Monday, January 17, 2011

FYI: On Martin Luther King Day, remembering the first draft of 'I Have a Dream'

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Venceremos! We Will Win!
Peta_de_Aztlan
Sacramento, California
Email: peter.lopez51@yahoo.com
http://twitter.com/Peta_de_Aztlan
http://www.facebook.com/Peta51
http://help-matrix.ning.com/
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F.Kennedy ~ c/s

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Peta_de_Aztlan <peta.aztlan@gmail.com>
To: peter.lopez51@yahoo.com
Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 5:01:00 PM
Subject: [HELP-Matrix Blog] On Martin Luther King Day, remembering the first draft of ...

http://wapo.st/ecYab1

On Martin Luther King Day, remembering the first draft of 'I Have a Dream'

By Clarence B. Jones
Sunday, January 16, 2011;


It was the late spring of 1963, and my friend Martin was exhausted. The campaign to integrate the public facilities in Birmingham had been successful but also tremendously taxing. In its aftermath, he wanted nothing more than to take Coretta and the children away for a vacation and forget - forget the looming book deadline, the office politics of his ever-growing Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the constant need to raise funds.

But a date for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom had been nailed down - Aug. 28 - and Martin realized he couldn't plan such a massive undertaking with the usual endless interruptions. No, if this march were going to come together in time, he would have to escape all the distractions. (This was a man, after all, whose best writing was done inside a jail cell.) He needed to get away to a place where very few people could reach him.

That would be my house in Riverdale, N.Y.

For the previous three years, I had been an adviser to Martin Luther King Jr., his personal lawyer and one of his speechwriters. Stanley Levison, another adviser who had done even more work with Martin on his speeches than I had, was also a New Yorker. Because of some dark ops on the part of the FBI, Martin could not deal directly with Stanley, yet he very much valued his advice, so it made sense for Martin to stay at my home and have me act as a go-between as we planned the March on Washington - and the speech Martin would deliver.

The logistical preparations for the march were so burdensome that the speech was not a priority for us. Early in the summer, Martin asked some trusted colleagues at the SCLC for their thoughts on his address, and during his weeks in New York, we had discussions about it. But it wasn't until mid-August that Martin had Stanley and I work up a draft. And though I had that material with me when I arrived at the Willard Hotel in Washington for a meeting on the evening of Tuesday, Aug. 27, Martin still didn't know what he was going to say.

We met in the lobby rather than in a suite, under the assumption that the lobby would be harder to wiretap. Tables, chairs and plants acted as a cordon of privacy. It was with this odd start, hiding in plain sight, that 12 hours before the March on Washington began, Martin gathered with a small group of advisers to hammer out the themes of his speech.

He had reacted well to the material Stanley and I had prepared, but he also knew that many of the march's supporters and organizers - labor unions, religious groups, community organizations and academic leaders - needed to be heard as well. So that evening he had a cross-section of advisers present to fill any blind spots. Cleveland Robinson, Walter Fauntroy, Bernard Lee, Ralph Abernathy, Lawrence Reddick and I joined him, along with Wyatt Walker and Bayard Rustin, who were in and out of our deliberations.

As we ate sandwiches, our suggestions tumbled out. Everyone, it seemed, had a different take. Cleve, Lawrence and I saw the speech as an opportunity to stake an ideological and political marker in the debate over civil rights and segregation. Others were more inclined for Martin to deliver a sort of church sermon, steeped in parables and Bible quotes. Some, however, worried that biblical language would obfuscate the real message - reform of the legal system. And still others wanted Martin to direct his remarks to the students, black and white, who would be marching that day.

Martin got frustrated trying to keep everything straight, so he asked me to take notes. I quickly realized that putting together these various concepts into a single address would be difficult. Martin would have to take one approach - his own - with the other ideas somehow supporting his larger vision. I kept on taking notes, wondering how someone would turn all this into a cohesive speech. As it turned out, that would be my task.

Eventually, Martin looked to me and said, "Clarence, why don't you excuse yourself and go upstairs. You can summarize the points made here and return with an outline."

I sat in my room, flipping through the scrawled pages of the yellow legal pad, struggling to boil down everyone's perspectives. The idea of urging the crowd to take specific actions, as opposed to a general kind of complaining, seemed one area of agreement. (The march's organizing manual even had a headline that spelled it out: "What We Demand.")

A conversation that I'd had during the Birmingham campaign with then-New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller inspired an opening analogy: African Americans marching to Washington to redeem a promissory note or a check for justice. From there, a proposed draft took shape.

And the words "I have a dream" were nowhere in it.

About an hour later, I took my writing back to the lobby and began presenting it to the group. Immediately the others interrupted:
"What about - "
"Why didn't you - "
"I thought we agreed - "

They were all over me. And given the fact that several were Baptist preachers, there was no small amount of grandstanding. I began defending myself, but Martin intervened. "Okay, brothers," he said, "thank you so much everybody for your suggestions and input. . . . I am now going upstairs to my room to counsel with my Lord."

He walked quietly toward the elevators, leaving the rest of us to look at each other. "Tomorrow, then," someone said, and we dispersed.
***
Tomorrow, as history would record, turned out to be an enormous success. The weather and the massive crowd were in sync - both calm and warm for the March on Washington. Even the D.C. Metropolitan Police, which had been bracing for a race riot, had nothing to complain about.

I remember when it was all over but the final act. As I stood some 50 feet behind the lectern, march Chairman A. Philip Randolph introduced Martin, to wild applause, as "the moral leader of our nation." And I still didn't know how Martin had pulled the speech together after our meeting.

After Martin greeted the people assembled, he began his speech, and I was shocked when these words quickly rolled out:

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check.

Martin was essentially reciting the opening suggestions I'd handed in the night before. This was strange, given the way he usually worked over the material Stanley and I provided. When he finished the promissory note analogy, he paused. And in that breach, something unexpected, historic and largely unheralded happened. Martin's favorite gospel singer, Mahalia Jackson, who had performed earlier in the day, called to him from nearby: "Tell 'em about the dream, Martin, tell 'em about the dream!"

Martin clutched the speaker's lectern and seemed to reset. I watched him push the text of his prepared remarks to one side. I knew this performance had just been given over to the spirit of the moment. I leaned over and said to the person next to me, "These people out there today don't know it yet, but they're about ready to go to church."

What could possibly motivate a man standing before a crowd of hundreds of thousands, with television cameras beaming his every move and a cluster of microphones tracing his every word, to abandon the prepared text of his speech and begin riffing on a theme that he had used previously without generating much enthusiasm from listeners?

Before our eyes, he transformed himself into the superb, third-generation Baptist preacher that he was, and he spoke those words that in retrospect feel destined to ring out that day:

I have a dream . . .

In front of all those people, cameras, and microphones, Martin winged it. But then, no one I've ever met could improvise better.

The speech went on to depart drastically from the draft I'd delivered, and I'll be the first to tell you that America is the better for it. As I look back on my version, I realize that nearly any confident public speaker could have held the crowd's attention with it. But a different man could not have delivered "I Have a Dream."

Some believe, though the facts are otherwise, that Martin was such a superlative writer that he never needed others to draft material for him. I understand that belief; fate made Martin a martyr and a unique American myth - and myths stand alone. But admitting that even this unequaled writer had people helping him hardly takes anything away. People like Stanley, Mahalia and I helped him maximize his brilliance. If not, why would Mahalia interrupt a planned address? She wasn't unhappy with the material he was reading - she just wanted him to preach.
That he did. You only have to hear the recording of even a handful of the words from his speech and, for the rest of your life, when you read it you will hear his signature cadence. Can you hear it now?

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!

The crowd was rapt. Tears of joy fell everywhere. And when Martin ended with a cried refrain from a spiritual that predated the Emancipation Proclamation, the sense of history - past and future - struck me full force:
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
***
More than 40 years later, I was invited to visit Stanford University's Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute as a candidate for an academic post. I met with the director, who knew I had just started work on a book about Martin and wanted to convince me that I should write it there. To demonstrate the wealth of the institute's research materials, he had me choose a date from the years I had worked with Martin.

I offered Aug. 28, 1963.

One of the staffers soon brought in a cardboard box with papers related to that day. Among them was a copy of the program that had been handed out at the march. At the time, no one could possibly understand the emotional impact this had on me. It was the standard program except for one corner, where it bore a handwritten note to Martin - from me.

"Dear Martin - just learned that Dr. W.E.B. Dubois died last night in Ghana. Someone should make note of this fact."

I was looking at a copy of my own program, something I'd urgently written on and passed through the crowd to Martin up on the dais. Tears welled in my eyes as I imagined its long journey from my hand to the institute's files. I felt Martin, my friend, reaching out and saying to me, "Keep our dream alive."

That is what this country does every January on Martin Luther King Day. I am hopeful that sometime soon, it will be what we do every day of the year.

Adapted from "Behind the Dream" by Clarence B. Jones and Stuart Connelly. Copyright 2011 by the authors and reprinted by permission of Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited.

Clarence B. Jones, a scholar in residence at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University, is a co-author, with Stuart Connelly, of the new book "Behind the Dream: The Making of the Speech That Transformed a Nation," from which this essay is adapted.

Read more from Outlook.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/14/AR2011011406266_pf.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Humane-Liberation-Party Blog
http://help-matrix.blogspot.com/

Humane-Liberation-Party Portal
http://help-matrix.ning.com/

@Peta_de_Aztlan Blog
http://peta-de-aztlan.blogspot.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

555HELPLOGO

--
Posted By Peta_de_Aztlan to HELP-Matrix Blog at 1/17/2011 05:00:00 PM

Friday, January 14, 2011

[HELP-Matrix Blog] Obama administration ends high-tech border fence

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Venceremos! We Will Win!
Peta_de_Aztlan
Sacramento, California
Email: peter.lopez51@yahoo.com
http://twitter.com/Peta_de_Aztlan
http://www.facebook.com/Peta51
http://help-matrix.ning.com/
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F.Kennedy ~ c/s

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Peta_de_Aztlan <peta.aztlan@gmail.com>
To: peter.lopez51@yahoo.com
Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 6:52:43 PM
Subject: [HELP-Matrix Blog] Obama administration ends high-tech border fence

http://bit.ly/gVO92o


The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday ended a high-tech border fence project that cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion but did little to improve security. Congress ordered the high-tech fence along the border with Mexico in 2006 amid a clamor over the porous border, but it yielded only 53 miles of protection.




FILE - In this undated file picture provided by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows a prototype of a tower for a virtual fence along the U.S.-Mexico border at a test facility in Playas, N.M. The Obama administration on Friday Jan. 14, 2011 ended a high-tech southern border fence scheme that cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion but did little to improve security. .(AP Photo/U.S. Customs and Border Protection, File)


FILE - In this Aug. 3, 2007 file photo, a Border Patrol vehicle drives past a portion of the border fence, in El Paso, Texas. The Obama administration on Friday, Jan. 14, 2011 ended a high-tech southern border fence scheme that cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion but did little to improve security. Congress ordered the high-tech fence in 2006 amid a clamor over the porous border, but the project yielded only 53 miles of protection. (AP Photo/Victor Calzada, file)

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the lesson of the multimillion-dollar program is there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution for border security.

Napolitano said the department's new technology strategy for securing the border is to use existing, proven technology tailored to the distinct terrain and population density of each region of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S-Mexico border. That would provide faster technology deployment, better coverage and more bang for the buck, she said.

Although it has been well known that the virtual fence project would be dumped, Napolitano officially informed key members of Congress Friday that an "independent, quantitative, science-based review made clear" the fence, known as SBInet, "cannot meet its original objective of providing a single, integrated border security technology solution."

The fence, initiated in 2005, was to be a network of cameras, ground sensors and radars that would be used to spot incursions or problems and decide where to deploy Border Patrol agents. It was supposed to be keeping watch over most of this nation's southern border with Mexico by this year.

Instead, taxpayers ended up with about 53 miles of operational "virtual fence" in Arizona for a cost of at least $15 million a mile, according to testimony in previous congressional hearings.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said the SBInet concept was unrealistic from the start. Napolitano's decision "ends a long-troubled program that spent far too much of the taxpayers' money for the results it delivered," said Lieberman, I-Conn.

The high-tech fence was developed as part of a Bush administration response to a demand for tighter border security that arose amid a heated immigration debate in Congress.

The Bush administration awarded Boeing a three-year, $67 million contract. Then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said at the time the department was "looking to build a 21st century virtual fence."

But the fence had a long list of glitches and delays. Its radar system had trouble distinguishing between vegetation and people in windy weather, cameras moved too slowly and satellite communications also were slow. Although some of the concept is in use in two sections of Arizona, the security came at too high a cost.

DHS and Boeing officials have said that the project called for putting together the first of its kind "virtual fence" too quickly by combining off-the-shelf components that weren't designed to be linked

Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, top Democrat of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the committee held 11 congressional hearings on the fence project and commissioned five reports by the Government Accountability Office, which blasted the project. Thompson, who chaired the committee until Republicans took over the House this month, called the project a grave and expensive disappointment.

Last January, Napolitano suspended spending on the project beyond work on two phases of the fence in Arizona. She ordered a study to determine whether SBInet could be fixed so it worked effectively and fulfilled its original goal. She also asked for a study to come up with lower cost, equally effective alternatives. She used $50 million meant for the fence to buy other technology and Border Patrol vehicles.

Boeing was the contractor for SBInet. Despite the problems, the Homeland Security Department granted Boeing a second one-year option on a three-year contract to work with the department for maintenance and upkeep of the two Arizona sections that are operational. That agreement continues through September 2011.

Some technologies from the project, such as stationary radar and infrared and optical sensor towers, will be used in future border security that will largely rely on mobile surveillance systems, unmanned aerial vehicles, thermal imaging devices and tower-based remote video surveillance systems. Money that was provided in an interim spending bill for the high-tech fence will go to the proven technologies.

The agency said in a report that it does not intend to use the existing Boeing contract to buy other technology systems for future southwest border security. It also said it will conduct "full and open competition" for elements in the new border security plan.
The Homeland Security Department has been studying other areas of the southern border to decide what technology and other resources would best beef up security in those areas. An initial proposal of technology needed to monitor three sectors — El Paso, which includes New Mexico; San Diego and the Rio Grande Valley of Texas — was to be done by this month. Proposals for border security technology for other sectors should be available by March, according to the report.
 

Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, criticized the administration for taking too long to make its final decision to cancel SBInet and too long to decide what to do next. He wants a comprehensive border security plan that provides staffing, fencing and technology.

In a statement, Boeing said it is proud of the accomplishments of its team and the "unprecedented capabilities" delivered in the last year to assist the Border Patrol. The company said it appreciates that Homeland Security Department recognizes the value of the fixed towers Boeing built as part of SBInet.
___
Online: Department of Homeland Security: http://www.dhs.gov/
___
Online:
http://www.dhs.gov
___
January 14, 2011 09:34 PM EST

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/obama-administration-ends-high-804602.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Humane-Liberation-Party Blog
http://help-matrix.blogspot.com/

Humane-Liberation-Party Portal
http://help-matrix.ning.com/

@Peta_de_Aztlan Blog
http://peta-de-aztlan.blogspot.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

555HELPLOGO


--
Posted By Peta_de_Aztlan to HELP-Matrix Blog at 1/14/2011 06:34:00 PM

Friday, January 07, 2011

Pentagon seeks $120B in war funds + Comment

http://politi.co/ffzWRJ

Pentagon seeks $120B in war funds
The Pentagon is pictured. | Reuters
The $120 billion figure is a significant drop from 2011 but still a stubborn strain on the deficit. | Reuters Close

The Pentagon is expected to seek in the range of $120 billion for overseas war costs next year, a significant drop from 2011 but still a stubborn strain on deficit-reduction efforts.


The new request was discussed Thursday at a closed-door briefing for top lawmakers with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and confirmed to POLITICO by an administration official.


For the current fiscal year, the Obama administration has assumed about $159 billion in costs for military operations, chiefly in Afghanistan and Iraq. The new estimates now appear to reflect the double impact of pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq and also getting a better handle on stepped-up operations in Afghanistan.


Nonetheless it is a very different picture than President Barack Obama had once hoped for as a candidate backed by anti-war forces in his party. In contrast with the Bush-era budgets, Obama has made a point of including some place-holder for war costs in his spending plans, but these have proven more of a gesture than any accurate forecast of the dollars needed.


For example, Obama's 2011 budget—just a year ago at this time— assumed $50 billion as a "placeholder" for contingency war funds in 2012, less than half of what now is expected to be needed.


Given the nature of war and the changing tempo of operations, even detailed, timely estimates are vulnerable to the same short-comings. In some respects, the $159 billion request for 2011 may have proven too high and the extra contingency funds became an escape valve of sorts for House and Senate Appropriations looking for ways to buy new military equipment and still cope with proposed cuts from the core defense budget.


At this stage, the flow of war-related funds has not been impacted by the continued impasse in Congress over the 2011 budget. But Gates is clearly restless with the situation that has left most of his department frozen at 2010 funding levels under a stopgap continuing resolution, or CR, due to expire Mar. 4.


After blocking the Democrats from acting last month on a longer term solution, the incoming House Republican majority is showing signs of changing course and allowing some relief for defense.


"They would love to have an appropriations bill they can deal with," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon (R- Cal) after meeting with Gates. "I'm going to go back to leadership and talk to them and see if there isn't some way we can't get to an appropriations budget for defense. If they are stuck with the CR, they'll probably end up wasting money. None of us are interested in wasting money."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47206.html#ixzz1ANIBzMZR

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47206.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comment: We must wake up to this depressing fascist news. We must oppose the Obama Regime. POTUS Obama is a fascist Chicago gangster and mass murderer with his war policies. The U.S. government is out of the control of the American people. I cannot understand why more of us are not outraged about all these billions of dollars being spent on the unjust wars in the Middle East. POTUS Obama is getting more and more corporate capitalists on his staff and the whole country is going down a shit hole.


"The Pentagon is expected to seek in the range of $120 billion for overseas war costs next year, a significant drop from 2011 but still a stubborn strain on deficit-reduction efforts... For the current fiscal year, the Obama administration has assumed about $159 billion in costs for military operations, chiefly in Afghanistan and Iraq."


These Yahoo Groups are cool but I wonder how many people actually bother to read these posts, some folks just post stuff to feed their ego and see their names. There is little feedback. It gets to be just a lightweight glee club. Many times only a few people even bother to post. These days I am mainly on Twitter and Facebook because at least I can get some decent Feedback.

Feedback is the life and soul of social networking, not just posting a bunch of stuff nobody but cyber ghosts ever see.

Venceremos! We Will Win!

Peta_de_Aztlan
Sacramento, California
Email: peter.lopez51@yahoo.com
http://twitter.com/Peta_de_Aztlan
http://www.facebook.com/Peta51
http://help-matrix.ning.com/
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F.Kennedy ~ c/s

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Birthright Citizenship Looms as Next Immigration Battle

http://nyti.ms/hATFOv

Birthright Citizenship Looms as Next Immigration Battle
Joshua Lott for The New York Times

Laura Gomez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who is six months pregnant, is currently in Scottsdale, Ariz. She said she had come to the United States mainly to find work.

NOGALES, Ariz. — Of the 50 or so women bused to this border town on a recent morning to be deported back to Mexico, Inez Vasquez stood out. Eight months pregnant, she had tried to trudge north in her fragile state, even carrying scissors with her in case she gave birth in the desert and had to cut the umbilical cord.


"All I want is a better life," she said after the Border Patrol found her hiding in bushes on the Arizona side of the border with her husband, her young son and her very pronounced abdomen.


The next big immigration battle centers on illegal immigrants' offspring, who are granted automatic citizenship like all other babies born on American soil. Arguing for an end to the policy, which is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, immigration hard-liners describe a wave of migrants like Ms. Vasquez stepping across the border in the advanced stages of pregnancy to have what are dismissively called "anchor babies."


The reality at this stretch of the border is more complex, with hospitals reporting some immigrants arriving to give birth in the United States but many of them frequent border crossers with valid visas who have crossed the border legally to take advantage of better medical care. Some are even attracted by an electronic billboard on the Mexican side that advertises the services of an American doctor and says bluntly, "Do you want to have your baby in the U.S.?"


Women like Ms. Vasquez, who was preparing for a desert delivery, are rare.


Still, Arizona — whose tough law granting the police the power to detain illegal immigrants is tied up in the courts — may again take the lead in what is essentially an effort to redefine what it means to be an American. This time, though, Arizona lawmakers intend to join with legislators from other states to force the issue before the Supreme Court.


This coalition of lawmakers will unveil its exact plans on Wednesday in Washington, but people involved in drafting the legislation say they have decided against the painstaking process of amending the Constitution. Since the federal government decides who is to be deemed a citizen, the lawmakers are considering instead a move to create two kinds of birth certificates in their states, one for the children of citizens and another for the children of illegal immigrants.


The theory is that this could spark a flurry of lawsuits that might resolve the legal conflict in their favor.


"This is not a far-out, extremist position," said John Kavanagh, one of the Arizona legislators who is leading an effort that has been called just that. "Only a handful of countries in the world grant citizenship based on the GPS location of the birth."


Most scholars of the Constitution consider the states' effort to restrict birth certificates patently unconstitutional. "This is political theater, not a serious effort to create a legal test," said Gabriel J. Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona whose grandfather immigrated to the United States from China at a time when ethnic Chinese were excluded from the country. "It strikes me as unwise, un-American and unconstitutional."


The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, was a repudiation of the Supreme Court's 1857 ruling, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, that people of African descent could never be American citizens. The amendment said citizenship applied to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."


In 1898, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the citizenship provision as applying to a child born in the United States to a Chinese immigrant couple.


Still, some conservatives contend that the issue is unsettled. Kris Kobach, the incoming secretary of state in Kansas and a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who has helped draft many of the tough immigration regulations across the country, argued that the approach the states were planning would hold up to scrutiny.


"I can't really say much more without showing my hand," Mr. Kobach said in an e-mail. "But, yes, I am confident that the law will stand up in court."


The legal theories are lost on Laura Gomez, 24, who crossed into Arizona from Mexico five years ago while expecting and is now pregnant with her second child. But like many other pregnant women in Arizona who are without papers, she has been following the issue with anxiety.


"It doesn't seem fair to just change the rules like that," Ms. Gomez said.

Despite being called "anchor babies," the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States cannot actually prevent deportation of their parents. It is not until they reach the age of 21 that the children are able to file paperwork to sponsor their parents for legal immigration status. The parents remain vulnerable until that point.


Maria Ledezma knows as much. Just off a bus that deported her from Phoenix to the Mexico border town of Nogales, she was sobbing as she explained the series of events that led her to be separated from her three daughters, ages 4, 7 and 9, all American citizens.


"I never imagined being here," said Ms. Ledezma, 25, who was brought to Phoenix from Mexico as a toddler. "I'll bet right now that my girls are asking, 'Where's Mom?' "


Blended families like hers are a reality across the United States. A studyreleased in August by the Pew Hispanic Center found that about 340,000 children were born to illegal immigrants in the United States in 2008 and became instant citizens.


In April, Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, one of those pushing for Congressional action on the issue, stirred controversy when he suggested that children born in the United States to illegal immigrants should be deported with their parents until the birthright citizenship policy was changed.


"And we're not being mean," Mr. Hunter told a Tea Party rally in Southern California. "We're just saying it takes more than walking across the border to become an American citizen. It's what's in our souls."


Immigrant advocates say intolerance is driving the measure. "They call themselves patriots, but they pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they support," said Lydia Guzman, a Latino activist in Phoenix. "They're fear-mongerers. They're clowns."


Like many states, Arizona is suffering a severe budget crisis, prompting even some lawmakers who have supported immigration restrictions in the past to question whether it is the right time for another divisive immigration bill. They say the state's fiscal issues need to be resolved before Arizona jumps back into a controversial immigration debate.

"I was born and raised in New York," responded Mr. Kavanagh, who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the Arizona House. "I can ride a subway, drink coffee, read the newspaper and make sure my pockets are not picked all at the same time."


Scholars who have studied migration say it is the desire for better-paying jobs, not a passport for their children, that is the main motivator for people to leave their homes for the United States.


Even Ms. Vasquez, who was preparing for a desert delivery, agrees with that. While she preferred to have her child be born in the United States, she said, it was the prospect of a better economic future, with or without papers, that had prompted her and her family to cross when they did. "I'll try again — but once the baby's born," she said.


This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 4, 2011

An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the year that the Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, applied the citizenship provision to a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrants; it was 1898.

http://nyti.ms/hATFOv
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Amnesty Now! Is the only possible solution, but a world without borders will not happen under the present government.
Venceremos! We Will Win!

Peta_de_Aztlan
Sacramento, California
Email: peter.lopez51@yahoo.com
http://twitter.com/Peta_de_Aztlan
http://www.facebook.com/Peta51
http://help-matrix.ning.com/
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F.Kennedy ~ c/s