Home » » Establishing the Connection Between Illegal Immigration and the Corporate Subversion of Political Empire

Establishing the Connection Between Illegal Immigration and the Corporate Subversion of Political Empire

Written By Michael Reign on Thursday, October 8, 2015 | 10:51 PM


[Posted entry serves as a supplemental derivative of the 16th fundamental tenet of the Illuminati/ New World Order Manifesto, a point of reference emphasizing prolonged periods of unemployment and the escalation of diminishing opportunities - two interrelated socioeconomic states of condition exacerbated by the unchecked influx of foreign nationals besieging portions of the American Southwest]

Illegal immigration, a subject long considered by its proponents within the corporatist patriarchy of America to be of particular interest, especially as it pertains to the concept of wage dissemination, worker’s compensation benefits, assumed responsibility concerning the welfare of prospective employees, scope of onus in the event of injury or death in the work environment, etc. These items, when taken into consideration as a more significant component of a particular business or corporation’s aggregate revenue, can adversely affect the economic stability of industry. It is for these reasons that multinational conglomerates, as well as their constituencies occupying positions of authority within the political establishment, actively seek to acquire the services of undocumented immigrants from Central and South America. Those present within the upper echelons of these firms systematically exploit these individuals through the administration of unscrupulous labor practices, due, in large part, to their unregistered status. Corporate industry, commercial finance, and their acquaintance with the political aristocracy are well documented, as a vast majority of the campaign contributions delegated to prospective electoral candidates originate from these same institutions, a fact evidenced in the following visual as well as its accompanying article of reference:


LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:


These monetary disbursements establishing the framework for future endeavors between each of these entities, a sordid laundry of illicit transactions influencing the decision making process of the electorate and compromising the integrity of political institutions and agencies. 

The Cloward-Piven Strategy and the Origin and Inherent Purpose of Multicultural Assimilation


In 1966, Richard Andrew Cloward, a political activist and professor of sociology who taught at Columbia University for 47 years, and Frances Fox Piven, a professor of political science and sociology at the Graduate Center, City University of New York since 1982; devised a strategy to hasten the collapse of a nation’s economic infrastructure through the imposition of unwarranted financial obligations to governmental systems in the guise of ensuring equality among each of its societal classes. Deliberate in its scope of execution, the progenitors of this particular philosophy sought to effect the transformation of America from a system of free-enterprise capitalism to a feudal collectivist dynamic. Inspired by events precipitating the Watts Rebellion of 1965, a series of violent demonstrations that occurred in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles from August 11th to August 17th of the aforementioned year - believed to be the result of police brutality, an incident involving the use of unnecessary force against an individual deemed too inebriated to adequately comply with instruction - Cloward and Piven authored the publication of an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of 'The Nation.' The written context ascribed to this particular article of reference accused the ruling classes of using the welfare system as an instrument of exploitation, depriving impoverished segments of society of their role, and therefore their scope of influence, in the political decision making process, thereby extinguishing the flames of any potential uprising through the monthly allocation of government (taxpayer funded) stipends. Numerous statements attributed to Richard Andrew Cloward emphasized the poor's advancement at the expense of other societal elements, predominantly through an orchestrated campaign of intimidation, as the following utterance, a formal proclamation given to The New York Times in 1970, alludes to: 

“Poor people can advance only when the rest of society is afraid of them.”

Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands. 
The primary impetus behind each of these instigated revolts would possess a central theme emphasizing the inherent inadequacies of welfare policy and legislation. Early proponents of the Cloward-Piven Strategy cited the works of Saul Alinsky, a radical community organizer and noted author, as their greatest inspiration. Incorporating Alinsky’s “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules” phrase (an utterance attributed to the '1971 Rules for Radicals' publication, a book the aforementioned novelist dedicated to Lucifer)


as a type of motivational parlance, adherents to the fundamental tenets of the Cloward-Piven doctrine oftentimes made use of the following analogy:

When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short.

The system’s failure to satisfy these perceived obligations could then be used as an instrument of degradation, thus engineering its eventual demise. Cloward and Piven noted that the number of Americans receiving federally subsidized monetary allotments under the guidelines of the current system - approximately 8 million at the time of the movement’s proposal (A number that has since increased more than 1250% to its present estimate of 108,592,800, a numerical approximation that, when paired in correspondence with the current number of food stamp recipients in the United States - 47.2 million as of June 2014* - exceeds the cumulative population of Spain) -   


* A statistical measure that has since decreased to 45.7 million - the most recent estimate being acknowledged as of February 2015. Questions of accuracy linger with regard to the Federal Government’s own system of records and analysis, the most glaring of which being the blatant manipulation of the national rate of unemployment as there are now in excess of 102.6 million Americans either temporarily displaced from their previous occupations or who remain unaccounted for through a non-participatory role in the existing labor force. Inputting the aforementioned numeric figure into a arithmetical system of operation - in this particular instance emphasis being concentrated on the concept of division with the cumulative measure referencing the total number of individuals that are currently unemployed as dictated by the Federal Government’s labor force participation rate prospectus being designated as the numerator (also classified as the dividend), and the most recent metrics governing the U.S. population as a statistical aggregate being designated as the denominator (also identified as the divisor) one would be left with the following:

102.6 million or 102,600,000 (Numeric estimation governing most relevant release of information pertaining to the subject of joblessness in the United States) / 325,828,500 (A figure representative of the U.S. population as a proffered numerical estimate based on empirical data accumulation - this measure increasing by one every 16 seconds)  

Performing the prescribed operative sequence involving these figures would involve the resolution of the specified notation ‘102,600,000/325,828,500’ - a calculated series of progressions that ultimately yields the decimal approximation 0.31488958148228285739276950911292 as a quotient. 

0.31488958148228285739276950911292 when rounded upward, as the digit following the ‘4’ in the prior stated metric necessitates, would result in 0.315 as a base approximate, that, when transcribed into its percentile equivalent would yield 31.5%. 

31.5% then would be a more accurate representation of the current rate of unemployment in the United States, not the preposterous 5.1% calculation that is routinely being circulated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) - as well as a vast majority of mainstream media and telecommunications outlets and newspaper publications - as indisputable evidence of economic recovery. 

Men especially, have only to glance at the algorithmic data estimates in this graphical representation to acquire some semblance of clarity as to the nature of their predicament in the prevailing job market:


was a figure representative of less than half the number eligible to receive such benefits. On numerous occasions they proposed a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.” Cloward and Piven concluded that persuading even a small fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand access to these entitlements would effect the bankruptcy of the current system. The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces for major economic reform at the national level.”
The written context of their 1966 article, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty,” sought the introduction of various “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy” as a means of fomenting dissent amongst each of the societal classes. Using threats of violence to intimidate the national electorate, state representatives would then petition their political constituencies in the Federal Government for assistance. Methodically orchestrated media campaigns through the infiltration of the telecommunications industry by journalistic protagonists, effectively promoting the enactment of policy in reference to the concept of  “a federally sanctioned initiative emphasizing the necessity of income redistribution,” a calculated strategy that would, in theory, engender the creation of guaranteed monetary stipends for all - both the employed as well as the unemployed. Local state and government officials would actively encourage the passage of similar legislation within their communal districts, applying considerable pressure on Washington with regard to its implementation.
In its modern incarnation, the Cloward-Piven Strategy is recognized as a coordinated attempt by state sponsored provocateurs to goad the disenfranchised into believing that their efforts to ensure income equality at the expense of their personal freedoms is in their best interest. The aforementioned course of action designed to function as a Trojan Horse exercise - mass movements whose outward purpose and appearance masquerades in the guise of beneficence, providing financial assistance to the most destitute segments of society, yet whose principal objective lies in the recruitment of these individuals as revolutionary foot soldiers to effect the collapse of the prevailing socioeconomic dynamic. 

LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:


The prospect of multicultural assimilation, in its initial semblance, entailed the coerced merger of tradition, philosophy, and religious predilection of minority assemblies into those of the aggregate majority by the political establishment. In its present form, this concept pertains to the introduction of foreign nationals into the regional periphery of a particular territory or district through a process of administrative interventionism, predominantly under the guise of executive decree. In America, this notion of intercultural diversification concerns the engineered dissolution of geographical borders and territorial boundaries, a sequence of events culminating in the terminus of national sovereignty and the actualization of a North American Technate - a regional amalgam commonly referred to as the North American Union.


Numerous organizations evincing ties to this multiculturalist procession, specifically La Raza (Spanish linguistic equivalency recognized as ‘The Race’) and MECHa (Spanish linguistic equivalency recognized as Movimiento Estudiantil Chican@ de Aztlán, “Chican@ Student Movement of Aztlán,” the group’s use of the ‘@’ symbolic representation indicative of gender neutral inflection), seek the establishment of a separate and autonomous extrajudicial empire in the American Southwest, presumably in accordance with the belief of Aztlán’s existence as the ancestral domicile of the Aztec civilization. 


Acting under the assumed identities ‘Hispanic Homeland’ and ‘Nation of Aztlán,’ activists from the aforementioned organizations, as well as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), are attempting to facilitate the annexation of large portions of the Southwestern United States into Mexico. Historically, these organizations have taught that the states of Colorado, California, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, and Oregon - as well as portions of Oklahoma and Washington - comprise the prior stated amalgam. These are all areas America should surrender to “La Raza” once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, enter to claim a majority, as in Los Angeles. The current borders of the United States would simply be extinguished. One of these assemblies, MECHa, incorporates the use of the following principles as part of its founding doctrine, a document known as “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán” (Literal translation recognized as “The Spiritual Plan for Aztlán”):

“Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot ...Aztlán was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ...It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.” - (Statement on University of Oregon MECHa Website, Jan. 3, 2006).

“In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. ...Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. ...We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlán. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.”

The closing two-sentence stanza illustrates the intent of these organizations, for in its literal translation lies its inherent connotation: “For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.” 

The actualization of these particular objectives, what is commonly referred to as the “Reconquista” (Literal translation recognized as Reconquest), won’t conclude with territorial occupation and the forfeiture of state sovereignty, as its ultimate design concerns the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent from the geographical boundaries of Aztlán - a fact evidenced in the following statement from Miguel Perez of Cal-State Northridge’s MECHa chapter:

“The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlán. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlán is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power.”

LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:


Charles Truxillo, a onetime professor at the University of New Mexico and a prominent advocate of the Reconquista Movement (Link 1, Link 2 - The Reconquista, or “Reconquest,” Movement, which is also referred to as Greater Mexico, exists as the figurative characterization of the increased demographic and cultural presence of Mexicans in the American Southwest. The term’s utilization in contemporary settings was popularized by noted authors Carlos Fuentes and Elena Poniatowska, who initially intended to adopt the use of the phrase as a type of jocular analogy referencing the Spanish Reconquista of Moorish Iberia, as the areas of greatest Mexican immigration and cultural integration are conterminous with the territories the United States gained from Mexico in the 19th Century following the ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. However, certain groups that identify themselves with the modern Hispanic Mexico, such as the Mexican Nationalist Front, see the losses of northern territories following the Mexican-American War as an illegitimate compromise and seek a restoration of prior established boundaries), is actively seeking the formulation of a regional construct known as “Republica del Norte” (Republic of the North), which would include the present states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, as well as the southern periphery of Colorado.

Evidence of Intergovernmental Collusion in the Surge of Illegal Immigrants Entering the Continental United States

On January 29, 2014, the Federal Government (specifically political constituents within the Obama Administration), through the FedBizOpps.gov (Federal Business Opportunities) web extension, solicited the services of various escort agencies in the transportation and housing of unaccompanied children entering the United States illegally. The following illustrative composites alluding to these findings:



Details regarding the stipulated requirements necessary to apply for such positions are documented in the following statements:

Procurement Type: Request for Information (RFI)/ Sources Sought
Title: Escort Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children
Classification Code: V- Transportation/Travel/Relocation


Secondary POC (Point Of Contact) : Tony Ross, Contracting Officer/ Tony.Ross@ice.dhs.gov

A. Introduction

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has a continuing and mission critical responsibility for accepting custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) from U.S. Border Patrol and other Federal agencies and transporting these juveniles to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters located throughout the continental United States. ICE is seeking the services of a responsible vendor that shares the philosophy of treating all UAC with dignity and respect, while adhering to standard operating procedures and policies that allow for an effective, efficient, and incident free transport. The Contractor shall provide unarmed escort staff, including management, supervision, manpower, training, certifications, licenses, drug testing, equipment, and supplies necessary to provide on-demand escort services for non-criminal/non-delinquent unaccompanied alien children ages infant to 17 years of age, seven (7) days a week, 365 days a year. Transport will be required for either category of UAC or individual juveniles, to include both male and female juveniles. There will be approximately 65,000 UAC in total: 25% local ground transport, 25% via ICE charter and 50% via commercial air. Escort services include, but are not limited to, assisting with: transferring physical custody of UAC from DHS to Health and Human Services (HHS) care via ground or air methods of transportation (charter or commercial carrier), property inventory, providing juveniles with meals, drafting reports, generating transport documents, maintaining/stocking daily supplies, providing and issuing clothing as needed, coordinating with DHS and HHS staff, travel coordination, limited stationary guard services to accommodate for trip disruptions due to inclement weather, faulty equipment, or other exigent circumstances. In emergency situations, the Contractor shall be called on to provide temporary shelter locations (such as trailers) with shower facilities for juveniles who are pending placement with HHS when bed space is unavailable nationwide for extended periods of time. The Contractor shall provide temporary guard services and other support as necessary during these emergencies.

In addition, the Contractor shall have personnel who are able to communicate with juveniles in their own designated language(s). While this may not require each employee to be fluent in all of the encountered languages, personnel should have access to and knowledge of translation services.

B. ICE Standards/ Special Requirements 

The contractor is required to perform in accordance with the ICE Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS 2011), all ICE policies related to the transportation of juveniles (ICE Family Residential Standards) as well as the Flores Settlement Agreement (A legislative provision whose actualization into law arose primarily due to the adjudication of the Reno v. Flores trial proceeding by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993), the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 [Codified into the federal registry as the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, signed into law by George W. Bush], and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In cases where other standards conflict with DHS/ICE Policy or Standards, DHS/ICE Policy and Standards will prevail. ICE Inspectors will conduct periodic inspections to assure compliance of the aforementioned standards. 
Personnel shall have the knowledge and experience to transport individual children with special needs. Often times, children with special needs may require a transportation method that is time saving and direct, i.e. by commercial airline. Contractor shall also provide for accompanying medical care. Additionally, due to exigent circumstances, the Contractor shall be required to transport juveniles via ground to HUB airports or other staging areas that are not located within the area of initial apprehension. 
The Contractor shall follow a fully developed training curriculum and transporting staff shall have the highest level of competency possible. Areas of training shall include, but are not limited to the following: Airport rules and regulations for travelers, crisis intervention, child development, working with and transporting youth with special needs, transporting youth with behavioral problems, CPR & First Aid training, non-secured UAC policy and procedures and the implementation of contingency plans in the event of a crisis during transport, which include de-escalation techniques.

Background Investigations and Suitability Screenings will be conducted on all Contract Employees by the Office of Professional Responsibility and Personnel Security Unit (OPR-OSU).

The Contractor shall agree that each employee working on this contract will successfully pass the DHS Employment Eligibility (E-Verify) program operated by USICS to establish work authorization and U.S. Citizenship.

Employees must reside in the United States.

C. Contract Type

The Government anticipates awarding a five (5) year Fixed Price Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicle consisting of a one year base period, and four (4) option years. The Service Contract Act - is applicable to this acquisition. All required clauses, provisions will be included in the solicitation and resulting contractual instrument. 

The anticipated release date of the solicitation is March 3, 2014. The solicitation closing date will be thirty (30) days after release of the Request for Proposal (RFP). 

Projected Set-Aside: All business sizes are welcome to participate; however, ICE is trying to determine small business interest, particularly HubZone companies. All information received in response in to this notice will be used to determine the appropriateness of any small business set-aside for this requirement.

D. Place of Performance:

Service Area: Throughout the Continental United States (US) 

The area(s) or region(s) serviced may occur either with a phased approach over a period of several months to a full year. Alternatively, the Contractor shall perform the entire transportation function upon full funding. For example, the following two circumstances may occur: 

(1) The contractor could initially provide transportation services only in the Southwest Region of the U.S. for those juveniles who are apprehended in the state of Texas; or, 

(2) The Contractor may be required to provide transportation services for all juveniles who are in DHS custody throughout the continental U.S. 

E. RFI Purpose/Requirements 

The purpose of this RFI is to obtain market information and capabilities for planning purposes and to determine appropriate strategies to meet the Agency's requirements. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a commitment for an RFP in the future. Responses to this notice are not considered offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Responders are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative cost incurred in response to this announcement and information submitted in response to this RFI will not be returned. 

Interested parties are instructed to submit the following information: (Note: Please do not exceed 5 pages per RFI submission)

POC information (name, title, phone number, address, email address, etc.)
Socio-economic status
Brief Company Capability statement (to include addressing all special needs as stated above)

F. Submissions and Point of Contact Information

Submit written or electronic submissions via email to Rachel.Ali@ice.dhs.gov by 1:00pm EST on Monday, February 19, 2014.

LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:


The most telling aspect pertaining to the release of this documentation pertains to the stipulated entries comprising section D of this particular article of reference, specifically subsections (1) and (2) which allow for the housing and transportation of all juveniles presently in the custody of DHS officials throughout the continental United States at taxpayer expense.  

Further affirmation regarding the involvement of agencies within the Federal Government in the trafficking of undocumented immigrants across the continental United States is evidenced in the following series of illustrative composites, a sequence of visually inspired portrayals documenting the participatory role of political constituencies in America in this criminal enterprise through blanket enunciation:






President Obama himself, during the course of a syndicated public speaking event in Chicago, made the following proclamation:

“There have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks,’ even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans.”


In yet another instance he is credited as the author of this utterance:

“Unless you’re one of the first Americans - a Native American - you came from someplace else. Somebody brought you.”


Of course each of these statements belie the true intentions of this political administration, to garner support for members of the Democratic National Committee from individuals claiming to possess ancestral ties to areas of Central and South America, and to placate certain assemblies through insinuations of injustice based solely on the prospect of some form of inherent cultural animus.

This prospect of intergovernmental collusion regarding the subject of illegal immigration is bolstered significantly with recent revelations regarding the Federal Government’s attempt to enlist the aid of various constituents throughout the public arena with the promise of non-taxable monthly stipends in the amount of $7,000, a fact evidenced in the following:

LINKED ARTICLE OF REFERENCE:



In recent months, numerous article listings have affirmed these contentions, the most notable of which are listed accordingly:






Other topics of interest regarding the economic impacts associated with the Obama Administration’s blatant refusal to actively enforce immigration policy - some of which can be aptly characterized as the resultant by-product of ‘willful’ negligence on the part of the political establishment - are examined in detail in the articles of reference appearing below:





Another crucial point of contention with regard to the subject of illegal immigration concerns the adoption of policies by local state government officials that are blatantly contradictory of legislation enacted at the federal level on September 30, 1996 - specifically the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, also known as IIRIRA - that requires said institutions engage in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a means of ensuring border security. This unspoken endorsement, oftentimes referred to as a type of “sanctuary” initiative, effectively prohibits city workers or employees from disclosing the whereabouts of illegal aliens residing in their communities to the Federal Government. This particular directive also eliminates the possibility of distinction between legal immigrants and those who have entered the United States illegally - a course of action allowing for the access of taxpayer funded government assistance programs and services by foreign nationals that remain unaccounted for. The following synopsis by Steve Salvi, a lengthy dissertation examining the inherent differences between the formal and informal interpretation of sanctuary policy, the principal motivations behind the reluctance of elected officials to actively enforce immigration law, and a confirmed state-by-state listing of towns and cities that now serve as agencies of asylum for undocumented immigrants elaborates on this topic of discussion in detail:

Examples of Formal Sanctuary Policies/ Legislative Mandate

The Governor of Maine instituted an Executive Order entitled “An Order Concerning Access to State Services By All Entitled Maine Residents,” in 2004.  The Order limits state employee ability to report the presence of illegal aliens, which some people claim has resulted in many illegal aliens migrating to Maine seeking public benefits and valid Maine drivers licenses (which can be used to drive in other states).

The Republican controlled Utah Legislature passed controversial bills in May 2011, which allow illegal aliens to live and work in the state of Utah. Police also refrain from inquiring about anyone's legal status unless they are stopped or arrested for serious misdemeanors or felonies.

In 2008, Gavin Newsom, who served as mayor of San Francisco at the time, publicized the city's sanctuary status in a  press release for San Francisco’s Sanctuary City Outreach Program. Newsome later backtracked somewhat after news organizations began exposing how the city's sanctuary policy had protected illegal alien gang members that were committing serious crimes in San Francisco and elsewhere.  In 2009, Newsome attempted to veto an ordinance passed by San Francisco’s even more radical Board of Supervisors which prohibited illegal aliens charged with crimes from being detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Newsom now serves as California’s Lt. Governor.

In Katy, Texas, publicity about re-offending illegal aliens also put pressure on that city's administration to rethink its sanctuary policy--at least for illegal aliens that commit felonies.

Informal Sanctuary Directives

An informal sanctuary policy is an ‘unwritten’ policy that is not formally documented on paper. Nonetheless, this informal sanctuary policy was established and sanctioned by a local government authority and carried out by its public employees (administrative, service, and or safety). Informal sanctuary policies are more difficult to document since no public record exists. Informal sanctuary policy can, however, be evidenced in other ways.  

A local government’s (e.g., township, village, city, or county) interaction with illegal aliens can evidence an unwritten sanctuary policy. For example, does a police department contact ICE or release a suspect involved in a misdemeanor traffic stop after determining he or she is likely an illegal alien (or the alien admits to being in the U.S. illegally)? 

Statements and actions by public official can indicate a community’s unwritten policy too. Did a mayor of a town hire illegal alien day laborers for a city project? Does a mayor, city administrator, or other city official complain to the press that illegal aliens in their community should not be subject to raids or arrests by ICE? Does a city council adopt a resolution in opposition to the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws? These actions and statements are indicators that an informal (unwritten) sanctuary policy may exist in a community. 

The Principal Motivations Behind the Reluctance of Elected Officials to Actively Enforce Immigration Policy at the State and Local Levels of Government 

One justification of creating sanctuary cities is often under the guise of protecting ‘immigrant rights.’ But illegal aliens are not immigrants. An immigrant is a person who entered the U.S. legally and maintains legal presence. When a person is illegally smuggled into the U.S. or violates their visa restrictions--he/ she is an unauthorized (illegal) alien subject to deportation under existing U.S. law.

Another false argument public officials use to justify sanctuary policies is safety. They ‘sell’ sanctuary policies to the naive public as effective “community policing” strategies. The argument goes as follows: Illegal aliens who are witnesses to or victims of crime won’t report them to police for fear of arrest and deportation. However, these political panderers ignore the fact that if illegal aliens were removed from the U.S., they would not be here to become victims. Criminal elements comprising these undocumented immigrant assemblies that actively prey on the community would have been deported too.  

Why do public officials pass sanctuary laws or establish unwritten “don’t ask--don’t tell” policies? There are a variety of reasons. Some politicians attempt to appease illegal immigration support groups such as the National Council of La Raza (NCLR)Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund (MALDEF), and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), or other immigration activist groups that lobby local governments to implement formal or informal sanctuary policies. Other reasons include political contributions and ethnic voter support at election time; complacency, ignorance, or ‘don’t care’ attitudes; and purposeful resistance to existing U.S. immigration law based upon an open-border political philosophy that may serve their economic, political, or ethnocentric interests. A great number of politically appointed big city police chief’s often support an administration’s sanctuary policy because they share a similar political ideology or just want to keep their job. It’s much easier too for city officials to collect their paychecks and avoid the political protests and threats of expensive lawsuits that routinely follow attempts by cities to stop illegal aliens from taking root in their communities. 

The Obama Administration has been quick to file lawsuits against any state or local government attempting to crack down on illegal aliens in their jurisdictions. However, when cities openly violate federal law by aiding illegal aliens, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson audaciously claims that the Obama administration is helpless in stopping the practice. Johnson also opposes any attempts by the US Congress to pass legislation to end the practice. The Department of Justice has reportedly pressured DHS in the past not to interfere with cities with sanctuary policies. 

Comprehensive Listing of Sanctuary Cities Within the United States

Alaska

Anchorage, AK (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service) (7-29-10 The Municipality of Anchorage disputes the listing. See notes at bottom of page for details)

Arizona

Chandler, AZ (Added 5/30/07, Congressional Research Service Report, 2006. The city disputes its listing)
Mesa, AZ (Added 10-18-09, Sources: Judicial Watch; East Valley Tribune article, 1-4-2008)*
Phoenix, AZ
Tucson, AZ (Added 11-12-07, Source: 11-11-07 story by Brady McCombs, Arizona Daily Star. See note below)

California

Bell Gardens, CA
City of Industry, CA
City of Commerce, CA
Coachella, CA (Added 7-23-12, Source: La Voz de Aztlan. Passed in 2006 and existence supported by quotes in city’s 9-12-07 council meeting minutes
Cypress, CA
Davis CA
Downey, CA
Fresno, CA (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service. City disputes its listing claiming CRS could not provide source of its research)
Greenfield, CA (Added 7-23-12, Source: Battle at the ballot box in Greenfield, Monterey County, The Herald, 6-1-12)
Los Angeles, CA (Congressional Research Service)
Long Beach, CA
Lynwood, CA
Maywood, CA
Montebello, CA
National City, CA
Norwalk, CA
Oakland, CA (Added 8-27-07. Source: 4/25/07 story by KCBS 740 AM. Link corroborating this assertion has since been removed, presumably by its original authors as a means of concealing incriminating evidence)
Paramount, CA
Pico Rivera, CA
Richmond, CA (Added 11-5-09. Sources: Mayor Gayle McLaughlin’s campaign website from 2004, 2006)
South Gate, CA
San Bernardino, Ca. (Added 6/7/07, reader submitted/ 9/5/08. Listing disputed by the city administration.* See additional notes)
San Diego, CA (Sources: Congressional Research Service; SDPD chief endorses controversial immigration bill, Fox-TV 5, 9-2-13)
Santa Clara County, CA (Added 11-29-10, source: Forced into Immigration Enforcement, A County Considers Plan B, 10-21-10, Huffington Post.)
Santa Cruz, CA (Added 5/30/07, documented by KSBW news)
San Francisco, CA (Congressional Research Service)
San Jose, CA (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
Santa Maria, CA (11-18-08 Submitted research from local activist/ listing disputed by the city administration)
Sonoma County, CA (Congressional Research Service)
Vernon, CA
Watsonville, CA (Added 5/30/07, documented by KSBW news)
Wilmington, CA

Colorado  
     
Aurora, CO
Commerce City, CO
Denver, CO (Source: Congressional Research Service)
Durango, CO (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
Federal Heights, CO
Fort Collins, CO
Lafayette, CO (Added 6/3/07, documented by reader)
Thornton, CO (City disputes its listing)
Westminster, CO

Connecticut  

Hartford, CT (Added 5/4/10. Source: [Ordinance passed in 2008], NEWS 21 Blog, by Amy Crawford, Hartford, CT)
New Haven, CT (Added 6/4/07. Source: TV News 8: City council votes 25-1 to issue ID cards to illegal aliens)

Florida

DeLeon Springs, FL
Deltona, FL
Jupiter, FL  (Added 4-13-09. Previously on watch list.)
Lake Worth, FL  (Added 4-13-09.)
Miami, FL

Georgia

Dalton, GA (Added 5/30/07. 6/18/07 Listing disputed by the City of Dalton, GA. City’s written policy requested, not received as of 1-28-12)

Illinois

Chicago, IL (Congressional Research Service)
Cicero, IL (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
Evanston, IL (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)

Iowa

(See city watch list below)

Kansas

Wichita (Source: Police department policy exposed after the death of Lola Jayne, KSN TV-3, 12-19-08)

Louisiana

New Orleans, LA (Source: Police department announced policy of “don't ask, don’t tell,” by Police superintendent Warren Riley, WWL-TV; 9-9-09)
        
Massachusetts

Cambridge, MA (Source: Boston Globe. First passed resolution in 1985)
Chelsea, MA (Added: 8-14-07 Source: Chelsea government website with text of sanctuary policy)
Northampton, MA (Added 6-20-12 Source: City of Northampton Resolution dated 8-18-2011.  Resolution limits cooperation with ICE but does not use the term “sanctuary”)
Orleans, MA (Added 6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
Sommerville, MA (Added 7-23-12 Original resolution passed in 1987, later repealed and replaced with Safe City Resolution. Source: Sommerville News Blog, 10-15-2007) 
Springfield, MA (Disputed)

Maine

Portland (Added 5/31/07 Note: Maine resident reported that Portland city council passed sanctuary legislation)
State of Maine (Added 5/31/07 Note: Governor of Maine initiated de facto protections for illegals by Executive Order in 2004)*

Maryland

Baltimore, MD (Congressional Research Service)     
Gaithersburg, MD (Disputed by city 7-10-15. As of 9-8-15, the city has not forwarded a copy of its policy regarding illegal alien in Gaithersburg)
Mt. Rainier, MD (Added 1-20-08, Source: The Washington D.C. Examiner, 1-19-08)
Montgomery County, MD (Added 11-3-09, Source: Frederick County sheriff worried about MontCo gangs, The Washington D.C. Examiner, 11-2-09)
Takoma Park, MD (Reported that City ordinance passed some 20 years ago; Congressional Research Service)

Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)       
Detroit, MI (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)

Minnesota

Austin, MN (Added 11-1-11 Source: Protecting illegal immigrants to catch criminals, Star Tribune, 10-27-11)*
Minneapolis, MN (Congressional Research Service)
St. Paul, MN
Worthington, MN (Added 5-30-07 Note: This is where a Swift plant was raided by ICE in December, 2006. Worthington disputes its listing)

Nevada

Reno (Added 5-31-07; 2-18-08 Disputed by city) 

New Jersey

Camden, NJ (Added in 2007; latest source: Camden, Immigrant Haven?, By Lauren Feeney, City Paper, 7-16-08)
*(The Borough of Fort Lee removed pending review of its compliance with IIRIRA. The city disputes its listing as a sanctuary)
Hightstown, NJ (Added 5-30-07, the city disputes its listing as a sanctuary)
Jersey City, NJ
Newark, NJ (Added 6-3-07)
North Bergen, NJ
Trenton, NJ
Union City, NJ
West New York, NJ

New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM* 6/13/07 Congressional Research Service; 8-14-07 KOB-TV 4 Eyewitness News report. *[5-14-10 Mayor claims city no longer a sanctuary]
Aztec, NM Added 5-8-10, Identified by CRS in 2006 report to Congress. (The city disputes its listing, however, it has not forwarded a copy of its policy)
Rio Ariba County, NM (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
Santa Fe, NM (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service; 1-26-12 AP story, Santa Fe Mayor David Coss opposes taking drivers licenses away from illegal aliens)

New York

Albany, NY (Added 7-22-09 Source: Council adopts don’t ask policy, Times Union report by Jordan Carleo-Evangelist)
Bay Shore, NY
Brentwood, NY
Central Islip, NY
Farmingville, NY
New York City, NY
Riverhead, NY
Shirly/Mastic, NY
Spring Valley Village, NY (Added 7-25-07)
Uniondale, NY
Westbury, NY

North Carolina

Carrboro, NC (Added 11-12-07 Source: Towns differ on illegal aliens by Patrick Winn, The News & Observer)
Chapel Hill, NC (Added 11-12-07 Source: Towns differ on illegal aliens by Patrick Winn, The News & Observer)
Charlotte, NC
Chatham County, NC (Added 1-14-09 Source: Chatham rejects immigration program, The News & Observer; Chatham County Commissioners Board Minutes, 1-5--09)
Durham, NC (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
Raleigh
Winston-Salem

Ohio

Columbus, OH (7/5/07 Source: 5/10/07 Columbus Dispatch article stating illegal aliens in misdemeanor cases are not reported to ICE)  See more below.
Dayton, OH (Added 1-11-10 Source: Dayton Daily News story by Lucas Sullivan. Police chief prohibits officers from asking about immigration status)
Lake County, OH (Added 7-23-15 Source: Lake County accepts fraudulent Mexican Matricular Consular ID cards used by illegal aliens)
Lima, OH (Added 10-28-08 Source: City administration opposes County Sheriff’s efforts to remove illegal aliens) 
Lorain, OH (Added 4-21-14 Source: Lorain Police Chief Celestino Rivera has ordered - by written policy - his officers not to cooperate with ICE) See additional notes below.
Lucas County, OH (Added 7-23-15 Source: Lucas County accepts fraudulent Mexican Matricular Consular ID cards used by illegal aliens)
Oberlin, OH (Added 1-25-09. Source: City Resolution adopted January 20, 2009)   
Painesville, OH (7-19-07 Source: In 2006, the city of Painesville in an official letter called illegal aliens (they used the word “undocumented” a valuable asset to the city and opposed immigration law enforcement legislation. Although the city of Painesville passed a Resolution in support of immigration law enforcement as a result of public pressure, the city remains in opposition to aggressive immigration law enforcement and the deportation of the illegal alien population in the community)

Oklahoma

Oklahoma City (de facto)  
Tulsa (6-3-07 Note: Tulsa city council is discussing changing its sanctuary policy. 8-15-10 Update:  See note below)

Oregon

Ashland, OR (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service)
Gaston, OR (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service)
Marion County, OR (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service)
Multnomah County, OR  (Added 11-9-13 Source: Sheriff’s office says ‘no’ to ICE, By Kirsten Lock, Fox TV-12, 4-25-13)
Portland, OR
State of Oregon* (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service) (See note below)*

Pittsburgh, PA (Added 5-29-14 Source: Pittsburgh Post Gazette: Pittsburgh launches effort to woo more immigrants, 5-29-14)    

Rhode Island

Providence (Added 5-17-11 Source: Providence wants to opt out of ‘Secure Communities’ database, by Gregory Smith, Providence Journal, 2-23-11)

Texas

Austin, TX (Congressional Research Service)
Baytown, TX (6-13-07 Local reader observation)
Brownsville, TX
Channelview, TX (6-13-07 Local reader observation)
Denton, TX
Dallas, TX
El Cenizo, TX (6-13-07 Congressional Research Service)
Ft.Worth, TX
Houston, TX (Congressional Research Service)
Katy, TX (Congressional Research Service)
Laredo, TX (Entry added in 2007. Source added 7-25-15. Breitbart.com article by Brandon Darby, 7-6-15, regarding Laredo PD critical of officers calling Border Patrol)
Mcallen, TX
Port Arthur, TX (6-13-07 Reader/ resident observation)

Utah

State of Utah (Added 5-15-11 Source: Utah Approves Guest Worker Program for Illegal Immigrants, ABC News syndicated broadcast, 5-7-11) 
Salt Lake City, UT

Vermont

Burlington, VT (Added 5-14-09 Source: 5-13-09 Associated Press story by Wilson Ring)
Middlebury, VT (Added 5-14-09 Source: 5-13-09 Associated Press story by Wilson Ring)
State of Vermont* (Added 11-29-10 Source: 11-21-10 Vermont AG proposes bias-free policing policy, Burlington Free Press)

Virginia

Alexandria, VA* (Added 10-6-08, Source: City Resolution No. 2246 adopted 10-9-07)
Fairfax County, VA       
Virginia Beach, VA (Added 6/3/07. Note: The city adopted an administrative directive on 8-1-08 allowing VBPD limited authority to inquire about immigration status. Based on this directive, the city disputes its sanctuary status. Despite the directive, the city has not provided statistical evidence of enforcement to date)

Washington 

King Co. Council, WA (Added as a de facto sanctuary on 6-28-09 Source: The Seattle Times; and on 11-9-09 Ordinance passed
Seattle, WA (Added 5/30/07; Congressional Research Service)
Spokane, WA (Added 6-22-15; City Council passed Ordinances C35164 and C-35167)

Wisconsin

Madison, WI (Congressional Research Service)  Update: In June, 2010, the city council passed a resolution reaffirming its policy.
Milwaukee County, WI (Added 6-10-12 Source article: County Board Resolution on Immigration on target, Opinion, Journal Sentinel News., 6-9-12)

Jackson Hole, WY

Washington, D.C. (Update: The Washington D.C. city council has voted to prohibit its police department from participating in the Secure Communities program in July, 2010 according to an AP story by Ivan Moreno dated 7-26-10; 10-19-11 D.C. Examiner story which states that Mayor Vincent Gray signed an order prohibiting the city’s police dept. from inquiring about a person’s immigration status. 


Cities Under Review

Diamond Bar, CA (6/26/07 Disputed by city. Currently being researched to verify)
Boulder, CO
DesMoines, IA (Added 11-28-07 Source: Proposal seeks banning immigration raids in D.M., by Nigel Duara, DesMoines-Register)
Bridgeton, NJ (Added 6-3-07) [7-27-07 Disputed by a reputed farm worker advocate, see note below] 
Peekskill, NY [Disputed, being researched]
San Antonio, TX [Note: The Sanctuary status of San Antonio is disputed, being investigated]

Watch List Cities 

Note: This is a new list started 8-14-07 and was updated on 7-23-15.

Joliet, IL (Source: Resident alleges police have don’t ask don’t tell policy, courts habitually ignore immigration status)
Iowa City, IA (Source: Article, Group pushes Iowa City as ‘immigration sanctuary city,’ DesMoines Register, 10-31-10)
Cedar Rapids, IA (Source: Article, Two Iowa cities considering adopting sanctuary policies for illegal aliens, by Dave Gibson, Examiner.com, 12-20-10)
Lexington, KY (Source: 11-12-07 Submitted by local resident who claims it is a sanctuary city)            
Worcester, MASS (Source: 8-14-07 Worcester Telegram)
Silver Springs, MD (Source: 5-17-12 Local resident)
Lakewood, NJ (Source:9-10-08  Local residents)
Cleveland, OH (Source:  Support for Global Cleveland initiatives)
Cincinnati, OH (Mayor Mark Mallory supports immigration reform [amnesty], By Amanda Lee Myers, San Francisco Chronicle, 5-30-13)
Middletown, OH (Source: 1-30-08 Middletown News-Journal)
Springfield, OH (Source: 1-27-08 Springfield-News-Sun)
Clark County, OH (Source: 1-27-08; 9-29-08 Springfield-News-Sun Editorial (Sheriff Kelly not interested in removing illegal aliens)
Gallatin, TN (Source: 9-26-08 Reader)
Shelbyville, TN (Source: News articles submitted by Shelbyville resident)
Portland, TN (Source: 9-26-08 Reader)
Hendersonville, TN (Source: 9-26-08 Reader)
Whitehouse, TN (Source: 9-26-08 Reader)
McKinney, TX (Source: 11-28-11 Star Local News article by Marthe Stinton)
Kings County, WA (Source: 5-8-12, 3 King County officials balk at ICE detainer program)
Toledo, OH (Source: 7-12-15 Personal research by longtime immigration researcher)
Lucas County, OH (Source: 7-12-15 Personal research by longtime immigration researcher)

Sanctuary Cities in the United States: Additional Notes

Anchorage, AK

The Municipality of Anchorage is actively disputing its status as a safe haven for illegal aliens. It claims that the Congressional Research Service’s listing of the city as a “sanctuary” was based on a Resolution adopted by its Assembly (AR 2003-223) in 2003. The Municipal Attorney Dennis Wheeler says that that Resolution was rescinded on December 18, 2007. 

Mesa, Arizona

Mesa Arizona has been added as a sanctuary city list because of its reported “don’t ask don't tell policy” and criticism by the local sheriff that the city is not enforcing the law. The sheriff has arrested illegal aliens working in city buildings (as contract workers for a private cleaning company), reportedly after the city police department refused to investigate complaints of illegal hires by a whistleblower.

Austin, MN 

Note: The newspaper incorrectly refers to illegal aliens as “illegal immigrants.” Aliens who illegally reside in the U.S. are not “immigrants,” a term that should only refer to aliens who legally “emigrated” to the United States.

Philadelphia, PA

Philadelphia’s Mayor signed an Executive Order in November 2009 that provided additional protections to illegal aliens in the city. However, the City of Philadelphia does have an existing Preliminary Arraignment Reporting System (PARS) agreement with ICE. Mayor Nutter objects to the PARS computer technology agreement which is now up for renewal. The Mayor apparently believes that the access of data by ICE will result in increased immigration violation investigations and deportations.  Here is an article by the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Tucson, Arizona

Tucson Arizona has been added to the sanctuary city list because the Tucson police have instituted a new policy which prevents their officers from calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement to schools and churches. 

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Tulsa city councilor Jim Mautino was quoted in a Tulsa World article by P.J. Lassek, that he believes Tulsa is a sanctuary city and that the Police don’t verify legal presence during traffic stops. Mautino wants to crack down on illegal aliens and introduce an ordinance mandating the use of E-Verify because the resolution that was passed cannot be enforced. 

State of Oregon

According to a CRS report (October, 2005), Oregon passed a law in 1987 that prohibits local and state law enforcement from using state resources for locating and capturing illegal aliens. Law enforcement was permitted [but not required] to “exchange information” with federal immigration officials if an illegal alien was arrested for a crime. 

San Bernardino, CA    

San Bernardino was added to the list on June 6th of 2007 as a result of a readers submission.

Columbus, OH

The Columbus Dispatch [Ohio] wrote: “The police didn’t contact immigration authorities concerning those who were determined to be undocumented, Booth said. Authorities say that’s typical when it comes to misdemeanor charges.” [Columbus, Ohio]

Lorain, OH

“Thanks to Cel (Celestino Rivera, Lorain’s Police Chief), we are less worried” [about the US Border Patrol] said one interviewee who has a family member who is deportable. Rivera does not report illegal aliens to immigration authorities. Source: Ohio, the Other Border, By Maribel Hastings, Senior Adviser, America’s Voice, 4-7-14.

Painesville, OH

Cleveland Scene (7-18-07) quotes the Painesville Police Chief Gary Smith:

***He [Police Chief Gary Smith] has no qualms about laying out his indifference in plain English: “We don’t care what your [immigration] status is.” ***

Oklahoma City, OK

One reader wrote about Oklahoma City:

Oklahoma City is a sanctuary city de facto. Police officers have been told not to stop any Hispanic for minor traffic violations, because they have a good chance of being illegal and it is a waste of time. The City has not been enforcing City Code if the recipient of the code violation doesn't speak English. And is not attempting to enforce the single-family dwelling laws.

State of Maine 

Governor John E. Baldacci issued executive order 13 FY 04/05 which was issued on April 9, 2004. The order is entitled “An Order Concerning Access to State Services by All Entitled Maine Residents.” The order prohibits state workers from inquiring about the immigration status of anyone applying for services. 

State of Vermont 

Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell reportedly has asked police in Vermont to adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to immigration status under the guise of “Bias-Free Policing.” Police departments in Vermont will get a copy of the request but are not required to adopt the attorney general’s policy.

Alexandria, VA

Resolution No. 2246, adopted October 9, 2007 states in part: “...the City and its various agencies will neither make inquirers about nor report on the citizenship of those who seek the protection of its laws or the use of its services.” Evidently in Alexandria, illegal aliens are safe from Immigration and Customs Enforcement until they commit a “serious” crime. So what crimes can illegals commit with impunity from the federal government? Theft? Rape? Drug dealing? Gang activity?  

Research Resources (incomplete listing)

Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress
CRS Report for Congress, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement, Updated August 14, 2006

CONCLUSION: What has been made abundantly clear with regard to this particular entry is the fact that the current political administration, as well as a vast majority of those that foreshadowed its institution, have willfully chosen to shirk their responsibilities as elected officials and place the future of America in the hands of undocumented assemblies, the notion of which is evident in the following:

LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:


These developments in and of themselves would be alarming to even the most dispassionate of observers, however, the true scope of this particular crisis was ushered into existence long before this sequence of events ever attained precedence, facts alluded to in the following:

The Historical Significance of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and How Its Passage in 1994 Effectively Altered the Concept of National Sovereignty in the United States  

The concept of boundary, or the sovereign distinction of nations - in this instance the border geography separating the United States from Mexico and portions of Central America - has always been an issue of contention between rightwing conservatives and the proponents of immigration reform, with both sides of the political spectrum recognized as the active participants of one of many carefully concealed strategies devised by the Elitist Patriarchy as a means of emphasizing the necessity of ignorance in the public venue. Nowhere is this more evident than in the following revelation:

According to Timothy A. Pope, the founder, syndicated author, and investigative researcher for America the Battlefield, the concept of border autonomy regarding the existence of territorial lines of demarcation is an issue that has long since been reconciled. The written context associated with this particular discovery is as follows:

Buried within the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which came into force on January 1, 1994, is the La Paz Agreement between the United States and Mexico. This agreement was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1983 and added to NAFTA in 1997. It eliminated the U.S.-Mexico border. That’s right. It didn’t push the border back, it ELIMINATED it altogether. It’s called Border Region XXI (you know, ‘21,’ like U.N. Agenda 21 for the 21st Century), under the “Sustainable Development” initiative. Also the U.S. and Mexican border agencies were COMBINED under the NAFTA/ U.N. agreements, and similar unlawful agreements have been made under the World Trade Organization’s multilateral General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) between the United States and Canada.

More information regarding the legislative significance of the prior stated directive appears below:



The La Paz Agreement as an Instrument of Globalist Expansionism | Engineering the Eradication of Border Autonomy Between the United States, Mexico, and Portions of Central America

What the La Paz agreement did was to establish a fiefdom headed up by unelected government employees - giving them virtually unlimited power to expand their areas of confluence with the power to recruit an army of non-governmental organizations (NGO) to lobby for them. Essentially the areas included in the La Paz fiefdom were commandeered from the states in which they resided.
As I read this, my understanding is that the border region became a separate and independent international zone between Mexico and the U.S. Effectively, they were internationalizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with this agreement. They also provided a means to get financing outside the normal funding streams of the U.S. Congress - like from the United Nations, for example, or from private donors like David Rockefeller.

This is UN regionalization - divide and conquer. Regionalization is a cannibalizing force against representative government. It usurps power (and property in this case) from elected officials - giving it to unelected and unaccountable committees and commissions. This is the communist system of governance - appointed apparatchiks working in concert to determine and implement policy and regulations (law) by fiat. So in effect, the EPA was a Herald Patch - a cancerous seed of international communism in our country.

LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:

The La Paz Agreement as a Pathway to the Disintegration of U.S. Sovereignty at the National Level
The Militarization of Law Enforcement Agencies in Advance of Economic Collapse, Food Shortages, Civil Disobedience, and the Declaration of Martial Law

The dissolution of America’s national sovereignty should be recognized for that which its authors have intended: a means to an end whereby the actualization of a planetary system of governance under UN (United Nations) mandate can proceed unabated through the establishment of a internationalist consortium comprised of 10 regional districts - the most notable of which referencing a 134-page written publication authored by Charles W. Taylor in January of 1992 and released by the United States Army War College Strategic Studies Institute - an expansive summation entitled: ‘A World 2010: A New Order of Nations,’ that detailed the revision of an earlier strategy implemented by the Globalist Patriarchy projecting the emergence of a one world system of governance by the target year 2000:

LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:

The Post World War II New World Order Map | A Proposal to Re-arrange the World Following the Allied Forces Victory
A World 2010: A New Order of Nations
Alternative World Scenarios For a New Order of Nations

NOTE: The migrant/ refugee crisis afflicting considerable portions of the European Union is not mentioned in this article due to the fact that the reasons surrounding its present state of affairs pertain more to the geopolitical establishment’s desire to alter its political infrastructure, national identity, and cultural demographic as a means of effecting the creation of an Islamic Superstate (the evidence of which is presented below in the form of illustration) - a sequence of events coinciding with the 19th fundamental tenet of the Illuminati/ New World Order manifesto that will be the subject of a future entry.

Figure 1. Cartographical amalgam detailing the Islamic State’s, formerly known as ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shām) or ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), plan to effect the establishment of a transnational Islamic fundamentalist empire extending from portions of Western Europe (inclusive of Spain, a territory to be rechristened as Andalus - presumably in recognition of Islam’s dominance of the region during the Middle Ages), the Northern periphery of the African continent (including the Western Sahara, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, Sudan, EritreaDjibouti, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Cameroon, Uganda, and the Central African Republic and a host of other lesser nations), and Eastern Europe (Austria, Bulgaria, Romania, etcetera) in 5 years time.
Share this article :

0 comments:

Speak your mind and let your voice be heard.

This is a censorship free discussion area.

 
Support: Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Ωmnibus ™ and © Michael Reign. All Rights Reserved.
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Site modifications and enhancements by Michael Reign c/o Legerdemain Technologies