An Open Letter to Governor Jan Brewer

Dear Gov. Brewer,

Allow me to begin my comments, Gov. Brewer, by thanking you for taking the common-sense stand with regard to illegal immigration for which so many honest, everyday Americans have desperately been asking of their federal government.

I, for one–and I’m confident that I speak for many–fail to understand the policies and alleged viewpoints coming out of Washington that seem to directly–intentionally?–countermand the simple, basic immigration rules currently on our books which allow for any person to legally become a citizen of the United States of America.

I’ve asked this question many times, both rhetorically and in actual conversation, but I’ve still never received an answer that in anyway makes sense: Why are we seemingly turning a blind eye to the flagrant trespass of our most fundamental laws? I’m sure that I’m not providing you any information that you don’t already know, Gov. Brewer, but to me the answer to that question is a simple one: while the progressive, far political Left in this country would have the everyday American believe that this is all about “social justice,” empathy for people who are just looking for a better life and their concern for the families of the immigrants, this all comes back to professors Cloward and Piven and their attempts to collapse all the structures in American culture–economic, social, and cultural–by overloading them to the point of breaking.

Professors Cloward and Piven knew that over the course of time, such a multi-faceted, social overload would inevitably result in riots and the degradation of social cohesion. The situation into which you have now thrust yourself and your state has been in the works for a long, long time. Understand that you are now on the front lines in a cultural war (and as regards the violence that is now crossing our borders from Mexico, a literal one) in which the endgame is nothing short of the heart of the greatest nation ever conceived by the mind of man.

Your battle to secure your own borders is merely one manifestation of a war with multiple fronts. We’ve already witnessed lines being drawn in the sand in both places and over issues: New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, and now Arizona, in addition to the devastating barrier that has already been breached in health care. The American people are fully well aware of what is being done to their country and realize that ultimately, the only goal the political Left has in this country is the consolidation of power, wealth, and control, despite their vociferous protestations as to the nature of their alleged idealism.

Governor, I think that, unfortunately, the violence and riots that have always historically marked the behavior of the Left are only just beginning, and I’m sure that you have the prayers of millions of Americans nationwide that God will provide you the strength to stand your ground. President Obama and the far-left wing of the Democratic Party will no doubt use this as an opportunity to vilify both Republicans and conservatives in an attempt to ratchet up the pressure as they try to devise a method for pushing through some type of universal Amnesty bill.

The Democrats are at a breaking point, but, truth be told, so are we; the political Left must have some type of immigration reform passed and quite soon, or else their political fate may be sealed in November. They will never have this opportunity again in this country, or at least not for several generations. They must have what they clearly see as a major voting block. Your decision to push back and forward in the name of protecting your state, your people, and, quite frankly, common sense has more than likely only forced the Democrats to put their immigration plans onto the so-called “fast track.”

Allow me to also add this consideration, Governor. One particular passage from an Associated Press story regarding this explosive issue, a story that hit the wires yesterday afternoon, reads as follows:

The measure – set to take effect in late July or early August – would make it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. It directs state and local police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.

Given that there’s still a significant amount of time between your decision to sign this law into effect and the actual moment that it can be applied, I truly hope that this is not an example of political posturing in order to demonstrate to your voter base that you’re trying to uphold the law and to do the right thing, only to revoke the law under what would clearly seem to be unrelenting pressure.

Right is right, wrong is wrong, and the law is the law. We no longer can be patient with the hallmark of the liberal mindset, otherwise known as situational ethics.

Given that there is, as I’ve stated, still a significant amount of time between word and action, a period when a practically infinite number of things can happen to change the equation, I also do not doubt for one minute that we’ll see the likes of Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer – two men who I’m sure only have the best interest of all Americans at heart – pressing forward in their desire to ‘nationalize’ or ‘federalize’ all Americans by requiring (forcing?) all “citizens” of this country to carry a national, bio-metric ID card.

Let me ask you this, Governor, since you’re one of the first people who’s had the courage to step into the cultural crucible that’s been slowly coming to a boil over the past 40 years – wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to provide bio-metric ID’s to people who are here temporarily and are currently working toward citizenship in a legal, responsible fashion? Wouldn’t that naturally result in fewer people to monitor? Why force people, on a nation-wide scale, to carry something that they do not need? Don’t we need to properly identify the people who are here but not yet citizens? Wouldn’t that be more efficient, and especially more cost-efficient? I mean, really, think about the absolute non-sensical reaction of the left to your new law – they are aghast that all Americans can now be “stopped for papers” – as that paragon of all things truthful, Rachel Maddow, says to her viewer – but they have no problem whatsoever with all Americans being forced to carry a bio-metric ID card.

Do the math on that one.

I suppose it makes sense, though, if your intent is to, as I’ve stated above, “overload the system”.

Using common sense and a dash of intellect like that, however, no doubt makes me a Nazi.

Funny thing is, it was the Nazis who implemented the use of national ID cards themselves.

And that’s the National Socialist Party, in case you’re keeping score in your office.

Yet we have people who are merely doing their jobs by trying to uphold the law being branded as Nazis. The irony is so thick that it can’t be cut with a knife; a chainsaw would me more appropriate.

I’m now so accustomed to the relentless political machinations and trickery from the Left that I do not doubt for one second that national ID cards will begin to gradually make their way into the general populace, well in advance of any attempted formal “legislation.”

Further, there are several other items that I feel should be on your agenda to address with the opponents of this new law. First, since the Tea Party protesters are such a threat to our society, with all of the violence and threats of violence that have come from those gatherings, in what fashion should we term the veritable riots that are now beginning in your state? If the Tea Parties are violent, then I’m not sure that there’s even a word to characterize the protests that you’re now up against. Of course, those on the Left feel as though their actual violence is “justified” in some sense, since all of those who are not yet citizens of this country, but yet continue to stream across our borders and live in our country, are, for some reason, “victims” of something.

I’m just trying to figure out of what, exactly, that they’re victims.

Second, I’m somewhat confused about the Left’s alleged concern about the negative impact that this will no doubt have upon the families, both nuclear and extended, of the immigrants that wish to live here. I’m understandably confused, because I can’t generally recall a genuine time, moment, or event in the recent history of this country that clearly demonstrated the political Left’s concern with the concept of family. In fact, based upon all of the legislation that has been passed by liberals not only in this country but also in Western Europe, I can only come to the conclusion that people on the progressive end of the political paradigm detest the concept of family.

Truth be told, this is, if anything at all, consistent with the societal plans of the Bolsheviks in 1920′s Russia, when the first thing that the newly-ordained communist government did was to make a ruthless attempt to destroy the family unit. Sadly, they were actually quite successful in their endeavors, and their handiwork has become a demographic debt with which that nation is still burdened today, as their birth-death ratio is essentially in a state of free-fall. Even officials in England have begun to take note of the alarming trends in their demographics and in the social impact of the liberal legislation that has come to define that nation, as it has become economically more prudent for the typical male in the prime of his life to remain single and, if he reproduces at all (either consciously or by accident), to have children with multiple partners.

In short then, Governor, I’d like very much for you to ask any representative of the opposition the degree of their concern for the immigrants’ families, because honestly, I don’t get it.

It also makes me wonder who these people are actually unconsciously fighting, but that’s a psychological analysis for another time.

The third of what I feel are very understandable concerns has to do with President Obama’s contention that the measure could lead to police abuses, i.e., racial profiling. Certainly President Obama doesn’t feel as though the police in Arizona will act stupidly with regard to a law that is only meant to maintain the safety of the American people. Police officers who routinely place the safety of others before their own, and especially under such trying social circumstances, deserve our respect first and foremost. Pre-judging the actions of any other person based only upon the uniform that they’re wearing strikes me as patently wrong. I’m sure that the leader of the allegedly free world would never make such an assumption about men and women of such solid character. If I’m in a position to stand with and/or behind anyone, it’s the police.

Many of the liberals in the United States, people who view life situations through only an emotional lens without regard to consequences and generally regard the notion of responsibility with regard to any facet of life as an artificial construction are also, many times, people with country club memberships. Since I do not know you personally, Governor Brewer, I have no way of knowing whether or not you belong to any type of an exclusive club. Since I’m a mere member of the proletariat, I can tell you for certain that I definitely cannot afford such a luxury. I’m curious, though – would many of the elitist members of the media object to my presence if I just decided to begin frequenting their posh digs without membership or permission and felt entitled to throwing back a couple of cold ones with their sophisticated friends?

Here’s betting that they would.

See, we have the fortune to be members of a fairly exclusive club, and the people of this club have about had it with the membership rules being ignored.  Liberals can feign outrage all that they’d like at the comparison I’ve drawn. I really don’t care. Fact is, the truth has a manner of cutting to the bone in a very painful fashion.

My final concern is more of an obvious one, in that it deals with the sovereignty of our 50 individual states. Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said, “if every state had its own laws, we wouldn’t be one country; we’d be 50 different countries.” Again, I’m not sure if it’s that liberals don’t understand the Constitution or that they don’t care; however, it might be beneficial if you were to explain to them – show them, for Heaven’s sake, if necessary – that the Constitution of the United States of America explicitly calls for what I might term a “loose collaboration” of the states of which it consists at any given moment. Each state is sovereign, meaning that it is essentially free to make it’s own laws. The Founding Fathers conceived the term of “sovereignty” as beginning with the individual, not with an all-powerful federal government. Indeed, many of the Founding Fathers warned against the dangers of federalism, as they saw the manner in which it could easily evolve in and eventually consume a constitutional republic. I can only conclude, therefore, that the people who oppose your law apparently favor this dangerous form of government; why they would wish for this is a curious bit, to be sure.

I’ll close with this simple sentiment, Governor Brewer – I hope your actions are the real deal. As long as you’re serious, you’ll have the support of nearly an entire nation and generation of Americans. Your time – indeed, all of ours – is now at hand.

John J. Feeny
America’s Right



  1. Captains log says:

    I salute the honorable Governor Brewer. Let us know what we volunteers here in the volunteer state, Tennessee, can do to help.

    We are definitely living in historic times folks. Keep a diary.

  2. Gail B. says:

    If those coming across the border are Mexicans, and if their presence in the United States is via illegal entry, “racial” profiling is out the door and “criminal” profiling is in!

    My question is, how is something illegal not already a crime? I have not yet heard whether the crime is a misdemeanor or a felony.

    I also do not understand, as enormous as the Department of Homeland Security is, why Homeland Security has not already secured our borders! Why does it fight any attempt to secure our citizens? The Preamble to the Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    There’s just something not quite right about this D.C. regime!

  3. The triple crown says:

    It’s not just people coming…… its leafy green stuff, white powder and drug terrorism.

  4. Goin' South says:

    Oh to see what the Mexican government would do to us ‘white’ folks, if we started pouring across THEIR border.

  5. Ruth says:

    As usual John, a well written article. And many thanks to the Arizona legistlature and Governor Brewer for their courage in the face of what they had to know was going to be a firestorm. In my humble opinion we conservatives are losing this argument because we are allowing the left to frame the argument as one of “immigration” as opposed to “illegal immigration”. I am 100% opposed to illegal immigration but 100% in favor of legal immigration. My grandfather was an immigrant from Italy and my husbands great-grandfather was an immigrant from Ireland so we are both here only because of legal immigration. As a citizen of this country I am required to show identification upon request. What part of showing identification to law enforcement creates a hardship for anyone? What insanity allows illegal immigrants to be exempt from laws that I, as a law abiding American citizen, am required to obey? I’ll answer my own question. Liberal insanity.

  6. 2010 says:

    Common Sense

    This democratic-republic experiment is officially over.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Man, it’s looking like this tree of liberty, really needs a good watering.

  8. Speedy Gonzalez says:

    The least WE can do is boycott Mexican restaurants. VIVA McDONALDS!
    Make any of em here legally, start to fight back against this disregard for law.

  9. Scriv says:

    Great letter John. She needs all the support we can lend- the attacks on her will grow more personal and trying as this plays out. Arizona is the first standoff in this battle. I am glad someone finally “drew a line in the sand”. It will be interesting to see how well the states rights argument is upheld with our “authoritarian-lite” federal government pulling the strings.

  10. Dee says:

    I emailed the governor yesterday and thanked her for taking a stand. My relatives on my father’s side came from Ireland during the potato famine and my mother’s parents came from what was then Yugoslavia. All became citizens by following the legal route.
    I don’t understand what BO is upset with since she is following the law. What times we are living in.

  11. Boston Blackie says:

    I hope you actually forwarded this letter to Gov. Brewer, she needs to know that Arizona is not alone in this fight. When I read commentaries like this from the AR staff, it reinforces the reason why I am a bean counter and not a writer. I could never imagine putting into words what you guys do on a daily basis – unbelievable!
    “Since I’m a mere member of the proletariat, I can tell you for certain that I definitely cannot afford such a luxury”
    I want to thank you for expanding my volcabulary, I will be sure to use my new favorite word when conversing with idiots.
    As a nation of immigrants, this should be THE line in the sand for all of us.
    It is disgraceful that no president, present or past, has not put the safety of its citizens as its utmost priority.
    Goin’ South -
    Go ahead and google how Mexico handles illegal immigrants coming over THEIR southern borders, you will be shocked!!

  12. R.B. says:

    Perhaps the good POTUS is upset because he is not LEGAL…..perhaps.

  13. Lilly says:

    MSNBC headline yesterday
    “Law makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant”

  14. John Feeny says:

    Boston -
    I already have.

  15. Anonymous says:

    R.B., congrats, you had one make it past Jeff… he catches all mine.

  16. American baby massacre says:

    Former President Bill Clinton enthusiastically weighed into the blistering national debate on immigration today with a resounding assertion that America needs more immigrants — not fewer — to ensure its long-term fiscal future.
    At a symposium on deficit reduction today (see my earlier story), Clinton said that one key to avoiding massive debt is to maintain a good ratio between people paying into the system, and those receiving payouts (through such programs as Social Security.)

    If they would quit murdering unborn babies, they would grow to ‘pay into the system’ as well. The lefts arguments only incorporate their agenda.

  17. Common sense says:
  18. (Redacted) says:

    “The Constitution of the United States of America explicitly calls for what I might term a “loose collaboration” of the states of which it consists at any given moment.”

    The fact that you’re forced to resort to your own terminology is a pretty good giveaway of the fact that the Constitution does not “explicitly” call for any such thing. If it did, I have little doubt that you’d go out of your way to quote the specific language of the Constitution that does so. In truth, the entire “loose collaboration” concept that you’re so eager to impute to the Constitution merely reflects your own personal opinion of how that document should be interpreted.

    “Each state is sovereign, meaning that it is essentially free to make it’s own laws.”

    This just isn’t even remotely true, and I can’t imagine how someone who apparently knows enough about the Constitution to write a book about the First Amendment could possibly claim it is. Entire SECTIONS of the Constitution are devoted to restricting the extent of a state’s freedom to make it’s own laws, and that’s before you even get to the Supremacy Clause. If you want to argue that the AZ bill doesn’t run afoul of any of those restrictions then fine, go for it. But don’t imply that the Constitution gives the states unfettered freedom to make any laws they want.

  19. John Feeny says:

    Redact -
    I think that I was pretty careful in my use of the word “essentially”. I’m obviously quite aware that there are federal laws that supersede state laws, and I would not consider myself an expert on the Constitution, per se. I’ve simply always been interested in it, have done quite a bit of reading on it, and understand a good amount of it. Let’s just say like most of the writers on this site, we know more than the average person.

    I respect the tone of your response. I really do. Criticism and debate is all part of this, so if I’m going to put myself out there in the political arena, so to speak, I have to be prepared to be slapped down from time to time as well. I’m merely speaking my mind on events as common sense and the Constitution strike me.

    Let me say this, though – while there are certainly federal laws that supersede state laws, and while it may be, in fact that immigration is an area in which federal law DOES supersede state law, why doesn’t the federal government simply do it’s job? Clearly, I think we’d both agree that the 50 states are, in fact, sovereign entities; since Washington is apparently turning a blind eye ton this for political purposes – as even George Bush did – then why should Arizona not have the right to protect itself with literal violence knocking on it’s doorstep? If Washington doesn’t like this, then maybe it should do it’s job.

  20. Jeff Schreiber says:


    I would go so far as to say that, on matters of immigration and border enforcement, the United States Constitution EXPRESSLY grants the federal government the authority to make and enforce laws. Supremacy Clause aside, when you look at clauses 1, 3, 4 and 15 of Article I, Section 8 (yes, I have them memorized), it’s pretty clear that in this case, the autonomy granted to the states by the Tenth Amendment does not apply. So, you’re absolutely right on that.

    However, I agree with John in that each and every elected official in our federal government swears an oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, and that includes the parts about providing for the common defense and repelling invasion. And, frankly, it could very well be argued that our elected officials–on both sides of the aisle–have done everything but honor their oaths when it comes to immigration and border control. Therefore, because state officials in Arizona also swear an oath to protect and defend the citizens of that state, I see no problem with such an oath being honored on the state level.

    Now, when it comes to the Supremacy Clause–that’s Article VI, Clause 2 for those following along at home–there are other issues at hand. First of all, the Supremacy Clause was meant as a conflict-of-laws measure, designed to ensure that certain federal acts be given primacy over any state acts which conflict with national law. In this case, the legislation in question is, for the most part, merely a reinforcement of federal immigration laws. I would argue that there is little or no conflict with regard to legislative intent — the conflict comes with regard to enforcement.

    Look, John Marshall contemplated just this sort of thing in Marbury v. Madison, when he noted that federal laws are supreme only if they are made pursuant to the Constitution. What he came up with, as it relates more to conflict-of-laws than judicial review, was the idea that the Supremacy Clause was designed to resolve a conflict between state and federal governments only subsequent to the valid exercise of federal power. Again, I would argue that federal power, when it comes to matters of immigration and border control, has not been validly exercised.

    So, in a manner of speaking, both you AND John Feeny are correct. All that being said, as this issue has unfolded, I’m actually for once happy that James Madison did not have his way. If I remember correctly, back at the time Madison wanted to resolve conflict-of-laws issues with the congressional capacity to veto state laws. Looking at the makeup of Congress now, I’m glad he lost that debate.

    Back to studying,


  21. Two can play this game says:

    they wanna go this route?????

  22. John Buyon says:

    What I don’t understand is why the federal government cant efficiently secure southern border? neither party can and I don’t understand American law exactly but if the federal government cant satisfactorily carry out it’s duties cant the states jump in and do it themselves?

    just a thought but also why is racial profiling a bad word?
    if certain groups are more likely to commit crimes what is so bad about keeping a closer eye on them.

    P.S. “And that’s the National Socialist Party, in case you’re keeping score in your office ”
    stop referring to Nazis as National socialists, I know that’s what papa Glenn told you but they were as much of a socialists as North Korea is a democratic peoples republic.

  23. Like MILLIONS of others, I applaud the Gov. for her stand! I trust that SHE will not back down! It is past time for someone to stand UP for the good OLD U.S. of A. and the RIGHTS of her CITIZENS.!!!!

    GO – Go – GO !!!

  24. Plain as day says:

    Why secure the southern border? them thar be democrat votes.

  25. La Crimson Femme says:

    John, thank you for well written article. I enjoyed it and I too am glad you have sent it to the Governor in show of your support. Some of the questions you posed are interesting and do encourage debate. Unfortunately, I’m severely undereducated here on these topics so I can’t even string a reasonable argument. What I do find interesting is some of the postings responses to your article. I’ve had this question in my mind for a while and so I thought I’d through it on here and see what others think. Perhaps they will provide more information to educate me.

    @Gail B et al who mention why Homeland Security doesn’t do anything. Does anyone find it ironic that Ms. Napolitano, who was the former Governor of Arizona (21st), former Arizona Attorney General (23rd) and former US Attorney for the District of Arizona who DID NOT improve the safety Arizona borders is now in charge of the entire US border from hostile enemies of the US? (Sorry for the run on sentence.)

    Is ironic the right word? Perhaps unbelievable is more appropriate? Here’s my question. I see her background is in law. Specifically, she started out as a lawyer. Don’t lawyers interpret law or create new ones? They defend/prosecute people or met out justice if they become judges. I don’t recall (perhaps this is my ignorance) lawyers actually having to learn how to enforce laws. As in, they aren’t in the business of securing safety.

    If I want my house secured from burglary, I don’t call my lawyer friends or hire a lawyer. I call a security company, cop or military friend. They are the subject matter experts. They are the ones I trust to help keep me safe. So my question to others is why do we have a person who doesn’t seem to know anything about securing the safety of our nation at the head of our security?

  26. whats_up says:

    to Plain as day:

    That would explain why Conservatives and the Republicans did nothing about this will they had power right, because of all those “dem voters”. Pathetic and misses the point entirely.

  27. Legal immigrant says:

    I salute governor Brewer! She is a hero! She is a real American! She has the courage that all U.S. citizens and those with the Green Card need to have to defent our homeland. I came to this country 60 years ago under the Immigration Act of 1924. My family followed the law, filled out applications, provided all documents, police clearance, had chest x-rays and all required medical tests to prevent incoming contageous diseases, had Affidavits of Support to prove that we would not become public charges (on taxpayers money). We waited five yeaRS TO BECOME CITIZENS, WE SPOKE THE LANGUAGE, knew the Constitution to pass our citizenship exams in ENGLISH. I can’t believe what I am reading. Traitors like Luis Gutierrez, Connie Mack, coward Rick Perry and mamy others and the press that are enemies of the United States . How dare they mislead the public? 12 million illegals that do not pay taxes and suck the blood of legal immigrants and their ancestors and avail themselves of services for which we, the citizens, must pay. What “civil rights”? Civil rights for criminals that cross the border illegaly and should even be given CITIZENSHIP??? Just like that! They come in hords as you can see in photographs and Mexico’s hypocritical government is glad to get rid of them. It is all done with their government’s approval. Why doesn’t someone who did put up the billboard about Bush (“Are you missing me yet?”) put up billboards all over the United States spelling out MEXICO’S IMMIGRATION LAWS to educate the public. Wake up, people! Those laws should be passed by the U.S. and,since they are unwilling, each state should pass it. The government in Washington condones crimes for the sake of votes. That should be clear to everybody.I support Rep. Duncan Hunter (San Diego). The law that if you were born on the soil of America, you are automatically a citizen SHOULD BE ABOLISHED. Only children of citizens, legal immigrants and those holding the “green card” should have that right. Children of illegals should not get citizenship. The leftist press should be stopped from calling these people “immigrants” because it offends us, legal immigrants, and our ancestors who came here legally. These people are ILLEGALS and criminals because they disobeyed the laws of this country. Bill Clinton and all others like him are full of it. Why don’t these enemies of America shut up. Why doesn’t Bill Clinton think about his own crimes. As for the demonstrators, this is a good opportunity to round them up, fill buses and dispatch them back to Mexico and let us see how their big mouthed president likes it. These illegals have the guts to demonstrate!!!!!! It turns my stomach that they are allowed by those that want to legalize them for votes.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Them thar be cheap labor…… usually ending up dem votes, however.
    Bush’s had a weak spot for hispanic family.

    on a lighter note….
    there “are few things in life that are harder to find and more important to keep than love–well, love and a birth certificate.”
    - Barack Obama at White House correspondents dinner

  29. John S. says:

    I am a graduate of the United States Military Academy. I am very proud of Governor Brewer’s actions. Ignorance is not only a disease, but a menace in this country and it’s rampant in Washington as well as our populace.

    The new information web site will help alleviate some but I fear not enough.

    I too do not understand the federal government’s lack of willingness to support Arizona but rather the illegals.

    This is a very dangerous situation. When illegals carry signs saying “you owe us America” I cannot tell you the things that come into my mind which challenge my patience.

    I am married to a Russian woman. Russians cannot enter this country without a worker or fiance VISA. Other countries have to do the same. Why are Latin Americans, specifically Mexicans not held to the same standard?

    Granted there are many nice Mexicans, but nice does not make it right. Follow the system, pay your dues to get your Green Card.

    The other thing that perturbs me is the automatic citizenship of babies born to illegals. That has to be addressed or this country will be speaking Spanish in 3-4 generations.

    Remember when NATO (led by the U.S.A.) was bombing Serbia for the Kosovo war? Serbs were fighting against a hostile group of ILLEGAL 2nd Generation Albanians who did not belong there. Yet, the USA, led by President Clinton, took land away from Serbia and gave it to these illegals. This is what the liberal mindset is in this country.

    The Serbians warned us … and told us point blank that “America’s time is coming soon and you will learn that what you did to us was wrong”.

    Lastly, I remember some of my Mexican co-workers bragging that they will get all their land back without firing a shot.

    Hmmmm … I don’t think he remembers the Alamo. But unless something is done, that may be the direction this country is headed … just like Serbia … ethnic warfare.

  30. Ed S says:

    Outstanding letter, Mr. Feeny, which I hope was well-received by the Governor.
    In ElPaso, I remember seeing the faces through the fences, and the RioGrande as a child at Fort Bliss. Some day laborers with Greencards got shuttled to work by their American employers and driven home to Juarez at night with pay.
    Recently in North Carolina, I watched as Greyhound buses unloaded people from Mexico, Central and South America (I asked them…they told me). Seasonal farm hands. Green Cards? Some said si, some ‘no’ with a quick grin and furtive look around. Some risk it because the wait is so long, and the system on the other side so corrupt that they risk existing freedoms for a few dollars more. Ballsy, but stupid, for labor conditions have been hazardous.
    My grand and great-grandparents emigrated to the USA from all over Europe. They all went through the process, learned English, asked “what they could do for their country” (long before JFK was a gleam in his father’s eye). Today, I am the second of three generations of college graduates, and three blue stars are in our kitchen window. I say, secure our borders and enforce existing laws! If someone is breaking our laws AND is here illegally, what is the question? AZ’s new laws are bringing this whole issue into the light of day with honest communication, and that is change I hope you can believe.


  1. [...] full post &#959n “AZ Gov Poll: Illegal Immigrant Law Boosts Brewer” &#1072n&#1281 related posts Related Posts:AZ Gov Poll: Illegal Immigrant Law Boosts BrewerArizona Immigration Bill Signed by [...]

  2. [...] Right – An Open Letter to Governor Jan Brewer (Hat Tip: Brian [...]

Speak Your Mind