs for non -immigrants, settlement patterns, impact on upward social mobility, crime, and voting behavior. As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.

What is Illegal Immigration? Illegal immigration to the United States refers to the act of foreign nationals violating U.S. immigration policies and national laws by entering or remaining in the United States without proper permission from the United States government. The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007. According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe; and 4% were from the rest of the world. The actual size and the origin of the Illegal immigrant population in the United States is uncertain and hard to ascertain because of difficulty in accurately counting individuals in this population. National surveys, administrative data and other sources of information provide inaccurate measures of the size of the illegal immigrant population and current estimates based on this data indicate that the current population may range from 7 million to 20 million.

What Qualifies a Person as an Illegal Immigrant? People become illegal immigrants in one of three ways: by entering without authorization or inspection, by staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry, or by violating the terms of legal entry. Their mode of violation breaks down as follows: If the suspect entered legally without inspection, then the suspect would be classified as either a “Non-Immigrant Visa Overstayer” (4 to 5.5 million) or a “Border Crossing Card Violator” (250,000 to 500,000). If the suspect entered illegally without inspection, then the suspect would be classified as having “Evaded the Immigration Inspectors and Border Patrol” (6 to 7 million).

Many people are charged with illegally re-entering the United States after being previously deported. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines prescribe up to a 16-level offense level increase, potentially causing more than a quadrupling of one's sentence, for illegal re-entry of certain felons into the U.S. The PROTECT Act instructed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to authorize four-level "fast-track" downward departures in illegal-reentry immigration cases upon motion of the prosecutor.

President Obama condemns the passing of SB 1070, and urges Arizona governor Jan Brewer to immediately rescind the law. The law provides a record level of legal impunity for profiling individuals based purely on their physical appearance. I am a black American and I have been profiled all of my life and it still goes on to this day, and the laws are set up to allow this behavior, so, I no longer have a problem with it. But with this new legislation, the almost 2 million Americans and legal residents of Hispanic descent run the risk of being targeted and stopped by the police, and will be given zero means of recourse against such actions, SO. It is a recipe for civic antagonism; it tears local communities apart instead of finding common sense solutions to solve problems.

The argument against SB 1070 is said to be fiscally irresponsible. At a time when Arizona’s state and local governments are $37 billion in debt, SB 1070 has pitted Arizonan consumers against each other, creating a hostile business environment. Until SB 1070 is repealed, Democrats have urged its members and Americans of conscience to flex their spending muscle, and refrain from investing money in Arizona until the law is repealed.

                                           http://www.youtube.com/v/5LXkeZJgCx4

What are some of the dangers of a porous border? "The continued failure to devise and implement a sound and sustainable immigration policy threatens to weaken America’s economy, to jeopardize its diplomacy, and to imperil its national security," concludes a new Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Independent Task Force co-chaired by former Florida governor Jeb Bush and former White House chief of staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty.

"The stakes are too high to fail," says the report. "If the United States continues to mishandle its immigration policy, it will damage one of the vital underpinnings of American prosperity and security, and could condemn the country to a long, slow decline in its status in the world." For this reason, the report urges: "The United States needs a fundamental overhaul of its immigration laws."

• U.S. Immigration Policy contends that America has reaped tremendous benefits from opening its doors to immigrants, as well as to students, skilled employees and others who may only live in the country for shorter periods of time. But it warns that “the continued inability of the United States to develop and enforce a workable system of immigration laws threatens to undermine these achievements."

Directed by CFR Senior Fellow Edward Alden, the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy reflects the consensus of a bipartisan group of eminent leaders in the fields of immigration policy, homeland security, education, labor, business, academia and human rights. The group urges Congress and the Obama administration to move ahead with immigration reform legislation that achieves three critical goals:

o Reforms the legal immigration system so that it operates more efficiently, responds more accurately to labor market needs, and enhances U.S. competitiveness;

o Restores the integrity of immigration laws through an enforcement regime that strongly discourages employers and employees from operating outside that legal system, secures America’s borders, and levies significant penalties against those who violate the rules;

o Offers a fair, humane, and orderly way to allow many of the roughly twelve million migrants currently living illegally in the United States to earn the right to remain legally.

According to the report, the high level of illegal immigration in the country is increasingly damaging to U.S. national interests—"[it] diminishes respect for the law, creates potential security risks, weakens labor rights, strains U.S. relations with its Mexican neighbor, and unfairly burdens public education and social services in many states."

But it contends that "no enforcement effort will succeed properly unless the legal channels for coming to the United States can be made to work better." Therefore, "the U.S. government must invest in creating a working immigration system that alleviates long and counterproductive backlogs and delays, and ensures that whatever laws are enacted by Congress are enforced thoroughly and effectively."

The Task Force lays out a series of concrete, realistic recommendations for legislation and administrative reforms that would be part of an immigration policy that better serves America’s national interests:

-Comprehensive immigration reform: A new effort to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill should be a first-tier priority for the Obama administration and Congress, and should be started without delay.

-Attracting skilled immigrants: The United States must tackle head-on the growing competition for skilled immigrants from other countries, and make the goal of attracting such immigrants a central component of its immigration policy. The report urges an end to the hard caps on employment-based immigrant visas and skilled work visas in favor of a more flexible system, the elimination of strict nationality quotas, and new opportunities for foreign students earning advanced degrees to remain in the United States after they graduate.

-National security: The Task Force calls for minimizing visa restrictions that impede scientific collaboration, noting that America’s long-term security depends on maintaining its place as a world leader in science and technology. The administration should also permit a broader effort by the U.S. military to recruit recent immigrants who are not yet citizens or green card holders, so as to bolster U.S. military capabilities.

-Employer enforcement: The Task Force supports a mandatory system for verifying those who are authorized to work in the United States, including a workable and reliable biometric verification system with secure documents. Tougher penalties should be levied against those who refuse to comply. It calls employer enforcement "the single most effective and humane enforcement tool available to discourage illegal migration."

-Simplifying, streamlining, and investing in the immigration system: Congress and the Obama administration should establish a high-level independent commission to make recommendations for simplifying the administration and improving the transparency of U.S. immigration laws. The government must redouble its efforts to reduce backlogs and other unnecessary delays by investing in the personnel and technology necessary for handling visa and immigration applications efficiently.



-Improving America’s image abroad: The administration and Congress should launch a comprehensive review of the current security-related restrictions on travel to the United States, with an eye toward lifting restrictions that do not significantly reduce the risk of terrorists or criminals entering the country.

-Border enforcement: The report favors the full implementation of the Secure Border Initiative to gain greater operational control of the country’s borders. It also calls for the expansion of “smart border” initiatives that use information technologies and targeting tools to help distinguish individuals who may pose a security risk to the United States while facilitating easier entry by the vast majority of legitimate visitors and immigrants.

-State and local enforcement: State and local police forces can and should be used to augment federal immigration enforcement capabilities, as long as this does not interfere with their core mission of maintaining safety and security in the communities they serve.

-Earned legalization: The Task Force favors a policy of earned legalization, not amnesty, for many of the illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. The DREAM Act, reintroduced in the 111th Congress, provides the right model by requiring that young people without status who wish to remain in the United States must attend college or perform military service and demonstrate good moral character in order to earn their eligibility for permanent residence.



Upholding American values: The report identifies three areas that need immediate and serious review—incarceration policies, the severe penalties for minor immigration and criminal violations, and policies on refugees and asylees—and offers steps to address them, including:

o Expand the use of alternatives to detention, such as ankle bracelets or monitoring parolees.

o Allow greater discretion in implementing some of the penalties that were previously passed by Congress, such as the mandatory three, five, and ten year bars for many returning deportees.

o Create an office within the Department of Homeland Security that is responsible for refugee protection, and give greater priority for refugee issues throughout the Department of Homeland Security and in the White House.

The consensus on the bipartisan Task Force around these issues demonstrates that progress on immigration can be achieved. The report concludes that "the United States has the understanding, the capabilities, and the incentives to move forward and create a more intelligent, better functioning immigration system that will serve the country’s interests. It is time to get on with the job."

    Here we have a law professor giving a more in-depth explanation:

                                    http://www.youtube.com/v/HmFaZNl7Wr0

      The tense legal environment has set yet another stage for Amnesty; Well, What is Amnesty? Amnesty is a legislative or executive act by which a state restores those who may have been guilty of an offense against it to the positions of innocent people. It includes more than pardon, inasmuch as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense. Amnesty is more and more used to express 'freedom' and the time when prisoners can go free.




Purposes

An amnesty may be extended when the authority decides that bringing citizens into compliance with a law is more important than punishing them for past offenses. Amnesty is often used to get people to turn in contraband, as in the case of China's gun restrictions, or the Kansas City ban on pit bulls. Advantage of using amnesty may include avoiding expensive prosecutions (especially when massive numbers of violators are involved); prompting violators to come forward who might otherwise have eluded authorities; and promoting reconciliation between offenders and society. An example of the latter was the amnesty that was granted to conscientious objectors and draft dodgers in the wake of the Vietnam War in the 1970s, in an effort by President Carter to heal war wounds.[4]

Controversy

Amnesty can at times raise questions of justice. An example was the Ugandan government's offer to not prosecute alleged war criminal Joseph Kony, in hopes that further bloodshed would be avoided. David Smock noted, "The downside of it is the impunity that it implies; that people can commit atrocities and say that they will only stop if they are given amnesty..."

A controversial issue in the United States is whether illegal immigrants should be granted some form of amnesty. It is proposed that illegal immigrants be able to come forward and immediately receive probationary status. This is criticized as being a reward for breaking the law.

Related uses of the term

• The term amnesty is also any initiative where individuals are encouraged to turn over illicit items to the authorities, on the understanding that they will not be prosecuted for having been in possession of those items. A common use of such amnesties, is to reduce the number of firearms or other weapons in circulation. Several public schools with a zero-tolerance policy on drugs or weapons have an "amnesty box" in which students may dispose of contraband objects brought to school without consequence.

• Amnesty was used in South Africa, during the 1990s, as part of the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation)

• In the illegal immigration debate, allowing illegal immigrants to legally remain in the United States is often called amnesty. Some observers contend that the word amnesty is improperly applied here. One reason for this contention is that the proposals under consideration include financial penalties for illegal immigrants. Another reason is that the government's current practice is generally to deport but not to prosecute illegal immigrants and there is sometimes no legal adjudication of "guilt" to be forgiven.

• Many libraries have an amnesty week where people can return late library books and they will not be charged a fine for having them out.

• At the United States Military Academy and the United States Naval Academy, any head of state visiting the academy may ask the Superintendent to grant amnesty to members of the Corps of Cadets with outstanding punishment tours, freeing the restricted cadets from further punishment tours. In the past this was for all offenses, but in recent times only cadets with minor offenses (company board) are eligible for amnesty, while cadets with major offenses (regimental or higher board) are ineligible.

Improper uses of the term

• Describing a change in a law which renders innocent actions which previously broke the law. For example, raising the road speed limit from 55 to 70 is not 'amnesty', even though those who have always driven at 65 may now do so innocently; this is simply changing the law, which is the job of lawmakers. Genuine amnesty is where a particular group of lawbreakers are pardoned for past violations which would otherwise be subject to prosecution.

• Referring to impose lesser sentences or punishments that are not "more than pardon, inasmuch as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense" as amnesty.

• Often wrongly or purposely used by politicians and/or journalists to denote cases of pardon where offenses are not stricken from the record and individuals proclaimed innocent. Instead, those individuals receive some lesser reprimand or sentence in response to an admission of guilt. Otherwise defined as an act of leniency but not amnesty.