Exclusive: The Truth About ‘La Raza’

by  Rep. Charlie Norwood

04/07/2006

The nation’s television screens many days recently have been filled with scenes of huge crowds carrying the colorful green and red flag of Mexico viewers could well have thought it was a national holiday in Mexico City.

It was instead, downtown Los Angeles, Calif., although the scene was recreated in numerous other cities around the country with substantial Mexican populations. Hordes of Mexican expatriates, many here illegally, were protesting the very U.S. immigration laws they were violating with impunity. They found it offensive and a violation of their rights that the U.S. dared to have immigration laws to begin with.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa mounted the podium, but any hopes that he would quiet the crowds and defend the law were soon dashed. Villaraigosa, himself, has spent a lifetime opposing U.S. immigration law.

For law-abiding Americans without knowledge of the dark side of our current illegal immigration crisis, all this is unfathomable. For those who know the truth about the “La Raza” movement, these demonstrations were a prophecy fulfilled.

It is past time for all Americans to know what is at the root of this outrageous behavior, and the extent to which the nation is at risk because of “La Raza” — The Race.

There are many immigrant groups joined in the overall “La Raza” movement. The most prominent and mainstream organization is the National Council de La Raza — the Council of “The Race”.

To most of the mainstream media, most members of Congress, and even many of their own members, the National Council of La Raza is no more than a Hispanic Rotary Club.

But the National Council of La Raza succeeded in raking in over $15.2 million in federal grants last year alone, of which $7.9 million was in U.S. Department of Education grants for Charter Schools, and undisclosed amounts were for get-out-the-vote efforts supporting La Raza political positions.

The Council of La Raza succeeded in having itself added to congressional hearings by Republican House and Senate leaders. And an anonymous senator even gave the Council of La Raza an extra $4 million in earmarked taxpayer money, supposedly for “housing reform,”

Radical ‘Reconquista’ Agenda

Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions.

OH NO IT’s White People, They Are Here In Brooklyn, I’m scared hold me.

White people — it’s time to “awake” and “save” your “great race!”

That was the message of white supremacist fliers that were plastered all over car windows on Greenpoint Avenue near Leonard Street last Wednesday — a bit of free speech vandalism that has Greenpoint residents fearful of racists in their midst.

“It’s scary to think they’re here,” said Cynthia Ruiz. “That’s crazy and disgusting.”

The fliers’ message was aimed at recruiting new members to the New York chapter of the Creativity Movement, whose slogan calls for “the survival, expansion and advancement of the white race!”

A neighbor removed the fliers soon after they showed up — but not before a photo of one appeared on the Greenpoint blog, New York Shitty.

“I really would like to think this type of crap isn’t going on in Greenpoint,” said Miss Heather, the blog’s anonymous tipster. “But where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

“It disturbs me that people are so open about their hatred,” said block resident Neil Driscoll. “You can get away with saying, ‘Let’s take back the neighborhood’ and all that crap. It’s a weird pride in the whole thing.”

But longtime Leonard Street resident Elizabeth Tezeschi said it’s nothing new. Tezeschi, who is white and was once married to a black man, has received unidentified letters every few years since 1991 that insult her and her family.

“I don’t understand how people would write this, it’s mind-boggling,” Tezeschi said. “Especially where we are, it’s so diverse.”

That diversity might be precisely what makes Greenpoint a target. The Creativity Movement, a neo-Nazi movement based in Illinois, includes a commandment “to relentlessly expand the white race and keep shrinking our enemies,” according to its website.More at Source

This is fantastic too see that whites are making a presence in NY, I titled it the way I did because after reading the story and the reaction it caused you would have thought GODZILLA had just stomped through the streets.

 If it would have been a KILL whitey thing there would have been a huge party in the streets and the PC mass would have all been cheering along. I also like how they bring this up: ‘That diversity might be precisely what makes Greenpoint a target. The Creativity Movement, a neo-Nazi movement based in Illinois, includes a commandment “to relentlessly expand the white race and keep shrinking our enemies,” according to its website.’ Maybe they should look at the sites of their lovely diverse neighborhoods races on what they say and talk of eliminating the other races namely the white race.

Why is it everything is a Genocide/Holosomething when it has anything to do with Jews/Israel and Why do we keep $upporting Israel?

---Yeah, how about that? Being hard line against genocidal terrorists while the rest of the world, including U.S. President Barack Obama, is demanding you push back your borders to 44-year-old lines that will make you more vulnerable to those same genocidal terrorists.

Well, the rest of the world that is, except Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who sees very clearly what the bottom line is: You don’t offer yourself up for slaughter by people who have stated in their charter that their goal is to kill you.

In response to Obama’s demand, the suggestion that the U.S. lead the way by returning to its 1845 borders with Mexico has been popping up on blogs and discussion forums. {well perhaps if mexico felt that strongly about it they wouldn't have signed and agreed to the terms of theTreaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and  Mexican Cession which gave up/sold Territory's now States and agreed on the set borderline between countries.  How about if Mexico paid back the Millions of dollars in  money that was given to them by the United States of America, for said land  that was agreed upon in June 8, 1854 in the Gadsden Purchase.}

In Canada, the equivalent would be to suggest a return to pre-Confederation borders — a scenario that would see Sir John A. Macdonald’s fears about the threat of U.S. annexation, absent the geographical cohesiveness of Canada and compounded by the American doctrine of Manifest Destiny, revived.

“I say that there is a deliberate conspiracy, by force, by fraud, or by both, to force Canada into the American Union,” Macdonald said in a speech he gave to the Academy of Music in Toronto in 1891. Two years before Confederation, Macdonald wrote in a letter that he would be quite willing to leave the vast western part of Canada “a wilderness for the next half-century, but I fear if Englishmen do not go there, Yankees will.”


Jason Kenney also announced last year that Canada will not take part in Durban 3 this fall in New York.
“We will not be part of this event, which commemorates an agenda that promotes racism rather than combats it,” Kenney said then.
So Harper is sticking to his guns because he sees the truth — that a two-state solution in the Middle East must never be contingent upon Israel making itself more vulnerable to those who want to annihilate it. No other country in the world, fighting for its very life, is asked to lie down and offer itself up to attack by a terrorist juggernaut as a condition for creating “peace.” That is a recipe for genocide, not for peace. It’s also madness. It’s like suggesting, in our post-9-11 world, that we make peace overtures to al-Qaida by cutting back on airport security.

As Netanyahu’s top security adviser, Maj.-Gen. Yaakov Amidror, said Monday: “Those are borders that place our ability to defend ourselves in question and it would be a mistake to return to them.”

In a 2005 paper he wrote on Israel’s need for defensible borders, Amidror stated: “Israel is an embattled democracy that historically has had to defend itself repeatedly against the armies of neighbouring Arab states whose declared goal was Israel’s eradication. While other nations, like France or Kuwait, have been overrun, occupied and have survived to reconstitute themselves, Israel cannot depend on obtaining a second chance.”

He also wrote in his report, published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: “How is it possible to evaluate whether a border is defensible? To make such a determination, a simple question may be asked: If Israel were to come under attack by a conventional army, or some combination of ground forces, ballistic missiles and terrorist cells, would the border and the space behind it be sufficient to allow the Israel Defence Forces to fulfil their defensive mission with a high probability of success? The answer to this question must be based purely on military considerations.”

He added: “Without Israeli control of the relevant territory east of the 1967 line, there is no way the Israel Defense Forces can prevent the firing of rockets and mortars from the hills dominating Ben-Gurion International Airport. One mortar shell per week in its vicinity will be enough to stop air transport completely.”

Within the 1967 borders, Amidror wrote, “Israel loses the ability to defend itself.”
Those clamouring for Israel to withdraw to those borders either harbour some hopelessly warm and fuzzy western dream of making peace with terrorists, or else that is exactly what they wish to see — Israel losing the ability to defend itself and its subsequent annihilation


Read more: 
thank you battleskin88

Abbas’s comment about a state without Jews was racist'

Steinitz: I remind everyone that Abbas denied the Holocaust in his doctoral thesis, and these things need to raise questions about this man.

The candidate is Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen), Arafat's second in command, and his book, published in Arabic in 1983, translates as "The Other Side: The Secret Relations Between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement." It was originally his doctoral dissertation, completed at Moscow Oriental College.

The book repeatedly attempts to cast doubt on the fact that the Nazis slaughtered 6 million Jews, according to a translation provided by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

"Following the war," he writes, "word was spread that six million Jews were amongst the victims and that a war of extermination was aimed primarily at the Jews...The truth is that no one can either confirm or deny this figure. In other words, it is possible that the number of Jewish victims reached six million, but at the same time it is possible that the figure is much smaller -- below one million."

“I remind everyone that Abbas denied the Holocaust in his doctoral thesis, and these things need to raise questions about this man,” Steinitz said.

National Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau said, “I want to remind everyone that we have Arab citizens in Israel, and that is completely acceptable. I don’t see any problem that there will be Jewish citizens in a Palestinian state, if it is established.”

After Abbas’s clarification that he was talking about a refusal to allow Israeli soldiers in a future Palestinian state, one government source pointed out that Prime MinisterBinyamin Netanyahu said during his trip last week to Washington that the Palestinian desire for sovereignty and independence did not have to be in contradiction to Israel’s desire for security.

News Flash To Those Wishing To Travel To AMSTERDAM For That Quick Toke in the Red Light District

  



AMSTERDAM - The Dutch government on Friday said it would start banning tourists from buying cannabis from "coffee shops" and impose restrictions on Dutch customers by the end of the year.  The Netherlands is well known for having one of Europe's most liberal soft drug policies that has made its cannabis shops a popular tourist attraction, particularly in Amsterdam.



Backed by the far-right party of anti-immigrant politician Geert Wilders, the coalition government that came into power last year announced plans to curb drug tourism as mart of a nationwide program to promote health and fight crime.



"In order to tackle the nuisance and criminality associated with coffee shops and drug trafficking, the open-door policy of coffee shops will end," the Dutch health and justice ministers wrote in a letter to the country's parliament on Friday.



Under the new rules, only Dutch residents will be able to sign up as members of cannabis shops.



Dutch customers will have to sign up for at least a year's membership and each shop would be expected to have only up to 1,500 members, a justice ministry spokesman said.



The policy will roll out in the southern provinces of Limburg, Noord Brabant and Zeeland by the end of the year and the rest of the country next year, the spokesman said.  Amsterdam, home to about 220 coffee shops, is already in the process of closing some in its red light district. Some officials have resisted the measures, saying they will push the soft drug trade underground.

Read more: 

How TV Ruined Your Life parts 1, 2

Children of immigrants fear displaying religion?

I think the title to this article is backwards, it is sad when a hosting country to said immigrants fear displaying their religion when in fact Canadians, Americans, and those of European countries are forced and made to be criminal when practicing their countries religion, traditions, ways of life.  All over the fact that said immigrants don't really want any part of trying assimilate or to accept the hosting countries way of life.

We have to uphold and respect there customs, all in the name of religion and when we don't we are labeled RACIST, close minded.  When their religious customs interfere in our way of life whether it be through their food, (kosher, halal) headgear, turbans being worn outside of dress code in law enforcement positions, (safety issue) 

If they choose not to then they need to return to their respective countries. shera~

By Shannon Proudfoot

Evangelical Christian children of immigrants feel they cannot openly practise their religion, and worry that Christianity is no longer a guiding force in Canadian society, while Muslims say they are free to follow their faith in this country -but face other forms of discrimination.

Those are some of the findings of new research that will be presented on Sunday at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Fredericton, the largest multi-disciplinary academic gathering in Canada.

“I was a little bit surprised by the degree to which Christians feel put upon. The Religulous message is getting across, and it’s not a good message,” said Peter Beyer, a professor of religious studies at the University of Ottawa, referring to the 2008 Bill Maher film that cast a critical eye on organized religion.

“They feel like there’s prejudice against religious people: ‘I can’t pull out my Bible, I can’t talk about my religion without getting shot down. I don’t even mention it for fear of getting a bad reaction.’ “

His study gathered insights from about 350 second-generation Canadians aged 18 to 30 through 36 focus groups in Sydney, N.S., Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver.

Each focus group drew together young adults with common religious backgrounds, and many Christians expressed the worry that Christianity is no longer a dominant force in Canadian society, Prof. Beyer said.

On the other hand, Muslims attributed the discrimination they felt to racial or cultural prejudices rather than religious issues, saying they felt they could follow their faith unfettered in Canada.

“They feel that they’re perfectly free to practise Islam here in Canada, unlike some of the Christians who feel that their ability to practise their religion is restricted in this country,” Prof. Beyer said. “But they did feel Islamophobia.”

The qualitative study reveals some of the complex fault lines in Canadian society.

Young adults from across religious and cultural lines agreed that Muslims have faced discrimination since 9/11, but non-Muslims also said there should be limits on religious freedom and expressed concerns that Muslims “could be a problem,” Prof. Beyer said.

MORE

2011 Financial Crisis: End of America? (created NOV 2010)

In 2011, A single event will likely change your way of life forever. Is this the End of America? Are you ready?

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PRESENTATION IS CONTROVERSIAL AND MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO SOME AUDIENCES.





Thanks Jody

Libyan adventure' for Canadian racists

Stewart Bell, National Post · May 28, 2011 | Last Updated: May 28, 2011 9:18 AM ET

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has been a lot of things during his more than four decades in power: coup leader, revolutionary, nuclear proliferator, dictator -and friend of the Canadian racist movement.

Libyan agents began forging ties with the leaders of Canada's extreme right in the late 1980s. Twice, the Gaddafi regime brought delegations of Canadian "white nationalists" to Tripoli, where they were feted and given cash.

"The common ground was the hatred of Jews," said Grant Bristow, who went on one of the trips in his capacity as an undercover Canadian Security Intelligence Service agent. "That was the basis of the relationship."

The Libyan support for Canada's racist right is a reminder that long before Col. Gaddafi began his brutal crackdown on the Libyan opposition, triggering a NATO military intervention, he had been an international menace, fomenting violence and unrest.

Even in Canada. In 1987, the Libyans invited the Nationalist Party of Canada to send a delegation to an event marking the first anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Tripoli, said the Toronto-based party's longtime leader, Don Andrews.

President Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Col. Gaddafi's compound after Libyan agents bombed a German nightclub, killing American servicemen. The dictator survived but his adopted daughter died.

"I knew they needed the white faces for Libya's one-year celebration of the Reagan bombing," Mr. Andrews said in a recent interview. "I knew we'd be used as propaganda but I thought, 'Sure, why not. We don't mind that."

Based out of a house in east Toronto, the Nationalist Party was Mr. Andrews's latest far right group. Before that he had headed the Western Guard. "White People," read one of his flyers, "Canada belongs to us."

He said the Libya trip was mostly just a free vacation in the desert but the Nationalist Party also opposed "foreign aggression," such as the U.S. air strikes. He sent a delegation of 13 to Tripoli. The Libyans paid for the trip and gave the group US$700.

Two years later, Mr. Andrews was invited to send another delegation, this time to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the coup that brought Col. Gaddafi to power. Mr. Andrews sent Wolfgang Droege, the co-founder of the Canadian Ku Klux Klan. He had just been released from a California prison. Also on the trip was Mr. Bristow, who was posing as a racist while he spied on Mr. Droege. "We sent 17 the second time," Mr. Andrews said.

In an interview, Mr. Bristow called it "the great Libyan adventure." The Libyan government paid for everything. He said Mr. Droege saw the trip as a chance to lobby Col. Gaddafi's regime to fund the Canadian racist movement.

"Droege was hoping to set up a long-term relationship with the Libyans," recalled Mr. Bristow, who now lives in Alberta under the name Nathan Black. "He was looking at maybe there could be some stable, substantial movement funding from the Libyans."

As documented in Warren Kinsella's 1996 book Web of Hate, the delegates flew to Rome and then to Malta, where they boarded a ship to Libya. "We got taken off the boat and moved to a place that we jokingly referred to as Camp Gaddafi, which looked like it was a foreign worker type compound for oil workers or something," Mr. Bristow said. "It had a swimming pool, almost like guest villas."

The Nationalist Party delegates visited the Tripoli market and the ancient Phoenician trading post at Subratha. They toured the house bombed by U.S. warplanes, which had been converted into a museum.


Yes it does revive history for sure....BUT WHY NOW??...VERY VERY SUSPICIOUS THEY GETTING A LIST READY FOR LOCKUPS OF SYMPATHIZERS HERE, IF THEY KEEP GOING TO WARS WITH ARABIA ??

thank you BPL

The Government's War on Cameras!

Who will watch the watchers? In a world of ubiquitous, hand-held digital cameras, that's not an abstract philosophical question. Police everywhere are cracking down on citizens using cameras to capture breaking news and law enforcement in action.

In 2009, police arrested blogger and freelance photographer Antonio Musumeci on the steps of a New York federal courthouse. His alleged crime? Unauthorized photography on federal property.

Police cuffed and arrested Musumeci, ultimately issuing him a citation. With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, he forced a settlement in which the federal government agreed to issue a memo acknowledging that it is totally legal to film or photograph on federal property.

Although the legal right to film on federal property now seems to be firmly established, many other questions about public photography still remain and place journalists and citizens in harm's way. Can you record a police encounter? Can you film on city or state property? What are a photographer's rights in so-called public spaces?

These questions will remain unanswered until a case reaches the Supreme Court, says UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, founder of the popular law blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Until then, it's up to people to know their rights and test the limits of free speech, even at the risk of harassment and arrest.

Who will watch the watchers? All of us, it turns out, but only if we're willing to fight for our rights.More at Source

New in NYC Classes: "Babies Don't Belong in Dumpsters 101?"

After two young moms recently abandoned their newborn babies -- one of whom did not survive -- New York officials are proposing that high school curriculum include lessons on what mothers can do if they give birth to a baby they don't want.

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes, State Sen. Eric Adams and State Assemblyman Hakim Jeffries are proposing state legislation requiring the change to high school health curriculum.

The officials envision students being taught in public school about so-called "safe haven laws," which allow a parent to leave a newborn anonymously without prosecution as long as the newborn is abandoned in a safe way.more

View more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.thank you Chris

While I think the acts of these two black women is criminal I also don't think that schools should be the place to broadcast this, what happened to the parents.  I think both should be charged with a crime and the mother sterlized.    While doing a little research on the story that was submitted I was surprised to learn where the idea came from and it just might surprise you too.

Japan, not without some controversy, has joined a growing list of countries offering so-called "baby drops" -- safe havens where parents can anonymously drop off their unwanted infants.

The Catholic-run Jikei Hospital on the island of Kumamoto, 550 miles southwest of Tokyo, has just been given permission to install what hospital administrators call the "Cradle of the White Stork."  

The "stork's cradle" is a small incubator bed accessible through a small window in the hospital wall. An alarm bell rings within minutes after a baby is anonymously left in the incubator, signaling nurses to retrieve the infant.

The idea is patterned after programs in Italy as well as Germany's "baby box," initiated by a Christian organization in Hamburg in 2000. Today, more than 90 such drop-offs are located throughout Germany.
"We want to save both the children and the mothers," Jikei Hospital director Taiji Hasuda told the Asahi Shimbun newspaper. "The children are not the ones responsible for their birth."


The plan came about after a series of high-profile cases in which parents reportedly abandoned newborn babies in parks, shopping centers, supermarkets and even in bicycle baskets.  

Baby safe havens are in wide use in the United States, although rather than windows, states with the program often let parents leave babies at police stations or hospitals with no questions asked.

In Europe, the drop-off windows have names like "babyklappe" (baby slot) in Austria and Germany; "babyfenster" (baby window) in Switzerland; "babybox" in the Czech Republic; and "culle per vite" (cradles for life) in Italy.more from abc

Home Insecurity,Two privacy rulings hit us where we live.

Jacob Sullum | May 25, 2011

A few years ago, two police officers were chasing a crack dealer at a Lexington, Kentucky, apartment complex when they lost sight of him as he ducked into one of two units at the end of a breezeway. Detecting "a very strong odor of burnt marijuana" coming from the apartment on the left, they figured that must be the one, so they banged on the door and shouted, "Police!" Hearing "the sound of persons moving," the officers later reported, they feared evidence was being destroyed, so they kicked in the door.

It turned out to be the wrong apartment, but inside the cops discovered a guest smoking pot and, during a "protective sweep" of the apartment, saw marijuana and cocaine powder "in plain view." A more thorough search turned up crack, cash, and drug paraphernalia.

So much for the alleged destruction of evidence. So much, too, for the doctrine that a man's home is his castle, not to be forcibly entered by government agents on a whim or a hunch. Last week the U.S. Supreme Court said the "exigent circumstances" that exist when someone might be flushing drugs down a toilet allow police to enter a home without a warrant, even if their own actions create those circumstances.

As the lone dissenting justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noted, this decision "arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases." Instead of "presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate," they can retroactively validate their decision to break into someone's home by claiming they smelled something funny and heard something suspicious.

While the U.S. Supreme Court said police may force their way into a home to prevent the destruction of evidence, the Indiana Supreme Court, in a less noticed decision issued the week before, said police may force their way into a home for any reason or no reason at all. Although the victim of an illegal search can challenge it in court after the fact, three of the five justices agreed, "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." They thereby nullified a principle of common law that is centuries old, arguably dating back to the Magna Carta.

The case involved Richard Barnes, whose wife called 911 in November 2007 to report that he was throwing things around their apartment. When police encountered Barnes outside, he shouted that they were not needed because he was in the process of moving out. His wife emerged, threw a duffle bag in his direction, and told him to collect the rest of his belongings. When two officers tried to follow the couple back into the apartment, Barnes blocked the way, while his wife said "don't do this" and "just let them in." Barnes shoved one officer against a wall, and a scuffle ensued.

After he was convicted of battery on a police officer, resisting law enforcement, and disorderly conduct, Barnes appealed, arguing that the jury should have been instructed about "the right of a citizen to reasonably resist unlawful entry into the citizen's home." The Indiana Supreme Court could have ruled that the officers' entry into the apartment was lawful given the possibility of violence, especially since Barnes' wife had called 911 and arguably invited them in. The majority suggested as much but inexplicably decided a far broader question. "Because we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry," the court said, "we need not decide the legality of the officers' entry into Barnes's apartment."

This backward approach suggests the justices were eager to repudiate a straightforward extension of self-defense that struck them as an outmoded impediment to law enforcement.more

thank you szteve

High Court Upholds Arizona Law Penalizing Employers Over Illegal Immigrant Workers

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has sustained Arizona's law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.

By a 5-3 vote, the court said Thursday that federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.

he decision upholding the validity of the 2007 law comes as the state is appealing a ruling that blocked key components of a second, more controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law. Thursday's decision applies only to business licenses and does not signal how the high court might rule if the other law comes before it.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority made up of Republican-appointed justices, said the Arizona's employer sanctions law "falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democratic appointees, dissented. The fourth Democratic appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the case because she worked on it while serving as President Barack Obama's solicitor general

Breyer said the Arizona law upsets a balance in federal law between dissuading employers from hiring illegal workers and ensuring that people are not discriminated against because they may speak with an accent or look like they might be immigrants.

Employers "will hesitate to hire those they fear will turn out to lack the right to work in the United States," he said.

Business interests and civil liberties groups challenged the law, backed by the Obama administration.

The measure was signed into law in 2007 by Democrat Janet Napolitano, then the governor of Arizona and now the administration's Homeland Security secretary.

The employer sanctions law has been only infrequently used. It was intended to diminish Arizona's role as the nation's hub for immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of new workers through a federal database. more

thank you Kev