"The passengers were ordered to get off the busses and enter the Border Patrol offices, where they refused to provide the documentation officials were demanding.
"'They were asked for their identification but the passengers felt it was racial profiling and exercised their right to remain silent," [Freedom Ride leader Leone] Bicchieri said. "Almost everyone on both busses are people of color.' "How about "almost everyone on both busses" were illegal immigrants riding a bus with a sign on each side saying "Illegal Immigrants Here."?
"The Border Patrol said it didn't know if any passengers were detained. Bicchieri said he 'didn't know' if any of the passengers are illegal aliens" [Immigrant Activists Stopped by Border Patrol, September 26, 2003, by Jim Forsyth, WOAI.com]It's a good thing Bicchieri "doesn't know." If he did, he would be admitting to smuggling illegals.
And did the Border Patrol manage to detain any of these people? No, according to WOAI, the
"…busses were released following the intervention of El Paso Bishop Armando X. Ochoa and two [unnamed] members of Congress, who called on the Border Patrol, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, to allow the passengers to proceed."I'd like to know who those congressmen were, and what their excuse was.
It doesn't seem proper for them to let people they strongly suspect of being illegal go because they have a Democratic Congressman in their corner. And as for the Bishop's intervention, it would inspire screams from liberals if he'd succeeded in intervening on behalf of anti-abortion protesters.
Why does the Catholic Church's hierarchy insist on helping illegals continue to invade the US?
The change doesn't reflect preaching and conversions, but rather massive illegal immigration from Mexico.
Reference the above piece using this permanent URL: /articles/the-fulford-file-by-james-fulford-102#borderRepublic of the Philippines is getting into the act.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Philippine government has passed a law allowing overseas Filipinos to reclaim their citizenship, without, apparently, damaging their claim to US citizenship.
Both the INS (whatever they're calling it this week) and the reporter who covered this story seem happy about his.
"Naturalized U.S. citizens do not lose their U.S. citizenship unless they formally renounce it, or unless they serve in the military of a foreign state at war with the United States, according to a spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
And the oath that the Philippine consul general administered was carefully worded to avoid any renunciation.
"'I will support and defend the constitution of the Philippines,' the oath said. 'I recognize the supreme authority of the Philippines.'
"Nothing wrong with that, said one new Philippine citizen, taking a champagne refill. A man may be loyal to a lot of supreme authorities at the same time. [Loyal Americans reclaim their Philippine citizenship |For immigrants new law means best of both worlds, By Steve Rubenstein, September 30, 2003]No he can't. Supreme means supreme. That's why the current US citizenship oath which all these loyal Americans took, before they took this new one to the Philippines, says
"I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen."The Philippines until recently banned dual citizenship, saying that if someone became an American, he or she would now be treated as a foreigner, who couldn't "own land, hold investments and vote in next year's presidential election in their former homeland."
That strikes me as a reasonable attitude. And it might be a better one for the US government.
For those who've suggested that the old "princes and potentates" language is irrelevant to the modern world here is a short simple example:
Reference the above piece using this permanent URL: /articles/the-fulford-file-by-james-fulford-102#citizen