Is Ricardo Juarez An Illegal Alien?
By Greg L | 27 August 2007 | Illegal Aliens, Prince William County | 43 Comments
In today’s Washington Post, Mexicanos Sin Fronteras leader Ricardo Juarez all but admits he is an illegal alien. Given that this suspected illegal alien is trying to change our laws while being a devoted advocate of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, why hasn’t the Bureau Of Immigration and Customs Enforcement picked this guy up, and if he is indeed an illegal alien as the article suggests, deport him? Do we really need illegal alien political activists agitating for Marxism here in Prince William?
Today, Juarez and his wife, Patricia, live with Alex, his wife and their three children in a two-story Woodbridge home. A photo of early 20th-century Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata hangs in the den, casting a burning stare from beneath a large sombrero.
Zapata’s modern-day acolytes, the leftist rebels of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, have shaped Juarez’s worldview and inspired his organizational strategies — minus the ski masks and AK-47s. Although Juarez certainly does not advocate armed struggle in the Virginia suburbs, he has worked with Zapatista-affiliated activist organizations, according to Juarez and Web sites, and shares the rebel group’s contention that U.S. free-trade polices hurt Latin America’s poor and drive emigration.
C’mon, ICE. Let’s “get ‘er done” here. You got Macrina Cardinal of the Mexico Solidarity Front out of the country this year, who had been in this country illegally for 18 years.
UPDATE: Newsbusters has a fascinating take on this article:
Back in July, Washington Post reporter Nick Miroff wrote a front-page report on conservative Virginia blogger Greg Letiecq, suggesting he was a “mouse-pushing crackpot” and a “fringe extremist” for claiming, among other things, that his opponents in a local fight over illegal immigration were “unassimilated marxist radicals.” In Monday’s Post, on the front of the Metro section (at least in Virginia), Miroff has finally explored the left-wing side, specifically “Mexicans Without Borders” leader Ricardo Juarez, and acknowledges that the Marxist Zapatista Army of National Liberation “have shaped Juarez’s worldview and inspired his organizational strategies – minus the ski masks and the AK-47s.” So Letiecq was right, raising the question: why didn’t Miroff do the elementary work of testing Letiecq’s claims before he wrote up the “crackpot” story in July?
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
43 Comments
Views: 1518
Loading ...
“minus the ski masks and the AK-47s”
They may be “minus the ski masks”, but I am satisfied they are well armed.
Anyone who uses the local shooting ranges witnesses the clientele. Usually there are more people appearing to be from south of the border shooting various weapons than anyone else!
These people have told us that we are the trespassers here in our own country, that this is their land and we should be the ones to leave.
These are very dangerous people and we should not underestimate their intentions, or their capabilities.
I agree with the position that we do not need this agititor in OUR country.
Real nice bunch, take a look for yourselves…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO3MOVm3MkM
Redawn-
THAT is their bottom line!!!! Give them an inch and they will take a trip!!!
“Zapata’s modern-day acolytes, the leftist rebels of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, have shaped Juarez’s worldview and inspired his organizational strategies — minus the ski masks and AK-47s.”
Ohhh, so because they are “minus the ski masks and AK-47s”, then they are legit and ok. I REALLY don’t think so!!! If you belong to an organization that has to hide behind a mask or gun, I really have to question your legitimacy.
These are dangerous people, folks, how many law abiding Americans need to die (talk to the people who live near the border) before we put up the REAL fight.
I support the War on Terror 100%. That being said, we have another war going on and it’s right here on our soil, folks.
Mike Austin, can you explain what you mean by “these people” who are very dangerous? Do you just mean MSF? Do you mean the people at the shooting range? If the latter, is there a way you know they are illegal? Do you have any indication that they overlap with MSF? Do you have a specific reason to think MSF people are well armed beyond the fact you have heard Spanish speakers at local firing ranges.
I mean I know that some people on this list are well armed, because they advertise the fact. But why do you think the average MSF member or illegal alien is?
Please Leila,
Perhaps the reason Mike Austin thinks that that the average MSF is illegal, is because that is what the organization is all about. Because at almost every news conference they have ever had they talk about how hard working and wonderful all of thier illegal members are.
C’mon Leila, just go after the issue, not the semantics. MSF is a group of and for illigal aliens.
Manassasinsider, I wasn’t asking whether MSF members were illegal. Please read my post.
I was asking why he thinks MSF members are *armed.* He implies they are and gives as evidence noticing that numerous folks from “south of the border” are at his local shooting range. I asked how he knew THOSE people were illegal, not MSF, unless he has forgotten to tell us that the folks at his shooting range were wearing MSF or Subcommandante Marcos tshirts and face masks. I then asked why the fact he sees Spanish speakers at his shooting range represents evidence of MSF or illegal aliens being armed.
Redawn:
Do you know in what city this demonstration took place?
Greg,
The article says he lives in Woodbridge. Let’s track him down and report him to ICE.
Better yet let’s find out where he is meeting and report him to ICE or when he comes to citizen time at the BOCS meeting. Let’s have ICE waiting for him.
Leila: Do you know what circumstancial evidence means?
Mike Austin said on 27 Aug 2007 at 12:12 pm:
Redawn:
Do you know in what city this demonstration took place?
The director of the the video can be contacted at:
http://www/youtube.com/AmericanResolve
there were 2 groups in the video that I was able to spot.
Here are the Links to those groups below.
ATTENTION, ATTENTION:
THE FIRST GROUP WILL BE HERE IS DC SEPTEMBER 15TH!
check it out:
http://www.answerla.org/
http://www.mexica-movement.org/
THIS NEEDS ATTENTION
ICE is worthless, PW has thousands of clowns like this guy running around all over the cvounty….Jolly Cholly Dean won’t help, so ICE is the only alternative..
As far as Ricardo Juarez:
I ran him in PWC and found a marriage certificate.
Can anyone confirm this is him? ( wife’s name, etc) Hope this helps.
Instrument: 200506060091238 Volume Page: No Image
Recorded: 06/06/2005 Pages: 2 Vrfy: Y
Document Type: MARRIAGE LICENSE Consideration:
Bride: LOPEZ REBOLLAR, PATRICIA
Groom: JUAREZ NAVA, RICARDO
“Jolly Cholly Dean(e)?” Cracked me up. Thanks, Anonymous. Times like these need a bit of lightening up, once in a while.
But if ICE is worthless, and the Chief of Police won’t help, what’s a citizenry to do?
A thought for reflection:
Look at the picture of Ricardo Juarez in today’s WaPo
Page B6 - he is shown with the Rev. Jorge Acho
reading from, I assume, a Bible. While BVBL, like
Homer Simpson, enjoys “wailing on Unitarians” for
amusement - the 1,000 plus people who met in
Manassas were at All Saint’s Catholic Church.
A wide range of religious organizations are
addressing the issue of immigration - as they
should. What would John Paul II have done? Most
important, what will Jesus have us do?
This is a complex emotional issue, but may we all act
with good faith, intelligence, compassion and
respect for the law as we seek a solution.
anon said on 27 Aug 2007 at 1:44 pm:
GREG, THE POST ABOVE IS INCORRECT, PLEASE REMOVE BEFORE SOMEON STARTS HARRASING THESE PEOPLE.
I just re-read the WaPo and THE above, is is marriage certificate.
His Wife is Patricia and the live in Alexandria.
[Ed note: he says he lives in Woodbridge. He also married his wife in Mexico. There may be some confusion here because this is a fairly common name.]
*the above is his marriage certificate.
Stay focused, folks. Remember that Ricardo Juarez and his fellow Marxists, and the laborers at the 7-11’s who are destroying our wage structure, and the pregnant females flooding the emergency rooms, and the ESOL students sucking up our schools’ funds, are not the real enemy. Our ENEMIES are the elected reprehensibles and appointed officials who have, through their avoidance, created this problem. The Allens, the Warners, the Davis’, the Wolf’s; those are the enemy. In response to a letter I wrote to the “Honorable” Frank Wolf, asking him what he’s done about the problem of illegal aliens in his district, about all he could answer me with was a letter he wrote to Jorge about securing the border. That’s it. In over 20 years representing this district he wrote a letter! Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people are in his district who are not authorized to be there and he writes a letter. Thanks, Frank. If anyone sees this sumbitch (when he’s not visiting Africa), piss on his wingtips!
correction: lives with his brother, Alex……
“Today, Juarez and his wife, Patricia, live with Alex, his wife and their three children in a two-story Woodbridge home”
Look at the link posted by redawn,
http://www.mexica-movement.org/ ,
You will find plenty of reason for concern over the threats from the people who claim this is their land and that Americans are ALL trespassers.
I’m not so sure that these people are all as mild natured and tame, and without any consideration of forcing their intentions upon us in a violent way. I’m even not referring to the hundreds that have been murdered and killed by these people every year already.
The fact “the church” has its hands all over this issue is not helping people sort this out in this country. Nor is it helping “the church” much.
John Paul II doesn’t live here. He doesn’t have a clue what we are experiencing on a daily basis.
All Saints, i.e., the Arlington Diocese, made a mistake by not understanding what the local parishioners are thinking about these issues. “The church” is all about money and this issue has cost them.
And “the 1,000 plus people who met in Manassas …. at All Saint’s Catholic Church” to discuss and promote the overthrow of our government should be under a watchful eye. If you don’t think they are a threat to all legal persons in America then join them. If the majority of them had “compassion and respect for the law”, they would not be in this country, and thus, problems solved!
OH, and to tell you the truth, I would rather be watching Homer Simpson than dealing with this stuff.
Sorry for the long post, but this is very educational:
A VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE: http://idexer.com/citizenship.htm
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Last updated 6/2/06
We well know what federal law says on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the limits of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the Constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the Constitutions Citizenship Clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no Constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.
We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.” This can be referred to as the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone-and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term “limits” rather than “jurisdiction” since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries, reach of law or complete allegiance to the United States.
It is important to understand what the text of the clause actually says: subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not any particular State jurisdiction. This is why laws at the time were written to include both limits and jurisdiction of the United States when speaking of aliens. Take for example U.S. title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where it states: “Any alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…”
Here the law makes the distinction between simply residing in the United States and being under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This simply means that residing in the United States does not automatically put an alien under the jurisdiction of the United States. The reason mainly has to do with the fact the US Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction over a resident residing within a State - only the States themselves was given this sole jurisdictional role.
It’s also equally important to understand that there is only one path for which an alien can come under the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of citizenship: Through the process of naturalization that, among other things, requires a person to renounce all allegiance to their country of origin. The Fourteenth Amendment framers did not recognize as a matter of law that an alien giving birth to a child within the limits United States, is by itself, an act of naturalization on the part of the mother. This is because the naturalization of aliens is a process of rules set forth in naturalization laws, and not something an individual can accomplish through their own acts outside of these rules of law.
The principle behind birthright is the same as it was before and after the adoption of the 14th amendment: Only a citizen can make a citizen through the process of childbirth. Any other avenue to citizenship requires an act of naturalization under naturalization laws or perhaps, by treaty. President Lincoln’s Attorney General, Edward Bates, wrote a opinion dated November 29, 1862 that stated: “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, it is, in fact, made by them.”
We are fortuante to have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term “jurisdiction” was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
One significant highlight about what Sen. Howard says above is that he regards the clause as simply declaratory of the “law of the land already” and is a virtue of “natural law” and “national law.” Why this is significant is because some have mistakenly argued that the Citizenship Clause was somehow rooted in Common Law.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment gives us the definition of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means under the Fourteenth Amendment:
[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]
In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the “extent and quality” of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the Constitution:
[Now], all this amendment [Citizenship Clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power-for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us-shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]
No doubt in the Senate as to what the Citizenship Clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]
The reason the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was chosen for the Citizenship Clause instead of the civil rights bill language that read “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” was because Howard feared States could eventually impose a tax on Indian’s, making them eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth. Because of the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required direct allegiance to the United States, Indian’s would be disqualified because they owed their allegiance to their respective tribes which in return were considered foreign nations. In 1872 Sen. James K. Kelly sums up the clause and national law on the subject in the most clearest language that anyone could understand when he said “in order to be a citizen of the United States he must been not only be born within the United States, but born within the the allegiance of the United States.”[7]
Secretary of State Thomas Bayard addressed the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause in response to a German alien born in Ohio in 1867: “Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.”
There is little doubt over the fact there was no confusion over what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is mind boggling how anyone today can be confused over such clear language that comes with ample recorded history.
Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the “Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America,” an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…
Since 1795 the United States repetitively rejected English Common Law rules regarding citizenship to alien children born in the United States - requiring an alien seeking to become a citizen of the United States to first renounce his/her allegiance to their country of origin via an oath upon application. Note: There were two oaths of allegiance required in becoming a citizen. Of course, this very oath that unbinds an alien from his/her previous allegiance and fidelity leaves no room for dual-citizenship - but this is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government.
It’s noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth’s Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that Fourteenth Amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.
Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own homegrown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth’s Citizenship Clause when he says: “I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited.”
Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, “I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do.”
The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization - how does the court elevate Howard’s Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new Constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the Constitution.
A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the Citizenship Clause as simply “declaratory” of what they regarded “as the law of the land already.” This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard’s express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing “all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States,” and not elevating citizenship to a new protected Constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can.
James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[8]
What does it all mean?
In a nutshell, it means this: The Constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship-not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?
The framers succeeded in their desire to define what persons are, or are not, citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.
——————————————————————————–
Footnotes
[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
[2]. Id. at 2893
[3]. Id. at 2895
[4]. Id. at 2893
[5]. Id. at 2897
[6]. Id. at 1291
[7]. Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress (1872) pg. 2796
[8]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.
Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only.
His status needs to looked into. I think it’s time ICE is notified of this trouble maker and possible “illegal”!
If he’s illegal…DEPORT HIM NOW!
I just want to confirm, the above is the marriage certificate.
The article in the post confirmed his wife’s name. They reside in Woodbridge with his brother, Alex. ( sorry, for the confusion)
This marriage certificate thing is starting to look bizarre. A few years ago there was an article in the Washington Post where Ricardo talked about how he left his wife and children behind in Mexico, and hoped someday to return to them. Then we have this marriage certificate which pops up in Prince William County. There may be a perfectly understandable reason for this, or we may have two different people involved here with the same name.
We’re going to have to dig a little bit here and find out what the truth is. Something’s fishy.
Monticup, yes I know what circumstantial evidence is and Mike Austin didn’t provide any. He took one group, MSF, and implied they are all armed because another group, totally random “south of the border” people at his shooting range, are all armed.
He established no tie whatsoever between the two groups except their south-of-the-borderness, unless, again, he forgot to mention all the Spanish-speaking shooters were wearing MSF or SM tshirts or had set up targets with HSM on them or something. I am not saying that it is impossible that MSF members are armed. I am saying that Mike Austin posted things linked in a very uncompelling way that don’t remotely meet even a colloquial standard of circumstantial evidence, unless language and nationality is all you need. Perhaps it is.
I would like to look into “possible name changes”….his brother Alex? I would like to know his brother’s full name.
or there may be a third explanation — bigamy. Just a theory.
Also, on a related topic, this week’s Friday Night Video Fights champion was Genesis’ “Illegal Alien.”
http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/friday-night-video-fights-week-5-results/
redawn and lafayette: LOL I pulled the license, too, and emailed Greg early this afternoon to get info to do the investigation LOL Great minds wander in the same direction. So you all have answered that question, However, how many times has he used the last name of “NAVA” that is shown also ???? I am now looking at Specially Designated Nationals and there is an organization with an Alternate Identity called Juarez Cartel - out of Mexico. Hmmmmm.
ddpdrinker,
Keep digging, I agree with Greg, something is fishy. Still working on it my self. More the merrier, THANKS!
Riley, Not O’Reilly said on 27 Aug 2007 at 3:53 pm:
To respond to your comment, we are seeking the TRUTH, whatever it may be.
Is his brother’s name Alex or Alejandro, I wonder? Redawn and Lafayette will know what I am getting at. Redawn, you can get my number from Lafayette.
ddpdrinker,
YOU are on the same page, this is my question. KEEP ON, I give you permission to get in touch with me thru Greg or Layfatte.Thanks!
Leila:
This is the only response you will get from me on this matter,
I say that so you may forget about it and get some sleep tonight.
I said what I did because it is my observation, and opinion. I need not provide proof of anything,I need not explain anything to you. You don’t have to agree, you don’t have to read it even. I do not apologize for anything, and I do not wish to change anything about what I said!
It is what it is; and it will be what it will be.
I look forward to the grand finale!
Regarding my very long post @ 2:20 pm…
I have always been under the impression that “anchor babies” are automatically US Citizens upon being birthed inside the borders of our country. Accordinf to the story I posted, this is not true!
I’d like to hear from anyone who knows that this article is factual, or is it just an opinion?
I know the visitors from foreign countries think their children born here are US citizens. I was told by a hotel clerk from India that he and his wife plan their children to coincide with work visa’s so as to be born in the US.
Mike Austin,
You live in avery interesting world. In that all brown people are so well trained that they know how to use weapons and have such organization that they will take down the US military by force.
Just to bring new information to your world “John Paul II doesn’t live here” because he is already dead.
Please get educated and get your information from reliable sources and not just the well informed indian clerks.
redawn/ddpdrinker/Greg L
I will check for any divorce in PW, when I’m there in the morning. Will post findings.
I agree that the truth must come out whatever it is. The theory I put forward isn’t out of the realm of possibility, though.
Also, I seem to recall something a few months ago about illegal aliens complaining that they could not legally marry here in the U.S. Something else to consider if he is indeed here illegally.
Since he came to the U.S. 12 years ago, we know he didn’t get amnesty in ‘86. I think the part of the article that is telling is “Juarez — who refuses to disclose his residency status”
Gee, I’m sure that ICE can find that out pretty easily…
They can marry. In fact there has been a tsunami of marriages down at the courthouse since the resolution passed. Not sure if it was illegals marrying illegals, thinking that soon they might not be able to marry or illegals marrying legals , thinking that would get them one step closer to citizenship.
Thank you Mike Austin, by abdicating, you confirmed everything I believed about your observations.
TH and Leila:
You are trying to paint me as a bigot, I am not.
You are trying to show me as an ignorant person, I am not.
I am well aware of John Paul II. My point is that the people who do not live here do not understand what is happening here.
I have many friends and neighbors who are what you have called “brown people”; they are from all over this world, but they are hard working legal citizens who pay their taxes, clean up their yards, teach their children well, speak english, and do not cause the problems that illegals bring.
The reference I used of the Indian clerk was a good one, he was a very friendly person and I learned from him; all he told me was correct. What I did not understand was the timing requirements of USCIS regarding children born here and returned to their parents country, I have done my homework now and I do understand. I do not have to agree with it, it’s the law. If they do it right, they are legal, and welcome.
The people who come here and do not even try to assimilate, whether here legally or not, do a great deal of damage to us all. They are reminiscent of Pizarro and the Incas.
Mike Austin, I’m afraid you are misquoting me. I only asked about your reasoning regarding the MSF being armed on the basis of another entirely unrelated group of Spanish speaking people you saw at a shooting range. I didn’t mention anything about brown people, Indian clerks, dead popes etc.
I only asked about the business of arms, which you declined to explain in any way and do not mention above. On the other matters, that was someone else.