Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

RT: Ricardo Juarez Is An Illegal Alien

By Greg L | 22 January 2010 | Zapatistas, Illegal Aliens, Crime, Prince William County | 27 Comments

Arnoldo Borjas of Mexicans Without Borders addresses the Zapatista Army of National Liberation

Not that this should surprise a whole lot of folks, but today RT is reporting that Ricardo Juarez, the man behind the Zapatista Army of National Liberation-aligned “Mexicans Without Borders”, is himself an illegal alien.

So we have someone working here illegally for decades, agitating on behalf of illegal aliens, presenting seminars on anarchism here in the United States, and pledging to provide financial and material assistance to a marxist foreign armed rebellion, and law enforcement does nothing at all?  No wonder these folks think the rule of law means nothing.

UPDATE: Apparently from the comments there are some folks who don’t understand, or don’t want to understand who the EZLN is and how Mexicans Without Borders is connected with them.  For their edification, here’s a video I put together some time ago on the subject:



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.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

27 Comments

  1. Anonymous said on 22 Jan 2010 at 6:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    …because as long as he doesn’t break any laws, he is treated as a U.S. Person with all of the protections of the United States Constitution. One may no more assume this gentlemen (I really don’t know him and am not familiar with the issues) is any more an illegal immigrant than… well… you are.

    I could easily make the statement that you are an illegal immigrant. If you like our Constitution (especially the 4th amendment), you would understand that isn’t enough reason to act.

  2. Cynic said on 22 Jan 2010 at 7:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    All illegals have broken the law. All illegals should be deported ASAP.

  3. Greg L said on 22 Jan 2010 at 8:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ricardo said to a Washington Post reporter that he floated across the Rio Grande on an inner tube, but refused to discuss his current legal status. Now apparently he has said to RT reporters that he is in fact an illegal alien. Seeing that he is pretty easy to find and continues to flout his illegitimate status, it just might be a good idea to make sure that this self-avowed lawbreaker faces the consequences of his behavior.

    Certainly some would then complain that deporting him would rob a local family of their primary bread winner, but it would restore a Mexican family with the husband and father that abandoned them so long ago. Funny how family reunification is never an issue with the illegal alien lobby when there’s a family broken as a result of illegal immigration rather than the enforcement of laws designed to prevent and prosecute it.

  4. chicko said on 23 Jan 2010 at 1:46 am:
    Flag comment

    I’m not surprised. This fool has remained under the radar at least since the resolution was passed. arrest and deport is all I have to say for this illegal invader

  5. anklenipper said on 23 Jan 2010 at 8:47 am:
    Flag comment

    One may also assume that the reason they are all wearing ski masks is that their faces are cold? My humble experience is that people wishing to hide their identity can not be a good thing.

    You can make just about any assumption, you can say they are just legal immigrants playing rebellion thug dress up. The other can say maybe we should keep a eye on these folks.The only difference is the outcome of which assumption is correct and the assumption becomes fact. If they are just playing dress up then no worries. If they decide to declare war (they do proclaim to be a army) from within our own borders… maybe that’s extreme but personally I wouldn’t rule it out.

    I wonder what would be different if this was a muslim group, or maybe neo-nazi’s or any other group calling themselves a “army”. Why is it nobody seems to care that we are being invaded from the south, that it’s a slow invasion doesn’t change the fact.

  6. BattleCat said on 23 Jan 2010 at 10:03 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous, you have inadvertently revealed your identity. It’s a pleasure to have Janet Napolitano posting here!

  7. Greg L said on 23 Jan 2010 at 10:29 am:
    Flag comment

    They were cold??? In Mexico? During an “intergalactic” meeting of the EZLN?

    The “pasamontanas” (ski mask) is the uniform of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, and Mexicans Without Borders was originally founded as “Zapatista Committee of the Pasamontanas” by Ricardo Juarez.

    For more information about the EZLN and Mexicans Without Borders, I put together a short video some time ago that will provide the necessary background to disavow you of all these excuses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE7rPf_79nI

  8. chuck said on 23 Jan 2010 at 10:57 am:
    Flag comment

    they look like a bunch of queers to me.

  9. Anonymous said on 23 Jan 2010 at 12:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    If I were that ugly, I’d wear a mask too!

  10. Truth to Power said on 23 Jan 2010 at 12:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    Got the glock.. ready to rock :-)

  11. Greg L said on 23 Jan 2010 at 12:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Here’s an article that fleshes out the discussion of radical leftists like Ricardo Juarez and the kid-glove treatment they receive from the mainstream media. Enjoy.

    http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2007/20070827154739.aspx

  12. anklenipper said on 23 Jan 2010 at 1:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t know who you are referring to making “excuses” but the thing about them being cold was a sarcastic jab at the post by anonymous.

  13. BattleCat said on 23 Jan 2010 at 2:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    I suppose the men-folk beat them if they show too much skin.

  14. Janet said on 23 Jan 2010 at 5:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    BattleCat, darn you… I thought you weren’t suppose to “out” people on the blog.

  15. replacement rate anyone? said on 23 Jan 2010 at 5:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Its the muslims you gotta worry about next. They are having the babies, and some catholics maybe.

  16. Janet said on 23 Jan 2010 at 7:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Muslims are having catholics! That IS news… thanks for the tip.

  17. chuck said on 24 Jan 2010 at 3:43 am:
    Flag comment

    where is that hispanic machismo? I see none of that here! Just a bunch of girly-men :)

  18. Anonymous said on 24 Jan 2010 at 2:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    replacement rate anyone? said on 23 Jan 2010 at 5:55 pm: Flag comment

    Its the muslims you gotta worry about next. They are having the babies, and some catholics maybe.

    Janet said on 23 Jan 2010 at 7:17 pm: Flag comment

    The Muslims are having catholics! That IS news… thanks for the tip.

    Looks like replacement forgot to take his/her medication today. Real classy statement which indicates a sub average IQ.

  19. Anonymous said on 24 Jan 2010 at 2:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    chuck said on 24 Jan 2010 at 3:43 am: Flag comment

    where is that hispanic machismo? I see none of that here! Just a bunch of girly-men

    No say, Senor! They must be at the 7-11 drinking a carona or dos xx or two while waiting for the lawn service pickups to arrive.

  20. chuck said on 24 Jan 2010 at 5:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    anonymous at 2:14

    utterly hilarious! yep, probably down on coverstone or route-1 and parkway drinking brew and flashing themselves at teen-age girls as usual like the dirt-bags they are. That brings to mind the time when one of them was so drunk his buddies taped him to a tree to keep from falling down. I drove by route-1 and parkway one day and saw a bunch of them lined up urinating on the side of the store, essentially using the store as their own personal urinal. I cant believe people actually support these vermin! they act worse than vagrant dogs or something.

  21. Nancy Lieall said on 24 Jan 2010 at 5:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg L.

    How dare you smear my main man Richardo that I find to be irresistible especially when he makes me Tacos de Pescado naked.

    Nancy

  22. Red, White and Blue said on 24 Jan 2010 at 8:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous said on 22 Jan 2010 at 6:44 pm: Flag comment

    “I could easily make the statement that you are an illegal immigrant. If you like our Constitution (especially the 4th amendment), you would understand that isn’t enough reason to act.”

    What does the 4th Amendment have to do with this comment? If a person admits they are speeding, the issue is moot. If a person admits they are illegally in this country, the issue is moot. The first is a speeder subject to penalty, the second, as you seem elude to is welcome and free as any citizen with all rights (protections) of the Constitution. Does that include the right to vote? Greg never said he was illegally here so your assumption is without foundation, without proof, a scurrilous inuendo. According to the Constitution, he is not required to furnish such proof to any claimant such as you.
    Only progressives use such flimsy and ridiculous arguments. It is progressive thinking that still continues to rewrite history, ignore the Constitution as it was designed, a contract between the people and the government THEY empower, not the other way around which seems to be the current trend.

    Greg only used what was admitted by the offender. Stick to the facts since it came from the horse’s mouth.

  23. Anonymous said on 25 Jan 2010 at 11:22 am:
    Flag comment

    Gee Red, White and Blue… how do I know you are here legally? I’m not accusing you of being here illegally, I’m just asking how do I know you are here legally. There’s a logical difference to the two statements. In fact, I don’t know.

    Since you clearly don’t understand the 4th amendment issue, let me explain. All persons within our borders are protected by the Constitution. That includes terrorists and other really bad people. This is a problem for DOJ. Ironically, one of the safest places for a terrorist to be in the world is in the United States. We can’t touch them without cause. When a person commits a crime, we may then check his or her status. Once we determine that a person is here illegally, we may then begin civil proceedings (for that violation) in addition for criminal proceedings for other crimes as appropriate. Note that the first offense is a civil matter, not a “crime” as often referred to here and elsewhere by folks who really don’t understand the law.

    Greg is a third degree source for the information you mention. I really don’t know Ricardo Juarez or where he fits in your drama; however, I see nothing that is a foundation for law enforcement to act (no more than my comment about you or Greg would be reason to actually investigate your status). That’s just my opinion; however, it’s an informed opinion. Law enforcement can’t go chasing every third degree lead it gets when there are really bad people trying to blow up things in our major cities.

    Actually, Conservatives are very scrupulous about complying and enforcing the rights and privileges contained in the Constitution. I’m one of those. Progressives ignore the Constitution (or consider it more of a “guideline”). The third group (that would be people like you) do what suits your argument.

  24. Red, White and Blue said on 25 Jan 2010 at 11:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous, thank you for your “Supreme Court” interpretation of the 4th Amendment. Now back to the issue. Greg never wanted the “gentleman” arrested but was bringing to light that, by his words in print; he certainly appears to be an “illegal”. He certainly does support all illegal activities, civil disobedience and is a supporter of extreme entities that are not friendly to the United States? If he is illegal as he claims, then his credibility is in question, his motives clearer.

    Questioning mine or Greg’s legal status was never the question, just your way of deflecting off the issue by creating a smoke screen. I understand that you like being the spoiler and showing off your brilliant intellect to such underlings such as myself but I also understand your concerted deflection from the real fact - he admitted being an illegal to a newspaper. Now if that story is false and you can prove that before worrying about my legal status then I will listen to you.

    The civil penalty for being illegal is true but I believe his credibility is now called to question no matter whether civil or criminal penalty. No one called for his immediate arrest but if he engages in any criminal activity, now his alien status would certainly be an issue. This guy calls for legalization of all illegal’s. If they are already protected under the entire Constitution, then why worry about their status? Let’s just open the borders, take down the flag and welcome everyone including the terrorist. Well, I guess we have already started down that path. Is this not what you purport?

    The Constitution has been bastardized six ways to Sunday and trampled on by nearly every Congress. This is of course my opinion and it seems to be shared by a lot of us dummies. I carry a copy of the Constitution with me (Yes, I can read too). It makes a pretty good read but they don’t teach the Constitution much any more in schools. Progressives think it is a living document to be twisted and turned to fit what they want or are afraid to support - can’t offend anyone nowadays. I guess you can keep your interpretation and I’ll keep mine.

  25. Anonymous said on 26 Jan 2010 at 6:47 am:
    Flag comment

    Red, White and Blue - You’re welcome. Actually, that’s a DOJ opinion. Those are the folks responsible of enforcing the laws about which you speak. Actually, you make many good points. My favorite is, “If they are already protected under the entire Constitution, then why worry about their status?” That’s a really good question.

    You miss my point re Greg or your legal status; however, since you missed it twice I won’t try to explain it a third time. I am a big fan of 287g and removing criminals off the street. Other than that, we have bigger problems than chasing folks who lack documents. There’s a war on and bad people want to hurt us in really destructive ways. I’d rather chase them.

  26. Red, White and Blue said on 26 Jan 2010 at 8:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous:

    I got your point but why debate the ludicrous or the mundane? DOJ may be responsible but they have violated their oath just as GW Bush did in the case of illegal’s; to support, defend and uphold the laws of the United States. It is convenient to ignore laws when it seems the thing to do for some reason or other. I stopped supporting Bush when he made the direct statement that he was not going to enforce the law he swore to uphold. I wish I could have that same choice on some laws! Either we are nation of laws or we are not. Picking and choosing is certainly not an answer, it’s a violation. Then again, we cannot fight the masters until election time or wait years for some judicial decision.

    I enjoy a good discussion and I am willing to consider all points. As for the 4th Amendment, under “probable cause” search or seizure can be applied. If Juarez admitted he is illegal that certainly fits the affirmation portion. You and I are not subject to such question since there is no probable cause and the government is (supposedly) forbidden to ask without proper foundation. It has been argued that the 287g program violates the fourth amendment “search and seizure” in regards to alien status, thus far unsuccessfully.

  27. Anonymous said on 27 Jan 2010 at 2:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Red, White and Blue,

    I also enjoy a good discussion. Frankly, Federal law enforcement isn’t really in the business of actively investigating civil violations. It’s simply a matter of scale. When you prioritize the things we have to worry about these days, folks running around without documents who are not otherwise breaking any laws (criminal offenses) just aren’t a priority. While you think they are important (and I’m not arguing with your priorities), as a matter of policy Federal (as well as State and Local) law enforcement are focused on crimes that pose a safety or security risk to the public. If its a choice of a terrorist who might be planning a dirty bomb attack on down town Washington or an undocumented otherwise law abiding person… the Feds are going after the terrorist. Ironically, many terrorists are often here with documents (visas). Whom would you prefer we chase… the documented terrorist or the undocumented day laborer?

    287g is “Settled law” so I’m comfortable with it. When someone is apprehended for suspicion of committing a criminal offense, it is considered reasonable to investigate their background and residency status.

    I’m not saying you are wrong to care Juares’ status, I’m just saying that as a matter of policy law enforcement “doesn’t”. The opportunity cost of processing such an individual relative to the other opportunities to apply the same resources to more serious crimes is just too high to fool with him.

Comments are closed.


Views: 1517