The Fulford File | Border Patrol Enforces Law!…Almost; etc.

According to WOAI in San Antonio,
the [Illegal]

Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride
actually was stopped
by the Border Patrol in Sierra Blanca, TX, just as some
VDARE.COM readers

suggested
it should be. 

“The
passengers were ordered to get off the busses and enter
the Border Patrol offices, where they refused to provide
the documentation officials were demanding.  


“`They were asked for their identification but the
passengers felt it was racial profiling and exercised
their right to remain silent,”
[Freedom Ride leader
Leone] Bicchieri said. “Almost everyone on both
busses are people of color.` ”  

How about “almost everyone on
both busses”
were illegal immigrants riding a bus
with a sign on each side saying “Illegal Immigrants
Here.”? 

“The
Border Patrol said it didn`t know if any passengers were
detained. Bicchieri said he `didn`t know` if any of the
passengers are illegal aliens”
[Immigrant
Activists Stopped by Border Patrol
, September 26,
2003, by Jim Forsyth, WOAI.com]

It`s a good thing Bicchieri
“doesn`t know.” If he did, he would be admitting to

smuggling illegals
.

But how could he not know? All the

news stories
 about interviews with the “freedom
riders” have human interest

sob stories
about specific illegals.


  • Elvira Arellano
    – forged Social Security card,
    fired from her airport job due to increased security,
    post 9/11.

 

 

 

Four names plucked at random from
the fawning press coverage. If the press can find all
these illegals among the Freedom Riders just by asking,
then you`d think Leone Bicchieri, after a week actually
on the bus with them, would be able to figure it out.

And did the Border Patrol manage to
detain any of these people? No, according to WOAI, the


“…busses were released following the intervention of El
Paso

Bishop Armando X. Ochoa
and two
[unnamed]
members of Congress, who called on the Border Patrol,
which is now a part of the Department of Homeland
Security, to allow the passengers to proceed.”

I`d like to know who those
congressmen were, and what their excuse was.

I would also like to know what the
Border Patrol`s excuse is for bowing to

political
and

ecclesiastical
pressure.

It doesn`t seem proper for them to
let people they strongly suspect of being illegal go
because they have a Democratic Congressman in their
corner. And as for the

Bishop`s
intervention, it would inspire screams from liberals if he`d succeeded in intervening on behalf
of anti-abortion protesters.

Why does the Catholic Church`s

hierarchy
insist on helping illegals continue to
invade the US?

There may be a hint of

self-interest
. Bishop Ochoa`s

border diocese
was 33.8% Catholic in 1950. In 2002,
it was 81.1% Catholic.

The change doesn`t reflect
preaching and conversions, but rather

massive illegal immigration
from Mexico.

Reference the above piece using this permanent URL:



http://www.vdare.com/fulford/border_patrol_etc.htm#border

 Dual Citizenship Again

We`ve covered the question of
Indian, Israeli, and Mexican offering their nationals
dual citizenship with the U.S. Now the

Republic of the Philippines
is getting into the act.

The San Francisco Chronicle
reports that the Philippine government has passed a law
allowing overseas Filipinos to reclaim their
citizenship, without, apparently, damaging their claim
to US citizenship.

Both the INS (whatever they`re
calling it this week) and the reporter who covered this
story seem happy about his. 


“Naturalized U.S. citizens do not lose their U.S.
citizenship unless they formally renounce it, or unless
they serve in the military of a foreign state at war
with the United States, according to a spokeswoman for
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, formerly the
Immigration and Naturalization Service.

And
the oath that the Philippine consul general administered
was carefully worded to avoid any renunciation.  

“`I
will support and defend the constitution of the
Philippines,` the oath said. `I recognize the supreme
authority
of the Philippines.`  


“Nothing wrong with that, said one new Philippine
citizen, taking a champagne refill. A man may be loyal
to a lot of supreme authorities at the same time.  
[Loyal
Americans reclaim their Philippine citizenship
|For
immigrants new law means best of both worlds,
By

Steve Rubenstein
, September 30, 2003] 

No he can`t. Supreme means supreme.
That`s why the

current
US

citizenship oath
 which all these loyal Americans
took, before they took this new one to the Philippines,
says

“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.”  

The Philippines until recently
banned
dual citizenship, saying that if someone
became an American, he or she would now be treated as a
foreigner, who couldn`t “own land, hold investments
and vote in next year`s presidential election in their
former homeland.” 

That strikes me as a reasonable
attitude. And it might be a better one for the US
government.

For those who`ve suggested that the
old “princes and potentates” language is irrelevant to
the modern world here is a short simple example:

  1. The

    World Trade Center
    was destroyed by Saudi Arabians
    on student visas.

 


  1. Saudi Arabia
    is ruled by a Prince.

 

  1. The Saudis say it wasn`t their
    fault, it was an upstart Saudi Potentate named
    Osama.

 

  1. Some Muslim citizens have

    claimed
    that their fidelity to Islam trumps
    their American allegiance.

 


  1. Guantanamo Chaplain


    James Yee,
    like

    many other
    Islamic Americans in the government
    service, apparently decided that his religion was more
    important than American sovereignty.

Seems more relevant all the time,
doesn`t it?

Reference the above piece using this permanent URL:



http://www.vdare.com/fulford/border_patrol_etc.htm#citizen