Arizona Officials: Obama’s “Backdoor Amnesty” Is “Destruction of Rule of Law”

Arizona officials reacted to Obama’s backdoor amnesty.

Arizona officials told reporters today that Barack Obama’s “backdoor amnesty” is “destruction of the rule of law.”
The Herald reported:

“It’s a pre-emptive strike against Senate Bill 1070. The timing is unbelievable,” Brewer said.

The Republican governor also said the change means that hundreds of thousands of people will be eligible for work permits and will compete with Americans and legal immigrants for jobs.

Brewer, who recently ordered police regulators to re-issue training material on implementing the Arizona law, said state officials will study the implications of Obama’s move.

“The crux of Senate Bill 1070, of course, is documentation, and what he has done by his announcement today is he’s going to give documentation to nearly a million people that have arrived in our country illegally and not by the rule of law.”

Both Brewer and Former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, the chief sponsor of the Arizona law and now president of the Ban Amnesty Now group, characterized the change as a “backdoor amnesty.”

“The effect is just the destruction of the rule of law,” said Pearce, who was upset by Obama’s announcement. “It’s a slap in the face to those who come here legally. It’s a slap in the face to the rule of law.”

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) threatened to sue the Obama Administration over their backdoor amnesty.

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • Pingback: Arizona Officials: Obama’s “Backdoor Amnesty” Is “Destruction of Rule of Law”|PolitifreakPolitifreak()

  • Rachelle

    So the moron decides to bypass Congress and stop enforcing the law.

    If the Sup Ct hasn’t decided in favor of Arizona, this is a clear signal to them tochange their minds and allow the States to enforce immigration laws. The Obama administration won’t do it.

  • Pingback: Arizona Officials: Obama’s “Backdoor Amnesty” Is “Destruction of Rule of Law”()

  • bg


    hey, it’s a free world!!

    what, that ain’t so??

    damn you America!!

    /gah!! sarc/


  • bg


    imho, a great read..

    Remember The Constitution?

    [And though any violation of core American principles should be troubling no matter why it happened, it’s worth considering the “why”of this situation. Obama was not stepping into a Constitutional grey area in order to protect Americans from an imminent threat. This was not a decision he was forced into. Today the fundamental beliefs of our founding fathers were tossed aside, simply to win the president a few Hispanic votes.

    The depth of cynicism behind this betrayal is, in my mind, nearly as bad as the betrayal itself. When one man’s political ploy is more important than the constitution, the rule of law and the separation of powers, what can you call that man other than a tyrant? If the danger facing this country wasn’t clear to you before, it should be now.]


  • Blacque Jacques Shellacque

    “The timing is unbelievable,”

    Why unbelievable?

    What makes anyone think that there is anything beyond this abomination of an administration?

  • FedUp

    Although it may be too late (if Romney wins), I think there should be impeachment proceedings against King Hussein Kardashian! If nothing else, it would be a giant distraction and drive Barky even more nutz than he already is!

  • bg


    ht Valerie #56

    June 15, 2012

    Mr. President: U.S. Latinos Respect the Constitution, Too

    [Obama’s crackdown was likely payback to his union supporters,
    who don’t like illegals very much: the sentiment was expressed
    long ago by Cesar Chavez, who famously referred to illegals as
    “human contraband” in congressional testimony. But when the
    Latino community cried foul over the deportations and the
    press got wind, the deportations stopped.


    I laugh when liberals try to convince me of George W. Bush’s supposed
    imperialism and lawlessness. And I have news for our president: not
    all Latinos are ignorant of the law; in fact, we American Latinos cherish
    our nation of laws. Some of us have studied our countries of origin, and
    now recognize when narcissistic thugs who sport the title “president”
    make unilateral decisions contradictory to established law or even their
    own prior claims.

    I caution Mr. Obama not to believe the cover of Time magazine featuring
    illegals that arrogantly proclaims: “We are Americans. Just not legally.” It
    takes more to be an American than simply declaring yourself one.

    The people of the world do not have a right to be an American. There is
    a process, as cumbersome as it is, to achieve that goal. It is my hope
    that legal U.S. Latinos will insist that the process of legal immigration be
    streamlined, while simultaneously insisting on the rule of law in the interim.

    Legal Latinos value the rule of law as codified in
    the Constitution. It’s part of being an American.

    Amen & thank you..


  • Buffalobob

    Raul Grijalva, our beloved La Raza activists stated it is a step in the right direction, does he mean the direction of radical La Raza supporters who want the whole South Western US turned into a separate Aztlan” — a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs.

  • StrangernFiction

    Here is Mitt’s severely conservative reaction to Barry’s dictatorial action:

    Heads they win, tails we lose.

  • Andrew X

    Should not Arizona enforce the law as if the President never spoke? Just ignore him entirely? If the Feds are not happy, let them take it to court, and if they respond in some other way to twist Arizona’s arm, then let Arizona bring the case. Either way, if the president is acting outside his authority, should not that authority simply be ignored?

    I’ve been pretty proudly Union blue in a host of civil war discussions – an ancestor served with the Connecticut artillery at Gettysburg. But, boy howdy, do I find myself getting all statsey-rightsey of late. I’d say it’s time for states to come up with a clearly defined constitutional case, clearly spelled out for all to read and disseminate, of just what they think is (and more importantly, is not) the proper role of the Federal government, and then simply act accordingly on that case, and dare the Feds to try to force them to do otherwise.

    Simply put, we can accuse Barack I of being an ultimate totalitarian all we want, but in the end, I flat out don’t think he has the balls to light the kind of firestorm that would rise if he sincerely tried to put the hurt on a state acting under such an aegis.

    And it almost seems as though we are already inching toward that precipice, step by step, this and the Florida voter registration issue as examples.

  • lizzy84

    What oBama did yesterday is the move of a pure tyrant. There’s just no way to mask it as anything else. What will he do next? Declare suspending the fairness doctrine is the “right thing to do for Americans” and shut down radio stations or leak more information to our enemies to make himself look good? It’s time to bring this to a stop. The GOP needs to start the process of impeachment investigations. This pResident is out of control.

    If you haven’t contacted your Senators and Congressmen, here’s the links:

  • BS61

    I am unfortunate to live in hot AZ because I have work. This is the only thing Jan Brewer has going for her. A true conservative would never raise taxes or Veto the right to buy healhcare across state lines. I will never vote for her!

  • There’s no way a 30 year old was a child who has gone to school here soon after they got here, obviously has been here for five years, now is legal to work? That’s amnesty, plain and simple. Okay let’s back it up. The illegal is 25, has been here for five years, that would mean they got here when they were 20. That’s not a child, like a little kid who went to elementary school, junior high, high school, graduated, has been working or in college, somehow, or the military, and got out on a honorable discharge, is now legal to work? That’s amnesty any way you look at it. And again the kid comes here when they were ten, somehow they made it through school, or have been on the street and were never in trouble is now eligible to work? That’s amnesty there’s just no other way to look at it, Obama is a dictator who calls the shots.

    He says Congress still has time to pass the “Dream Act” ? What does that mean? Why should they wait, Obama has almost passed three fouths of it already. All they have to do is just wait a couple more months after the Obama administration checks out to see if Obama got a bounce from this illegal move he just made, and then he’ll probably go ahead and pass the rest of it.


  • BS61

    #7 June 16, 2012 FedUp commented: Sorry, Romney’s reply was a typical wimp answer that actually agreed with Obama!

    I’ll vote for him over our current Communist in Cheif, but a RINO is not the answer. Trust me, we Tea types can be relentless as I proved calling wimp McConnell’s office daily. His staff would ask me if I’m in his district, I said no, but he’s screwing all American’s s I’ll stop calling when he stops!

  • Pingback: Arizona Officials: Obama’s “Backdoor Amnesty” Is “Destruction of Rule of Law” | The Navigator()

  • aprilnovember811

    Obama’s dictate should be ignored. It’s illegal.
    June 16, 2012
    If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached
    Michael Filozof

    If the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal aliens.
    Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states that “Congress shall have the Power To… establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of illegals.
    The role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama’s refusal to execute Congress’s immigration laws (or, for that matter, Congress’s Defense of Marriage Act) is an impeachable offense. Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for… Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, “treason,” and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be considered “bribery.”
    In theory, Obama could exercise his power in Article II, Sec 2. to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States” and offer a blanket pardon for all violators of immigration law. He’s not doing that, because he’d certainly lose in November if he did. (However we should be concerned that if he does lose in November, he’ll do it anyway on his last day in office).
    The upshot of Obama’s policy not only to allow hundreds of thousands of illegals to live and work in the U.S. during a time of 8 to 10% unemployment, but even worse, since the vast number of illegals we’re talking about are Hispanics eligible for affirmative-action preferences, to actually get preferential treatment over native-born Americans.
    Remember Obama’s speech in Berlin in 2008? Well, now you know what “citizen of the world” means: instituting an illegal and unconstitutional policy that favors Third Worlders, and disadvantages people actually born as U.S. citizens.
    Of course, he’ll get away with it… if you think the gutless Republicans in the House actually represent the interests of their native born constituents and will introduce articles of impeachment, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you….

    Read more:

  • aprilnovember811

    Andrew X,
    You’re right. If Congress is complicit in this, by doing nothing about him, like impeaching him, it should be ignored. He’s telling Border Agents and ICE Agents to break the law. Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio have failed miserably in their response to this. I don’t like either of them, and no longer trust Rubio, since he obviously condones high crimes and misdemeanors.

  • aprilnovember811

    Is he going to arm these illegals to take on American citizens? Is he going to issue a dictate that they vote? The Republicans who don’t stop him are breaking the law by not stopping him.

  • Repubs are never going to win Hispanics… no matter what we do.
    BUT, if we lose the immigration battle, a flood of left voting Hispanics will empower an absolute open borders policy. No kidding. A de facto merger with Mexico. Borders without guards. Once the Hispanics, and white liberal allies, gain a
    democratic stronghold, they’ll tilt the playing field, and America as we know it is done. Stand up, it’s now or never.

  • Valerie

    This administration is stuck on only one type of solution, namely to throw enormous amounts of funds at its supporters, regardless of whether those funds will be effective to address the intended purpose. The only way this makes sense is if the purpose is to loot the treasury.

    If one’s purpose is to address the problem of illegal immigration in this country, then the rule making power of the Federal government, which need not be expensive, is the better solution.

    We need to address the hole left in our last update of our immigration laws, namely the failure, at Ted Kennedy’s insistence, to include a Guest Worker provision.

    In my opinion, the assumption that all immigrants must necessarily desire citizenship in this country has been both untrue and pernicious, yielding perverse effects to the disadvantage of both temporary immigrants and our country. The last legislation was defective because it avoided establishing a guest worker program designed to deal with a large subset of our current illegal immigrant population.

    Our current immigration policy has the perverse results of encouraging workers who intend only temporary employment to come here illegally, and then bottling them up in our country once they get here. Our immigration enforcement system is clogged with relatively harmless people, and therefore is less able to focus on either real criminals or terrorists.

    That is, our immigration laws have failed to accommodate the needs of people who simply want to work here a while and then go home. The advantages of acknowledging the legitimate aspirations of these people could be significant for the Republican party, providing a solid answer to a heretofore effective canard from the Democratic party, and returning a substantial slice of (among others) very conservative Hispanic voters to what they could come to recognize as their natural home party.

    The United States has long operated as a safety valve for poor-quality economies of various countries, especially those to our south. As a result, we have been getting their most desperate, vigorous and determined people, who send money home. These funds are significant, and they go where they are needed, and to people who will use them well. This is trickle-down economics at its finest, and we should consider the implications of this avenue of influence.

    People who come here to this country to work are already primed to learn our system, and they tend to soak up our ideas. If we make is easy for them to go home when they want to, they will take our ideas and some added financial clout back with them. I think a guest worker program, constructed with adequate safeguards against abuse, would be very helpful to encourage both political and economic reform in countries that need it very badly, and should be considered as an aspect of our foreign aid.

    I have seen how this Americanization process works through my long-standing association with my clients who are researchers with PhDs, and I have no doubt that the same principles will apply to vigorous, adventurous people of lesser means. When people have worked here long enough, they return home with different ideas, and their friends and families think of them as Americans (without any change of citizenship). We should make it the policy of the United States to welcome temporary foreign workers, and export Americans.

  • lynno

    Watch the border, 30 and under ,come on in, you don’t have to leave,foodstamps,healthcare,and work permit are here for you. Where is the outrage from bone here latinos who teenagers need a summer job. This is a lawless administration, I was 17 teen when I came home to Nixon waving goodbye!! Maybe we will see this before Nov.2012. STAND UP AMERICA, I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!!!!!

  • “A world without borders.”
    “Citizens of the world.”
    “Level the playing field.”

    Anybody see a pattern here?

  • Pingback: » Arizona Officials: Obama's “Backdoor Amnesty” Is “Destruction of …()

  • jainphx

    Grijalva is known as the filthy old goat here abouts. We have film of him urinating in public, and make sure you are up wind from the smelly old goat.

  • lizzy84

    There are many true American Hispanics here in my community who are as outraged by oBama’s ‘rule by decree’ as US citizens are. These are decent, hard-working people who came here the right way and struggled with the process, sometimes for years, to become legal. They stand to lose their jobs and feel he’s spit on them too. They also embrace a deep respect for the rule of law and are very troubled by their pResident’s blatant disregard for it.

  • sandy

    And what happens to the more than 50% of young black Americans who are jobless and if they had a dream it died long ago? Once again, Obama thinks only about what’s best for him and not what’s best for the American people. And those black voters are in the bag for the big BO so he feels comfortable ignoring them and their needs.

  • bg


    just fyi:

    Illegal Immigration

    [Romney vetoed a bill in 2004 that would have allowed illegal immigrants to obtain in-state tuition rates at state colleges if they graduated from a Massachusetts high school after attending it for at least three years and signed an affidavit affirming that they intended to seek citizenship. Romney argued that the bill would cost the state government $15 million and that Massachusetts should not reward illegal immigration. A study by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation predicted that the legislation would generate over $5 million in state revenues; the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform disputed this conclusion. In 2005, the bill was reintroduced to the House and brought to a vote on 11 January 2006. The legislation was defeated 96-57.

    On December 2, 2006, it was reported that a landscaping company Romney contracted to perform yard work at his home had been suspected of employing illegal immigrants. Romney said that he was unaware of the immigration status of the company’s employees. A year later it was revealed that the same company was still using illegal immigrants to work on Romney’s estate. After this second backlash, Romney fired the landscape company.

    Later in December 2006, Romney signed an agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency that would have allowed Massachusetts State Police troopers to arrest and seek deportation of suspected illegal immigrants they encounter over the course of their normal duties. Under the terms of the agreement, a group of 30 troopers would have received specialized training allowing them to question and detain suspected illegal immigrants, charge them with a violation of immigration law and place them in removal proceedings.

    The executive order pertaining to state police was consistent with Section 287(g) of federal immigration law. Section 287(g) is a program of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that deputizes state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration matters.

    The agreement was never implemented because governor-elect Deval
    Patrick, who had expressed strong opposition to the agreement before
    it was signed, revoked it a month later when he was sworn in.


  • bg


    meximom #23 June 16, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    why yes, not only saw it when first i heard the name
    Obama, but have been posting about it ever since..

    (btw, that was just a wee sample, but am sure you knew that.. ;-))


  • sandy

    Seems nobody is standing up for the Constitution as Obama shreds it for his own benefit. If Godforbid he did get another term would he tell us that pesky elections are too confusing for ordinary Americans and that at great sacrifice to himself and his family he would be staying on as President until the nation meets the criteria the rest of the world has set for us.

  • Blacque Jacques Shellacque

    Repubs are never going to win Hispanics… no matter what we do.

    The only Latinos that would be attracted to conservative parties are successful professionals who moved up the ladder through their own hard work. Most of those types are usually American-born. I knew someone like that once.

    The rest of them want things from government for little to nothing and/or are racist to some degree.

  • sandy

    BG #28 Very interesting report and also very depressing because the Libs are always waiting in the wings to destroy anything sensible.

  • Pingback: Arizona Officials: Obama’s “Backdoor Amnesty” Is “Destruction of Rule of Law” | Liberal Whoppers()

  • bg


    you know what..

    Romney is running to fix the economy for ALL..

    Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc, would fare well to heed that issue,
    and toss the divisive color, creed, class and credential cards issues aside,
    abortion, immigration, etc, are important, and should bode well for White,
    Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc, Romney votes as it is.. jmho


  • lizzy84

    Also..whether this outlaw wins {God forbid} or loses, be prepared for what he’s got in store for us:

  • bg


    lizzy84 #35 June 16, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    thank you..

    sad, truly sad..

    we are NOT a well informed people.. 🙁

    scroll for more here & here..


  • Valerie

    Congratulations, Texas Republicans, for adopting a guest worker program as part of its platform

    If the Federal Government won’t do its job, then the states have to do it. With respect to our immigration laws, the Federal Government has failed to amend our laws and also failed to enforce them.

    Some people think these laws are “amnesty” and others think they “create a permanent underclass.” Given the current administration’s tendency to invent Orwellian misdescriptions as names for its legislation, I submit that any such legislation must be read by the voters before it is passed.

    Utah adopts Guest Worker Program

  • Blacque Jacques Shellacque

    Also..whether this outlaw wins {God forbid} or loses, be prepared for what he’s got in store for us:

    With some initial looking around, one of the first things I saw when searching was this:

    “The Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,…”

    My immediate reaction is to toss it outright. Any agreement that has anything to do with the UN should be just discarded out of hand, because the U.S. is more likely than not to lose something in the process.

  • lizzy84


    thanks for the links.

    sovereignty..who needs it, huh?

  • bg


    #38 June 16, 2012 at 4:13 pm
    Blacque Jacques Shellacque

    well then read this..

    [“The whole theory of the treaty is that the world’s oceans and
    everything below them are the common heritage of mankind.
    Very socialist.”
    – Steven Groves, Heritage Foundation.

    China’s military is ‘going global’, UN correspondent
    John J. Metzler wrote
    yesterday in The China Post[..]

    and much more..


  • bg


    Valerie #37 June 16, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    albeit i haven’t read (absorbed) it all as yet, thanks for the info..

    and again albeit might be confused, i thought Gov.
    Perry signed on to the Dream Act long time ago..

    if i recollect correctly, we not only eventually agreed on and understood
    the Bush immigration policy, but couldn’t understand why so many Reps
    were describing it (along with the MSM er al) as amnesty..

    yet once again, imho, time has proved Bush was right..

    but that won’t stop Obama from blaming him for distorting everything from
    a to z in order to rule over his Kingdom.. of which i’m certain the MSM et
    al would love be subjects of, they had just better be careful of what they
    wish for, they just might get it, especially when they least expect it..


  • Valerie


    Dream Acts have nothing to do with a guest worker program. A guest worker program, for example, is merely a set of regulations that allow people to be gainfully employed while temporarily living here, as opposed to providing them a taxpayer subsidy as an incentive to move here and stay here.

    Legislation is tricky. You have to follow it through the amendment process, if you want to know what’s in the bill.

    So far the Utah law has survived an attempt at repeal, and the state is laying the groundwork for enforcement, as well. The only reason Utah has this law is because the Feds are neither righting the laws nor enforcing them.

    so, Holder has threatened to sue. (Nobody has asked him yet, if he has read the law)

    Anybody heard yet about the California Opportunity and Prosperity Act? Me, either

    Here’s a web page that is an example of how to support a piece of legislation. Note that it has a copy of the entire text of the legislation easily available.

  • freedom_AZ

    For being known as a nation of laws we sure are quick to ignore the laws. What’s next, it’s okay for the parents to stay here because they have to take care of their children? My answer is for the great state of Arizona to thumb their collective noses at this overbearing federal government. Gov. Brewer should immediately demand all federal officials to leave the state as they are stomping on our sovereignty as afforded under the 10th amendment of the United States.
    Another answer would be to deport the parents and I’m sure the children would be soon to follow.
    The federal government does this under their misrepresentation of the 14th amendment which was put into place after the civil war to grant citizenship to the freed slaves. This has been morphed into the anchor baby issue which does not fit the elements of this amendment at all.
    Once again it’s time to draw that line in the sand and determine whether we all want to be governed by Washington D.C. or do we want to actually have states rights.

  • mcc

    Four more years and nothing to fear, folks…Nothing at all.

    McConnell was flabbergasted by remarks made by David Axelrod, the president’s senior campaign adviser, who told an audience in New York on Wednesday that Obama would “use whatever tools out there, including a constitutional amendment” to turn back the Supreme Court ruling that opened the way for super PACs to play a prominent role in elections.

    “This has never been done before — in 235 years — to make it possible for the government to control political speech in this country — a truly radical, astonishing thing to say out loud even if you believed it,” said the top Republican in the Senate, who participated in a legal challenge that helped make super PACs possible.

  • jainphx

    We sit here on the edge of the precipice of losing our country, how did we get here?

    1) ignorance of the left.
    2) a willful accomplice in the MSM
    3) the timidness of some on our side
    4) the refusal to see the truth when wearing rose colored glasses.

    Of the above the media has done an excellent job of misdirection, but we are finally waking up. Sarah Palin had a great line in her speech to the new media. She said we have a new media that comes from freedom and fights the liars from sameold crapistan. How I wish we were having her as the leader of the ticket

  • DomesticGoddess
  • In this interview, Rep. Grijalva says President Obama is forced to implement the DREAM Act by executive diktat because “people like Gov. Brewer” wouldn’t let the Congress pass the law. I’m not sure he knows how our American system works. Grijalva might be more at home in a system where political opposition and the opposition party are illegal.

  • Pingback: The Greatest Obumbler the World Has Ever Known — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami()

  • bg
  • bg


    re: #49 June 16, 2012 at 10:00 pm bg

    more links..


  • Blacque Jacques Shellacque

    Grijalva might be more at home in a system where political opposition and the opposition party are illegal.

    I’m sure he’d relish being a Politburo member.

  • This will bite Obama in the butt… amnesty to those brought here by their parents will only make it easier to round up the parents and deport them…

  • Blacque Jacques Shellacque

    …will only make it easier to round up the parents and deport them…

    Don’t count on it.

    Attempting to deport the illegal alien parents of illegal alien kids will only have the leftists and the RINOs screeching about breaking up families.

    They will always have some kind of excuse for not upholding our immigration laws.

  • aprilnovember811

    “The Republican governor also said the change means that hundreds of thousands of people will be eligible for work permits and will compete with Americans and legal immigrants for jobs.”

    This is not a law. I would proceed with what I planned on doing. This is a violation of the law. When the Supreme Court rules that you can secure your borders, do just that. What Obama has done, is not legal. You don’t have to abide by an illegal law. It’s time for the Gov. to start telling him they won’t comply with a law that is not passed legitimately.

  • Pingback: Dictator-in-Chief Now Ruling Completely By Unchecked, Unconstitutional Abuses Of Executive Power()

  • spankyster84

    I love the comment from the woman “many familys are scared to go to the grocery store cause of the laws” … THERE NOT SUPPSOED TO BE HERE !!!!
    maybe that is why they are afraid, to be deported and rightfully so..they are breaking our laws and you want to give them a free pass to do it! it makes me sick! i can’t believe the endless supply of the same arguments when it comes to this topic to. it always reverts back to people that can see Illegal immigration is WRONG as being some racist. than you start hearing the same tired argument “your white european go back to your country” or the famous “you stole the natives land” 1st and foremost, my family came here before it was even a formed country and the ones that came from Ireland…passed ellis island, got immunizations, paid thier dues and got citizenship …LEGALY! as for the second argument we did not take “thier land” as natives immigrated to what is now America from the asias! than in retrospect it was not thier land was it? and what about the native tribes that helped the pilgrims turn on thier own people? I am willing to bet thats all forgot about when it comes to that argument! bottom line your illegal and need to get the hell out, not be rewarded for illegal acts…racism? i’d say the same thing to a group of white british people to!

  • Pingback: Ruksis780()