Update: Americans support local law enforcement checking immigration status during traffic stops; meanwhile in Bizarro World Justice Dept to kill 287G program due to mythical ‘racial profiling’….Sheriff Joe just says no..

Update: Rasmussen recent results show Americans WANT 287g enforcement by local cops:

The police chiefs who spoke out recently indicated a desire to get local law enforcement out of the immigration business. However, 73% of voters want cops to check the immigration status of all offenders during traffic stops. Sixty-seven percent (67%) also say that if law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, they should sometimes conduct surprise raids to identify and deport those who are here illegally.

On another point, the police chiefs recommended that illegal immigrants should be integrated into the legal system, “possibly with driver’s licenses.” However, 77% of voters nationwide oppose drivers’ licenses for undocumented immigrants. That topic tripped up Hillary Clinton in a debate during the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, has taken a different approach and has aggressively enforced immigration laws. While his efforts have prompted a U.S. Justice Department civil rights investigation, the sheriff remains popular in his home state. Most Arizona voters not only support his policies, but 58% say he has been good for the state’s image. On a personal basis, Arpaio is viewed favorably by 68% of Arizona voters

More from the polling:

…Sixty-six percent (66%) of likely voters nationwide say it is Very Important for the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration. Just 32% of America’s Political Class agree.

Three-out-of-four voters believe that the federal government is not doing enough to secure the nation’s borders.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters nationwide say that those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants should be punished. By a 48% to 36% margin, voters say the same about landlords who rent to illegal immigrants.

The biggest point of disconnect between voters and the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C. has to do with priorities. Almost always in Washington, the debate begins with a focus on how to address the status of illegal immigrants. To voters, that is a secondary concern. Controlling the borders is a top concern. That hasn’t changes since the 2006 immigration legislation collapsed when the U.S. Senate surrendered to public opinion. During that debate, a New York Times/CBS poll found that 69% believed illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported.

What is often lost in the shuffle of the debate over immigration reform is that once the borders are controlled, most Americans favor a welcoming immigration policy provided it is done within the law. Republicans are more supportive than Democrats of such a policy. Overall, by a 55% to 27% margin, Americans favor a policy goal that would welcome everyone except criminals, national security threats and welfare dependants.

Also, while nearly a third of Americans are angry about the immigration issue, they are not angry at the immigrants. They are angry at the federal government….

THIS IS the MOST politicized Justice Dept EVAH people.

After complaints from people who do not live in AZ, people like Al Sharpton, and Bertha Lewis of ACORN, Justice has decided to change the 287G program that allowed local law enforcement(which had gone through EXTENSIVE Federal Training with ICE) to pick up illegals and deport them.


The Department of Homeland Security said Friday it was revising a program that authorized local police to enforce federal immigration law — a controversial aspect of U.S. border policy.

Opponents said the program, known as 287g, was intended to identify criminal aliens but instead has led to racial profiling; it allowed local police to identify and arrest illegal immigrants for such minor infractions as a broken tail light. Program supporters said it has been an effective tool for combating illegal immigration.

The new guidelines sharply reduce the ability of local law enforcement to arrest and screen suspected illegal immigrants. They are intended to prevent sheriff and police departments from arresting people “for minor offenses as a guise to initiate removal proceedings,” according to Homeland Security. The program will instead focus on more serious criminals.

…In the past two years, more than 120,000 suspected illegal immigrants were identified through the program, and most ended up in deportation proceedings. By comparison, ICE removed 356,739 illegal immigrants from the U.S. during the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008 — a 23.5% increase over the 2007 total….


…The most active local enforcer has been Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County. He said Friday he would continue pursuing illegal immigrants, arguing that state laws allow neighborhood crime sweeps and worksite raids.

“If I’m told not to enforce immigration law except if the alien is a violent criminal, my answer to that is we are still going to do the same thing, 287g or not,” said Mr. Arpaio. His deputies have identified in jail or picked up on the streets more than 30,000 illegal immigrants in the Phoenix area. “We have been very successful,” said the five-term sheriff.

RIGHT ON SHERIFF JOE!!!! His legal reasoning is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Scroll down to the *** see the citations of SCOTUS rulings that protect our Sheriff and our state’s sovereign right to enforce its laws.

The Department of Justice is investigating whether Mr. Arpaio’s deputies have used skin color as a pretense to stop Latinos suspected of being illegal immigrants.

Mr. Obama’s policy change is expected to bolster his standing with Latinos and some Democratic legislators. The administration is seeking to set the stage for a sweeping overhaul of immigration legislation that could put millions of illegal workers on the path to U.S. citizenship.

That right there is why they are doing this. Making Americans AND BTW illegals who are BEING FRAKKIN KIDNAPPED, less safe to ‘boost’ Obama with Latinos when he KNOWS he will not do immigration reform with unemployment this high. So instead let’s frak with the states on the border and look like we give a flying frak right? UnbeLIEVable.

Let’s review what happens when these laws are not enforced:

Here are a few examples of why we need to enforce the laws:

  • In March 2008, Jamiel Shaw Jr., a high school athlete, was murdered in Los Angeles by Pedro Espinoza, an illegal alien gang member from MS 13, as he was walking home. It is believed that Espinoza mistook Shaw Jr. for a rival gang member. Espinoza’s legal status was not checked even though he had been arrested for assault and was released a day before the murder according to Police Chief Officer William Bratton. [13] As a result of Jamiel Shaw Jr.’s death, a new ordinance is being proposed by family members that would allow police in the area to arrest suspected illegal alien gang members.[14] In May 2009, members of the Shaw family filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.[15]
  • In July 2008, a criminal gang member from MS 13 and illegal alien Edwin Ramos allegedly murdered Anthony Bologna and his two sons, Michael and Matthew, in broad daylight during a traffic altercation in San Francisco. Ramos was convicted of two felonies (including a gang-related assault of a young man aboard a bus and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman) at the age of 17 years but was not reported to federal immigration authorities due to San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy.[16][17] The city rejected any claims of liability and family members of the victims have filed a lawsuit as a result.[18]
  • In July 2008, a young woman was robbed and violently injured in San Francisco’s wealthy Pacific Heights neighborhood by an illegal immigrant named Alexander Izaguirre. Before the incident, Izaguirre had pleaded guilty to selling cocaine in the city’s Tenderloin neighborhood and was involved in previous purse-snatching crimes, but avoided jail because of San Francisco’s sanctuary policy. He was chosen to participate in a program called Back on Track, which is run by District Attorney Kamala Harris and provided training for jobs that Izaguirre could not legally hold. [19]
  • On July 31, 2008, 14-year-old Ivan Miranda was murdered and nearly decapitated in a sword attack in San Francisco‘s Excelsior neighborhood. Authorities arrested Rony Aguilera, known as “Guerrillero,” in the attack and believe Aguilera is an illegal alien from Honduras. Aguilera had been arrested in 2007 in an assault case, but was never reported to federal immigration officials due to San Francisco’s sanctuary policy.[20]
  • In October 2008, a drunken driving illegal alien, Salvador Vivas-Diaz, crashed his car against the police car of Phoenix, Arizona policeman Shane Figueroa which later resulted in Figueroa’s death. Vivas-Diaz had four arrest warrants, a suspended driver’s license, had been charged with forgery and failure to return to court but he was never reported to federal immigration authorities due to Phoenix’s former sanctuary city policy.[21]
  • On February 3, 2009 Francis Hernandez, an illegal alien, plowed into a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop in Denver, Colorado leaving three people dead and two injured. Hernandez had been arrested numerous times before but was never reported to federal immigration authorities due to Denver’s sanctuary city policy. [22]
  • After the murder of a restaurant waitress in Albuquerque, New Mexico in late June 2009 by three illegal alien suspects (one of whom was not deported despite being arrested for two prior DUI incidents), mayoral candidate Richard Berry decried the city’s sanctuary city policy. He also vowed, if elected, to repeal the policy that has been continued by the incumbent mayor Martin Chavez.[24]

Now the program will only be for ‘serious crimes’. Which of course are never committed before or after entering a car right? UNFRAKKINBELIEVABLE. Now as our Maricopa County Sheriffs Deputies have explained under testimony to Congress, police work is police work. Many criminals are apprehended due to smaller infractions ie driving infractions.

Many times police pull over someone for a broken taillight, ask for their license, find they are a criminal and deport them.

The Son of Sam was busted for a parking violation.

Now due to race card flinging buffoons, our police and our streets will be less safe. Good to know no one will be deported now if they are caught here illegally and driving illegally, so when they crash into an innocent person and have no insurance and no financial connection to the community away they will go with no one to stop them.

This is an attempt to FORCE US to be a sanctuary state within all our borders.

Mayor Phil Gordon is an idiot on this issue. As our deputies have said. He is a race card playing moron. Arizona is working on legislation to make it illegal to make a sanctuary city within our state.Mayor Phil is clueless about how police work is done, and our Justice Department is frankly OFF ITS REAL MISSION, which is TO ENFORCE THE LAW AND PROTECT AMERICANS with this decision.

The idea that in Phoenix AZ you are only pulling over people who look Hispanic is simply INSANE.

Do you know how many Hispanics live in Phoenix? MANY!!! If you are pulled over it is because your tags are expired or something not because you have a ‘tan’. You would have to pull over every 2 cars in 3 to be racially profiling against Hispanics in AZ people. Pfft!

Again Sharpton is coming here to apply his NYC race card playing buffoonery and due to Eric Holder’s incredible inability to UPHOLD THE LAW WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, (see the fact that they dismissed CLEAR VOTER INTIMIDATION BY NewBlackPantherParty against white voters in PA) AZ streets will be less safe.


But Holder doesn’t want to offend ANY person of ANY SHADE darker than ecru apparently.

Makes me ill.

What happened to this speech you gave to the Senate Judiciary last month AG Holder?

“I testified during my confirmation hearings earlier this year that under my leadership, the Department would pursue a very specific set of goals: ensuring public safety against threats both foreign and domestic; ensuring fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans; assisting our state and local partners; and defending the interests of the United States according to the law. I believe we are on the right path to accomplish those goals.”

“Second, we are working to ensure that the Department of Justice will always serve the cause of justice, not the fleeting interests of politics. For example, law enforcement decisions and personnel actions must be untainted by partisanship.”


Luckily Arizona will stand up for itself. But wishywashy GOP votes did not come through. These people need to be doing their jobs to protect us or get out of the way and let us elect someone who will.

Pearce has become the face of anti-illegal-immigration legislation in Arizona. His groundbreaking 2007 law targeted the state’s market for illegal labor with what then-Gov. Janet Napolitano called “the most aggressive action in the country.” The law is designed to penalize businesses that knowingly hire workers in the country illegally.

Unlike that measure, which remained in the spotlight for months, Pearce’s current bills have remained in the shadows of the state budget crisis.

Pearce declined to comment for this article. But in an op-ed piece published Thursday in The Arizona Republic, he set forth what he considers to be serious flaws in the enforcement of immigration law in Arizona. Too often, he suggested, violators of U.S. immigration law have been released rather than held accountable for their actions. This has led to crimes that could be prevented: murders, stabbings, shootings and sex offenses.

House Bill 2280 (originally Senate Bill 1175) received preliminary approval from the Senate on Friday. It requires state, county and city officials to comply fully with the enforcement of federal immigration law. Under the measure, Arizona citizens can file court actions against any official who supports a policy that limits immigration enforcement. Additionally, people in the country illegally can be convicted of the crime of trespassing.

SB 1173 would require public-housing authorities to get proof of lawful residence in the country from applicants.

“We took a two-year hiatus in trying to create state crimes in illegal immigration,” said Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City. “But we no longer have any faith in the national government except to create amnesty programs.”

Our previous posts on this total race card playin BS here and here

***Here is a good breakdown from one of our most staunch defenders of our law enforcement and their ability to act as they see fit, Russell Pearce:

Response from Russell Pearce 7/9/09
Concerning HB2280/SB1175 Anti-Sanctuary Bill
Please read – lengthy in detail but may give you a better understanding on how and why AZ Reps voted for or against this bill:

The spin stops here!!!! All I want is a firm understanding on where they stand and where will their vote be in the future. They will get another chance to vote on this critical issue. The courts have ruled time and time again local law enforcement has inherent authority to enforce immigration law. In fact 8 USC 1644 and 8 USC 1373 makes these sanctuary policies illegal under federal law.

Rep. Nancy Barto is a good woman, however she has been against local enforcement and we have had many discussions. She has family involved in the Interfaith Movement an open border group that protest on a regular basis against me, against Sheriff Joe and advocates for open borders, for Amnesty and they work with ACORN and other extreme left wing groups. I have a hard time to understand anyone not standing firmly for the Rule of Law and especially if one looks around at the Deaths, Maimings, and billions in cost to the taxpayer. It is in complete violation of their Oath of Office in my opinion.

Rep. John McComish is also a good man, but we differ on this issue.

Rep. Konopnicki was the lead in a Press Confernce against Prop. 200 to stop voter fraud and welfare fraud by illegals and fought me on the employer sanctions bill, but finally voted for it and then publically stated he wished he had not voted for it. Long time oppenent to enforcement of immigration laws.

Last January I put forth a Resolution on the removal of Sanctuary Cities/policies in this state and it passed “unanimously” at the State Republican Party Meeting and Maricopa County Republican Party Meeting. There were over 800 elected precinct committeemen and women at each of these meetings that represent the grassroots Republicans all across this state, these are our core Republicans and they made it loud and clear how they stand.

These folks are good Republicans, but simply weak on the most critical issue facing our nation, that is the enforcement by local law enforcement of immigration laws, and employing the most effective tool we have to stop this invasion by illegal aliens. What they are trying to say, simply is not true. My good friend Representative Boone’s bill was watered down at the request of the Police Chief’s Association, that have fought against me for years on the enforcement of our immigration laws. It was watered down to include an “intent” clause that would allow them to put conditions on them on when and where they can ask, which is being done now and allow them to only check when illegal aliens are arrested for another crime, which in Maricopa County Sheriff Joe does on every single person arrested and booked into jail; (another crime and another victim before anything would be done). It was unenforceable. All the Republicans mentioned as no votes or not voting at all have struggled with enforcement and have worked against it for years. Rep. Mason the exception perhaps. She told me she would have been a yes vote on the bill. I am not demeaning the character of these folks, but I must set the record straight.

HB2280 was well written and would have passed all court challenges as did my PROP. 200 (7 court challenges by the left and the Chamber of Commerce and I won 7 times), my Employer Sanctions (been to court 5 times and I won 5 times even in the 9th Circuit Court). These same silly and untrue arguments were used to get folks to not support Protect Arizona NOW (known as Prop. 200) and the employer sanctions law (The Fair and Legal Employment Act).

I will not support legislation that sounds good but changes nothing, no more wink and nod, our citizens deserve better and that is what the Boone bill did after the amendment was put on.

That is why my bill was endorsed by:
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, Pinal Co. Sheriff Babeu, Az FOP, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, Maricopa County Deputies Association, Border Patrol Officers Association, Arizona State Republican Party, Maricopa County Republican Party, Arizona Highway Patrol Association, two large Hispanic groups, Arizona African American Republican Club, Arizona Republican Assembly, The Pachyderms, NumbersUSA, F.A.I.R., and many more.

“Local Law Enforcement’s Inherent Authority of Immigration Law:”
Congress has firmly established that there is a significant public interest in the effective enforcement of immigration law. Congress could have chosen to limit local enforcement pursuant to its plenary power over immigration, but it has not done so. In the absence of a limitation on local enforcement powers, the states are bound by the Supremacy Clause of the United ‘States Constitution to enforce violations of the federal immigration laws. “The statutory law of the United States is part of the law of each state just as if it were written into state statutory law.” States do not need a 287g, IGA, MOU or a permission slip to arrest illegal aliens. The 287g goes beyond the arrest powers as states already have inherent authority to make arrests.

In Sections 1324 the language that referred to officers “of the United States” when talking about authority to arrest was stricken from section 1324 by amendment. In People v. Baraja, a California court concluded, “that change can only mean that the scope of the arrest power under section 1324 was enlarged; in no way can it mean that the scope of arrest under the other two sections was restricted. Such an acute non sequitur would attribute to the Congress both serious inconsistency and profound lack of logic.”

The arrest, detention, or transportation of aliens by local police enforcing criminal provisions of the INA is not a regulatory “determination” of the conditions of alien entrance and residency, but merely enforcement of the previously determined conditions. States can prosecute illegal aliens under state laws without running afoul of the INA. State and local laws do not attempt to regulate who may come to and stay in the U.S. , and thus do not impinge upon the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration, even if they affect immigrants.

In 1999 a decision in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the independent authority of local police departments to enforce federal immigration law, as long as state law prescribing police power of arrest authorized such an arrest. The U.S. Dept. of Justice endorsed this doctrine in April 2002. Under Attorney General Ashcroft, the U.S. Dept. of Justice took the position that state and local police have inherent authority to enforce civil immigration laws.

Assistant Attorney General Kobach explained that the inherent arrest authority of states arises from their pre-constitutional status as sovereign entities. The powers retained by the states at the time of ratification proceeded “not from the people of the United States, but from the people of the several states,” and remain unchanged, except as they have been “abridged” by the Constitution. The authority of a state to arrest for violations of federal law is thus not delegated; but “inheres in the ability of one sovereign to accommodate the interests of another sovereign.” This federalism-based analysis has a strong judicial pedigree.

The courts also ruled (Miller v. U.S., 357 U.S. 301, 305(1958) that a warrant less arrest “of an arrest for violation of federal law by state peace officers, …the lawfulness of the arrest without warrant is to be determined by reference to state law.”

Sanctuary policies are illegal. Local, state, or federal government agencies that sanction or retaliate against employees or officials who report immigration law violations to ICE or the Border Patrol can be sued by the whistleblower under 8 U.S.C. 1373 or 8 U.S.C. 1644 for damages and costs.

Citizens have a constitutional right to expect the protection of federal laws which prohibit unauthorized activities by non-citizens are denied equal protection when a police department or magistrate acts in a manner that encourages or assists persons selected on the basis of nationality or alienage to engage in such unlawful activities.

No policy or humanitarian argument has been identified by the courts that would negate the criminal mens rea of reckless disregard for the fact that aliens are present in the United States in violation of law. Neither sanctuary nor humanitarian concern is a valid defense to either civil or criminal violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It is illegal for non-profit, religious, or civic organizations to knowingly assist in the commission of an alien smuggling felony, regardless of claims that their member’ convictions may require them to assist aliens. The First Amendment does not protect actions that aid illegal aliens to remain in the United States.

Illegal aliens are not a suspect class entitled to Fourteenth Amendment based strict scrutiny of any discriminatory classification based on that status, nor are they defined by an immutable characteristic, since their status is the product of conscious unlawful action.
A law enforcement officer has probable cause to detain an individual who admits he or she is an alien (legal or illegal) but is not in possession of registration documents. This is a crime that a warrant less arrest can be made in most jurisdictions.

The authority to make arrest for federal offenses under 18 U.S.C. 3041 extends to state and local law enforcement officers. (U.S. v Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977) An illegal alien is an inherent flight risk.

Supreme Court Ruling Razes Artificial Fire Wall Between Local Law Enforcement and Immigration Enforcement (Muehler v. Mena) 9-0 Landmark Decision (Washington D.C.—April 1, 2005) In its March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court removed barriers that prevent local law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally. In this groundbreaking decision, the high Court rejected the claim of Ira Mena, a permanent resident of the U.S., that police had violated the Fourth Amendment while conducting a lawful search of her home.

The Fourth Amendment provides protection by establishing that persons be shielded against unreasonable search and seizure. Mena argued that by questioning her, and the illegal alien detainees about their immigration status during a lawful search, officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Mena further claimed that questions asked about her citizenship required officers to have had independent reasonable suspicion regarding the unlawfulness of her immigration status.

Calling a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “faulty,” the Supreme Court held that “mere police questioning [regarding one’s immigration status] does not constitute a seizure.” The Court continued its landmark ruling on this issue by stating that “the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status.”

“If local police are barred from cooperating with federal authorities in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws it is purely a political decision on the part of local politicians and police chiefs. There is no legal barrier to local police inquiring about a person’s immigration status and then acting upon the information they gather.

Any decision by law enforcement not to enforce immigration laws is a political decision by politicians and local police chiefs, not a lack of authority.
U.S. Justice Dept. makes it clear local law enforcement can enforce immigration laws

One of the soopergeniuses who was heading local law enforcement here was a man who supported the Castro revolution in Cuba, I kid you not, supported sanctuary cities and luckily moves from Mesa Chief to San Francisco chief, heh:

When he takes charge at San Francisco’s Hall of Justice later this summer, new Police Chief George Gascón will be the first outsider to lead the department since the 1970s – but those who’ve worked closely with him in Los Angeles and Arizona say he’s tailor-made for this unique city.

His controversial views on illegal immigration match Mayor Gavin Newsom’s. He’s weathered his share of scandal, political battles and budget cuts. He was an outsider when he took his current job as police chief in Mesa, Ariz. (“the largest city that you’ve never heard of,” said former Mesa City Councilwoman Claudia Walters), but eventually won over his officers.

Throw in the 55-year-old Gascón’s obsession with technology, the intellectualism that led him to earn a law degree and participate in a three-year Harvard project to improve policing, his concern for health that makes his breakfasts with city officials consist of fruit and tea, his love of surfing and his comfort in the spotlight, and maybe it’s an oddly

…Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton worked closely with Gascón for several years and agreed it’s a good fit.”From the issues I understand you have in San Francisco, it’s the right person at the right time in the right place,” Bratton told The Chronicle. “I’ve worked in this business for 40 years, and he’s one of the best there is.”

Gascón was raised in Cuba, the only child of his parents, Maria and Marcos, a mechanic who fixed trucks at a beer brewery. Marcos Gascón initially supported the revolution led by Fidel Castro.

Several of his Mesa colleagues said that was a theme of his tenure.

“He’s a stickler for protecting rights,” said Mayor Scott Smith. “He will enforce the law without apology, but he also is absolutely committed to doing it in a way that recognizes that law enforcement is useless unless you understand that constitutional rights are the most important thing.”

…In stark contrast to the press-shy current San Francisco Chief Heather Fong, Gascón is known for having a tight relationship with the media – and is even engaged to be married at the end of this year to a reporter for the Spanish-language TV channel, Univision. (The couple are house-hunting in San Francisco, and she may move from Los Angeles at some point.)…

July 13, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Immigration, Obama Administration, Politics, Uncategorized.


  1. UPDATE: Sheriff Joe subpoenas ACORN: Video mashup with Congressional Hearing on 287G and the need to maintain it…Joe Arpaio Responds To Sharpton/Acorn Call For Him To Resign « Moderate in the Middle replied:

    […] no doubt!! Recall our posts on Bertha Lewis and Al Sharpton on Lou Dobbs maligning Sheriff Joe..see here and here RIGHTEOUS! SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF! REAP THE WHIRLWIND […]


  2. TL Winslow replied:

    The age-old pesky U.S.-Mexico border problem has taxed the resources of both countries, led to long lists of injustices, and appears to be heading only for worse troubles in the future. Guess what? The border problem can never be solved. Why? Because the border IS the problem! It’s time for a paradigm change.

    Never fear, a satisfying, comprehensive solution is within reach: the Megamerge Dissolution Solution. Simply dissolve the border along with the failed Mexican government, and megamerge the two countries under U.S. law, with mass free 2-way migration eventually equalizing the development and opportunities permanently, with justice and without racism, and without threatening U.S. sovereignty or basic principles.

    Click the url and read the details of the new paradigm for U.S.-Mexico relations.


%d bloggers like this: