~ Preface ~
On July 22, 2001 I began publishing the Federal Observer, a daily, on-line magazine. This daily journal shared editorial columns by many known and as yet unknown writers, each of whom covered issues such as economics, legal, religion (or more appropriately spiritual issues), conspiracies, Militia, gun-rights, education, environmental, legislative issues and many others. Three days after 9/11, our publication co-wrote and hosted a petition to once again re-arm the pilots on our commercial airlines. Our petition drew millions of participants from all over the nation both from within and outside of the airline industry. Whether we liked it or not, we were on the map.
One of the most important and relevant topics of the day was and still is the illegal invasion of our nation by people from many corners of the world. This subject was amongst our hot-buttons, and it drew the attention of many others who shared our views.
Four and one half years after publication began, in the autumn of 2005 I received a phone call from an interested party; a local woman who not only shared our views, but also felt that she had something to offer us editorially speaking. Enter S. J. Miller, an amazing editorial commentator, and tireless political activist. She had participated in and was extremely vocal in 2004 during Arizonas battle for Proposition 200.
Her experience and involvement in the passage of Proposition 200? in Arizona, made her uniquely qualified as no other, to present the facts on this timely issue.
Proposition 200, the “Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act,” was an Arizona state initiative passed in 2004 that basically requires:
(a) persons to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote;
(b) voters to present a photo identification before receiving a ballot at the polling place; and
(c) state and local agencies to verify the identity and eligibility, based on immigration status, of applicants for non-federally mandated public benefits
The proposition also made it a misdemeanor for public officials to fail to report violations of U.S. immigration law by applicants for those public benefits and permits private lawsuits by any resident to enforce its provisions related to public benefits. The requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote was later ruled invalid in federal court.
Authors of the ballot measure, the “Protect Arizona Now” committee, wrote it because of a serious concern for lax voter registration and voting procedures and concerns that public services to immigrants from neighboring Mexico, many of whom are illegal immigrants, were too costly.
Opponents called it anti-immigrant, and considered it to be reminiscent of California’s 1994 Proposition 187.
In November 2004, the electorate passed Proposition 200, with 56% of voters voting in the affirmative. Exit polls found that 47% of Latino voters voted in favor of the initiative.
Proposition 200 required, among other things, proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter identification at the polling place. No major elections took place after its adoption before November 7, 2006, and the actual implementation of these two provisions of the proposition remained unclear. Opponents challenged the constitutionality of these requirements upon voters, arguing that such a law could be used to discriminate against ethnic groups, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
On October 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily suspended these requirements, a little over a month before the election. However, the ruling was stayed fifteen days later by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In October 2010, the Ninth Circuit held that the requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote is invalid as preempted by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and that the requirement to provide voter identification at the polling place is valid. However, in April 2011, the court granted Arizona’s petition for en banc review of this ruling, and it heard oral arguments on June 21, 2011.
In April 2012, the en banc court also held that the requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote is invalid as preempted by the NVRA and that the requirement to provide voter identification at the polling place is valid. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to stay the ruling on June 28, 2012.
This was Sandys entry into the fight against the illegal invasion of the united States of America; and she fought the fight until the very end of her time on this earth.
Her twelve-part series, Dont be fooled by peddlers of Immigration Reform Scams was first published on The Federal Observer beginning January 24, 2005 and concluded, February 18th of that year. Given the mindset of the current administration in Washington, D.C., and its penchant for pandering to every special interest group in the nation; Millers work remains timely. In addition, this complete presentation of Miller’s original work will provide you with tools to participate in what could prove to be Americas last and greatest battle to maintain its sovereignty.
We invite you to study Sandras works closely, and use her words – as an educational tool. Some of the names of the players have changed, such as Ted Kennedy (his ghost lives and walks among us), but the game plan hasnt changed. As Arizona and other states, continue to pave the way for action, Millers work will reach an entire new readership and maybe maybe this time it will make people around the nation wake up and make demands of their elected officials.
It has been reported that by late 2013 the Hispanic population in California will be greater than that of the white population; much of this due to the Liberal/Progressive agenda of the politicians of that state and of their staunch supporters in the District of Criminals. Individual cities, such as Chicago and Seattle (with the aid of the likes of Lornet Turnbull) welcome all comers to their sanctuary cites with open arms all to the detriment of the American unemployed and at the expense to the American taxpayer.
What? You thought that all of the benefits that illegal invaders receive are FREE??? Sorry my friends but someone has to pay for all of those handouts.
In conclusion, what you are about to read is not racist in nature. Illegal Is illegal, whether one comes from China, Viet Nam, France, Mexico, Morocco, Iran or Iraq, South America or the satellite nations of the former Soviet Union. Breaking and entering into our country in violation of all of the immigration laws on the books, is no different than invading my home or yours. Bringing a pregnant woman to this land, just for the purpose of allowing her to give birth, in order to create an anchor, so that mother, child and an extended familial group can also put down roots is criminal, and the practice should be stopped immediately.
These were Sandras passions, and in effect these battles are her story. It is our story, and it was her fight, as well as it should be yours.
January 24, 2013
(the 8th anniversary of Millers first publication on the Federal Observer)