The October 1 march by illegal aliens and those who make their living assisting and encouraging them has been cancelled. They have rescheduled for October 7. There is no need to be at the Georgia Capitol Sunday.

see below from the AJC.
5,000 expected at immigration walk

By Mary Lou Pickel
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 09/29/06

Organizers expect 5,000 people to attend a walk for dignity and self-respect for immigrants Oct. 7 from the state Capitol to Turner Field and back.

Walk organizers are calling for federal immigration reform that would legalize the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants and an end to immigration raids and deportations.

They are also protesting Georgia’s new law, known as SB 529, which uses the tax code to penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants. The bill also requires public agencies to verify lawful status for someone to receive taxpayer-funded benefits.

E-mails announcing the walk say in English, Spanish and Portuguese, “Congress, Get Back to Work!” “Legalization for All.”

The three- to four-mile walk is scheduled from 1 to 4 p.m. and includes about 20 speakers at the Capitol afterwards, said organizer Teodoro Maus, Mexico’s former consul general in Atlanta. The Atlanta Police Department expects to issue the walk permit Friday, Maj. Calvin Moss said.

The state immigration bill has put a chill through Georgia’s illegal immigrant community, said Maus. If the trend of anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric continues, immigrants will indeed leave the country, he said.

“But if we are going to leave, we should leave with our heads up and with dignity,” he said.

Less than 2% of illegal aliens pick our crops, but 29% are on welfare.

See here [ Table 18] and here [ Table 5 ].

Thanks to the Center for Immigration Studies.

The Wall Street Journal ran a very long piece today on grassroots groups opposed to open borders and illegal immigation. Please see here for my observationson that open borders newspaper run by the American elite.

Here is the article, from a different paper. The Dustin Inman Society is mentioned.

Grassroots groups boost clout in immigration fight
Thursday, September 28, 2006

By Miriam Jordan, The Wall Street Journal

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. — Armed with a computer and less than $100, Joseph Turner two years ago formed a group called “Save Our State.” His goal: save California from turning into a “Third World cesspool” of illegal immigrants, he says. The group doesn’t have a formal membership, and Mr. Turner counts barely 2,000 people on his email list and message board.

Yet this meager base has proved to be a powerful springboard. Through his Web site, Mr. Turner has recruited supporters to hold confrontational protests outside Home Depot stores, where unauthorized workers often gather to seek jobs. He has also helped ignite a nationwide movement by local governments to crack down on illegal immigration. So far, about 10 towns have passed ordinances to drive out undocumented immigrants after getting the idea from Mr. Turner. Dozens of other towns are considering such measures.

“My idea of activism is aggressive, street-level and in-your-face activism,” says Mr. Turner, who strikes a clean-cut look with slicked-back black hair and icy blue eyes. He adds: “I don’t believe in turning the other cheek.”

Mr. Turner is part of an anti-immigrant brushfire that is gathering force at the grass-roots level around the U.S. Small groups like Mr. Turner’s Save Our State are cropping up from coast to coast, recruiting members and devising tactics to tackle illegal immigration in their communities. Critics call many of these groups racist, a charge organizers deny. What no one disputes is that they are tapping into widespread frustration over the federal government’s failure to adopt a national immigration policy while a deeply divided Congress clashes over how to deal with 12 million illegal immigrants.

The Center for New Community, a Chicago organization that tracks immigration issues, says there are 211 so-called nativist groups — groups that advocate protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants — across the U.S., up from 37 two years ago. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups, also says nativist groups are on the rise and that several are hate groups, including Mr. Turner’s Save Our State. The law center defines a hate group as one that singles out and promotes hatred of another group, based on ethnicity, language, religion, sexual inclination or immigration status. Mr. Turner denies he runs a hate group.

These grass-roots organizations are having an impact. In North Carolina, state legislators say the fierce opposition of one anti-illegal immigration group torpedoed a bill proposed last year that would have allowed undocumented students who graduate from state high schools to pay in-state college tuition. In Georgia, another group’s mobilization efforts were crucial to passing a bill last spring to curb illegal immigration. In Arizona, a group called Protect Our City is pushing for local officials, including police officers, to help federal authorities enforce immigration laws within Phoenix.

The groups are often one-man shows, steered by tech-savvy leaders who creatively use the Web to mobilize support for immigration protests, boycotts, legislation and media coverage in their areas. Their influence is amplified as they find each other online and coordinate their efforts. Save Our State has occasionally joined forces with a North Carolina group as well as the volunteer group Minuteman Project, which patrols the border with the goal of stopping illegal immigrants from entering U.S. soil.

Several budding groups receive funding from older, well-endowed national organizations, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has been battling immigration for decades. Ron Woodard, head of NC Listen, a North Carolina group, says he improved his public-speaking skills in courses sponsored by FAIR. The Washington, D.C.-based national group, which advocates curbing legal immigration as well as stopping illegal entries to the U.S., also provided his group with “minor” financial support, he says.

These groups often strike a chord in small towns and areas where Hispanics are relative newcomers. Immigrants are increasingly bypassing traditional Hispanic centers in big cities, California and the southwest. Instead, they’re settling in smaller, homogeneous towns and in Middle America, where many residents are still unaccustomed to them and fear that wages are being undercut by immigrants taking blue-collar jobs in their community.

“The financial costs to Georgia taxpayers of supplying (bilingual) education, incarceration, medical care and social benefits to the hundreds of thousands of people who are here in violation of our laws is becoming impossible to ignore,” declared one Web site run by a Georgia grass-roots group, the Dustin Inman Society. “Someone please point to a case of wages in Georgia having gone up because of illegal immigration!”

Click here for the rest of it. Letters to Wall Street Journal go to wsj.ltrs@wsj.com

Dear friends of the Dustin Inman Society

This week-end:
The illegal alien lobby will hold a “march” this Sunday, October 1st at 1:00PM to protest the all too infrequent law enforcement efforts in Stillmore, Georgia where 100 illegals were arrested for using fraudulent Social Security numbers and fake ID…a crime.

Also those who make their living from encouraging and enabling illegal immigration – a crime – seem more than a little upset by Governor Perdue’s recent initiative to crack down on false ID at the state level. Governor Perdue should be thanked for his courage and leadership on this. Governor’s phone number: 404 656 1776

They are protesting both on Sunday.

I am on my way to Washington where I will be a speaker at a conference on illegal immigration and cannot organize a counter protest.

The Constitution of the United States gives all of us the right of peaceable assembly and free speech. Any and all who want make their own position clear on our borders, illegal immigration and the fact that these illegal aliens, led by foreigners here on Visas, can go to the Capitol in Atlanta to hold up a sign with a message for the illegals, their leaders and the media, which is sure to be there.

Any effort to do so on Sunday is not a Dustin Inman Society sponsored event.

Suggestions for signs if you go: THANK YOU SONNY! – MORE ENFORCEMENT..IT WORKS! – or SECURE OUR BORDERS AND ENFORCE OUR LAWS! – if you go, be polite to the police [ they are there to keep you safe] and don’t do anything you don’t want your Mom to see on TV.

Smile you are in the majority and have that pesky truth on your side. Stay within the law.

ALSO: We need short letters to the AJC on Mike King’s column today. letters@ajc.com as well as my response.
Short, with name address and phone. Even if yours does not get published, it will help someone else’s get in. Ask yourself why a fence is a good idea around the White House and AJC has a very efficient security system at their building, but a fence or security is not a good idea on our border with Mexico.

Thanks if you can help. D.A.

Lou Dobbs is on CNN every week-day at 6:00 PM. Watch it, tape it, TEVO it, but don’t miss it if you want to get the truth on our borders and illegal immigration.

The AJC ran the below equal time column today, another viewpoint to an editorial by Mike King of the AJC editorial board [‘ Big fence blunder’ ].

We thank the AJC for the space. We hope that next time we are afforded the same courtesy as other writers and have our organization mentioned in the author’s short bio, as it was sent along with the column submission.

EQUAL TIME:

For illegal crossers, a fence fits the bill

By D.A. King
For the Journal-Constitution
Published on: 09/28/06

With a career grade of “D+” from the highly respected Washington-based Americans for Better Immigration, presidential hopeful Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who has promised to push for Senate passage of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, has clearly heard the voice of the majority of the American voters on border security —- it would seem.

The will of the people aside, knowing that more than 10 percent of Mexico now lives in the United States and that more than 40 percent of the 100 million-plus citizens remaining there have made it clear in polls they would “migrate” to “El Norte” if possible, it is difficult to present a reasonable argument for not securing American borders.

Consider the undeniable crisis created in the United States by the costly organized crime of illegal immigration, along with the fact that the United States is involved in a war on terror. With these considerations in mind, the process of securing even a third of the Mexican-American border is a concept that is long past due. Futhermore, it is also old-fashioned common sense.

The potential efficiency of a physical barrier between the United States and Mexico is brilliantly illustrated by the 14 miles of fence in San Diego, erected in 1996 —- during the no-doubt “extreme” Clinton administration.

There, Border Patrol officials report that apprehensions of illegal crossers, an accurate measurement of attempted crossings, has declined by 95 percent. Crime rates —- in areas on both sides of the fence —- have dropped in similar proportions.

Another barometer of the effectiveness of a fence separating the most often used illegal crossing points is the volume level of the howls from the corporate-financed, open-borders/illegal-alien lobby.

Transparent cries of “human-rights violations,” “nativism” and “xenophobia” are perfect indicators of how desperately those who profit from an endless supply of taxpayer subsidized “cheap” labor and future constituents want to allow the influx of candidates for the next amnesty to continue.

For the Americans whose new American Dream is to have borders as secure as are Mexico’s and immigration and employment laws as enthusiastically enforced, 700 miles of fencing is merely a good beginning of returning to the rule of law and a secure republic.

If, as a nation, we are in fact in search of increased security and prosperity —- passing into law and then actually enforcing legislation aimed at increasing the number of immigration enforcement officers by using local police, and making it more difficult to walk, uninspected, into America —- the present immigration legislation under consideration in the Senate, which includes provisions from the House, is a classic example of a “no-brainer.”

> D.A. King is an anti-illegal immigration activist living in Marietta. [Note from D.A. – And president of the Dustin Inman Society, but the AJC doesn’t want its readers to be more aware of the Dustin Inman Society.]

This column is solicited to provide another viewpoint to an AJC editorial published today. To respond to an AJC editorial, contact David Beasley at dbeasley@ajc.com or call 404-526-7371. Responses should be no longer than 600 words. Not all responses can be published. Published responses may be republished and made available in the AJC or other databases and electronic formats.

Most people who study illegal immigration know that existing federal law gives state and local police the authority to enforce existing immigration law.

Here is part of United States Code Title 8, 1324: and other federal laws – and court decisions that illustrate that fact.

1918 Arrest of Illegal Aliens by State and Local Officers

Subsection 1324(c) of Title 8 specifically authorizes state and local officers “whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws” to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. There is also a general federal statute which authorizes certain local officials to make arrests for violations of federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 3041. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 18 U.S.C. § 3041 authorizes those local officials to issue process for the arrest, to be executed by law enforcement officers. See United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977).

Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an arrest warrant “shall be executed by a marshal or by some other officer authorized by law.” The phrase, “some other officer,” includes state and local officers. Bowdach, supra.

Section 439 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1252c which provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported and left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.

In the absence of a specific federal statute, the validity of an arrest without a warrant for violation of federal law by local peace officers is to be determined by reference to local law. See Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958); United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 589 (1948).

In approving a state trooper’s arrest of persons who appeared to be illegal aliens, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, simply, as follows: “A state trooper has general investigative authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.” See United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301, n. 3 (10th Cir. 1984).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983), that the structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not evidence an intent to preclude local enforcement of the act’s criminal provisions. Id. at 474. Based on the pertinent legislative history, the court of appeals rejected the argument that since 8 U.S.C. § 1324(c) specifically authorizes local officers to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a) and 1326 contain no comparable provision, Congress must have intended that local officers be precluded from making arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a) and 1326. Id. at 475. The decision warns, however, that the first violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) is a misdemeanor, and that if applicable state law authorizes law enforcement officers to arrest for misdemeanors only if committed in their presence, they would not be authorized to arrest aliens for illegal entry (unless the officers should happen to know that the alien had previously been convicted of illegal entry) unless they saw him/her cross the border.

The disappointing aspect of Gonzales is the statement that an alien’s “inability to produce documentation does not in itself provide probable cause (to arrest).” See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, supra, at 16. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e), aliens are issued registration cards and must carry such cards with them at all times. Aliens who gain entry without the requisite inspection, and who therefore are not issued such cards, violate 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Consequently, a law enforcement officer confronting an alien who is unable to produce documentation arguably has probable cause to believe that a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) (failure to possess documents or 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) (entry without inspection) has occurred. (If the alien is undocumented and has been in the United States for longer than 30 days, he or she has also violated 8 U.S.C. § 1306(a)).

For those asking why we would need 287 g…? good question. What 287 g does is expand the existing and inherent authority of state and local police. Si?

More info and references to what the law actually says here and here.

Mexican flag in New Mexico…USA

Las Cruces Sun-News

SANTA TERESA, NM ­ Just across from the Santa Teresa Port of Entry, within sight of the U.S. Border Patrol building, the sand dunes and mesquite don’t pay much attention to international borders.

But some of those who work in the area of the Verde Santa Teresa Bi-National industrial park are very aware of the border, and what it means to be on the northern side.

The park, which houses several facilities built to accommodate suppliers, custom brokers and logistics companies that serve manufacturing facilities in Juárez, flies three flags at the entryway ­ those of the United States, Mexico and the state of New Mexico.

The rub lies in the fact the American flag is flown slightly lower than that of Mexico, Hildegard Reisencheid said.

“I don’t think the Mexican flag should be flown higher than the American flag,” said the 48-year-old naturalized American. ” This is the American side and I just don’t think that’s right.”
The Verde Group of El Paso, owners of the industrial park, could not be reached for comment.

The Congressional Research Service on the U.S. Flag Code, Section 7, in part states: “No other flag should be placed above the United States of America” when flags of multiple countries are flown together. Later, the code states “When flags of two or more nations are displayed, they are to be flown from separate staffs of the same height. The flags should be of approximately equal size. International usage forbids the display of the flag of one nation above that of another nation in time of peace.”

It also calls for the U.S. flag to be flown to the right of other nations, at the same height. While the U.S. flag in Santa Teresa is flown about a foot lower than the Mexican flag, it is flown on the right.

There is more… And a photo.

I went to my county Board of Commissioners meeting last night…I hope a lot of readers will begin to do the same. I am embarressed to say: It was only my second visit there.

Asking when, not if, your county government will begin to use the Basic Pilot Program, the Systematic Verification for Entitlements [ SAVE ]data base and train local police under section 287 g of the 1996 Immigration law are very good starting questions for those elected to protect us and our tax dollars.

Online version of news article in today’s MDJ below. The paper edition was headlined “Illegal immigration opponents urge action”.

Yes…we do.

Commission says Cobb ahead of new mandates

Officers cannot go door-to-door to ask for proof of residency without probable cause, he said.
acasciaro@mdjonline.com

The Wall Street Journal on those pesky profit – reducing borders.

Open Nafta Borders? Why Not?
Immigration is what made this country great.

BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY
Monday, July 2, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

Reformist Mexican President Vincente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two Nafta should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper.

We annually celebrate the Fourth of July with a paean to immigration, the force that tamed this vast continent and built this great Republic. This is not simply history; immigration continues to refresh and nourish America; we would be better off with more of it. Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies–a constitutional amendment: “There shall be open borders.”

Warning: If you speak of enforcing American laws or securing American borders…the Wall Street Journal will come for you as quickly as the rest of the open borders/illegal alien lobby will.

Read the rest of the Wall Street Journal plea for open borders.