VIDEO: George Lopez’s Mexican Donald Trump Wants to ‘Make Mexico Great Again’

Donaldo Trumpez hopes to “Make Mexico Great Again” in the latest satirical video from the folks over at Funny or Die.

Comedian George Lopez plays the Mexican version of the 2016 GOP presidential contender Donald Trump, and he’s not at all happy with the state of things in Mexico. Why? Honestly, because of all the Americans who keep coming to his country who are making it worse:

“The first thing I’m going to do is build a wall on the border of the United States to keep out the Americans, who are coming here and ruining Mexico… Let me tell you something. When the United States sends their people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people with lots of problems. They only come to Mexico to watch a show with a donkey, and to watch women lift their tops. Mexico is more than that!”

Trumpez also notes that it was Mexico, after all who “gave America Salma Hayek.”

Check out the clip above, courtesy of Funny or Die.

 

BIGOTRY IN AMERICA IS REAL

Bigotry in America.
Baseball Fans SUPER ANGRY Hispanic American Superstar Sang ‘God Bless America’ at All-Star Game

DEFINITION OF SPIC: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=407722516003802&set=a.404921959617191.1073741828.404777999631587&type=1&theater

PUERTO RICANS ARE AMERICANS:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=407728256003228&set=a.404921959617191.1073741828.404777999631587&type=1&theater

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

 

PUERTO RICANS ARE AMERICANS

994211_407728256003228_565461454_n

Puerto Rican citizenship was first legislated by the U.S. Congress in Article 7 of the Foraker Act of 1900 and later recognized in the Puerto Rican constitution. On October 25, 2006, Juan Mari Brás became the first person to receive a Puerto Rican citizenship certificate from the Puerto Rico State Department. According to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, “Under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, those persons born in Puerto Rico and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of Puerto Rico. Such citizenship is not the national citizenship of an independent country or state, but it does not imply mere residency either.”

Puerto Rican citizenship was first legislated by the U.S. Congress in Article 7 of the Foraker Act of 1900 and later recognized in the Puerto Rican constitution. On October 25, 2006, Juan Mari Brás became the first person to receive a Puerto Rican citizenship certificate from the Puerto Rico State Department. According to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, “Under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, those persons born in Puerto Rico and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of Puerto Rico. Such citizenship is not the national citizenship of an independent country or state, but it does not imply mere residency either.”

United States recognition of Puerto Rican citizenship

Front and back pages of a Certificate of Puerto Rican Citizenship application form as provided by the Puerto Rico State Department in the Summer of 2007

On April 12, 1900, the Congress of the United States enacted the Foraker Act of 1900, which replaced the governing military regime in Puerto Rico with a civil form of government. Section VII of this act created a Puerto Rican citizenship for the residents “born in Puerto Rico and, therefore, subject to its jurisdiction”. The Puerto Rican citizenship replaced the Spanish citizenship that Puerto Ricans enjoyed at the time of the American invasion in 1898.[5] Such Puerto Rican citizenship was granted by Spain in 1897.[6] This citizenship was reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1904 by its ruling in Gonzales v. Williams which denied that Puerto Ricans were United States citizens and labeled them as noncitizen nationals. In a 1914 letter of refusal to the offer of U.S. citizenship and addressed to both the President of the United States and the U.S. Congress, the Puerto Rico House of Delegates stated “We, Porto Ricans, Spanish-Americans, of Latin soul … are satisfied with our own beloved Porto Rican citizenship, and proud to have been born and brethren in our own motherland.” The official 1916 Report by the American colonial governor of Puerto Rico to the U.S. Secretary of War (the old name for the Secretary of the Army), addresses both citizenships, the Puerto Rican citizenship and United States citizenship, in the context of the issuance of passports, further evidencing that the Puerto Rican citizenship did not disappear when the Americans took over the island in 1898. A similar 1918 official report, this one after the Jones Act of 1917 had become law, states that the “passports…[are used to] prove a person’s nationality”, thus making clear that Puerto Rican citizenship and Puerto Rican nationality were one and the same.
United States citizenship

On March 2, 1917, the Jones-Shafroth Act was signed, granting collective United States citizenship to Puerto Ricans collage2002.web.PA162211901without rescinding their Puerto Rican citizenship. In 1922, the U.S. Supreme court in the case of Balzac v. Porto Rico ruled that the full protection and rights of the U.S constitution do not apply to residents of Puerto Rico until they come to reside in the United States proper. Luis Muñoz Rivera, who participated in the creation of the Jones-Shafroth Act, gave a speech in the U.S. House floor that argued in favor of Puerto Rican citizenship. He declared that “if the earth were to swallow the island, Puerto Ricans would prefer American citizenship to any citizenship in the world. But as long as the island existed, the residents preferred Puerto Rican citizenship.” In 1952, upon U.S. Congress approving the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, also reaffirmed that Puerto Rican citizenship continued in full force. This was further reaffirmed in 2006 while the U.S. Senate probed into the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s status.

In 1953, U.S Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., in a memorandum sent to the United Nations, recognized that “the people of Puerto Rico continue to be citizens of the United States as well as of Puerto Rico.”

Puerto Rican citizenship reaffirmed

Juan Mari Brás Puerto Rican citizenship certificate
In 1994, Puerto Rican activist Juan Mari Brás flew to Venezuela and renounced his US citizenship before a consular agent in the US Embassy. Mari Brás through his renunciation of U.S. citizenship, sought to redefine Section VII as a source of law that recognized a Puerto Rican nationality separate from that of the United States.[16] In December 1995, his denaturalization was confirmed by the US State Department. Among the arguments that ensued over his action was whether he would now be able to vote in elections in Puerto Rico. On November 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico through its ruling in Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer v. Juan Mari Brás reaffirmed the Puerto Rican citizenship by ruling that U.S. citizenship was not a requirement to vote in Puerto Rico. According to the court’s majority opinion, the Puerto Rican citizenship is recognized several times in the Puerto Rican constitution including section 5 of article III, section 3 of article IV, and section 9 of article V. In a 2006 memorandum, the Secretary of Justice of Puerto Rico concluded, based on the Mari Brás case, that the Puerto Rican citizenship is “separate and different” from the United States citizenship.

The Puerto Rico Supreme Court decision affirm that persons born in Puerto Rico and persons subject to their jurisdiction are citizens of Puerto Rico under the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Constitution. The Court cited as part of the applicable jurisdiction to decide this case, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) pp 549, the U.S. Supreme Court affirm: There is in our political system a government of each of the several States, and a Government of the United States. Each is distinct from the others, and has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of those governments will be different from those he has under the other.[17]

Also the Puerto Rico Supreme Court cited U.S. Supreme Court case Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 7 (1943) that affirm: The protection extended to citizens of the United States by the privileges and immunities clause includes those rights and privileges which, under the laws and Constitution of the United States, are incident to citizenship of the United States, but does not include rights pertaining to state citizenship and derived solely from the relationship of the citizen and his state established by state law. The right to become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship, which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities clause.

Finally, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court affirms that Puerto Rican citizenship identifies the persons that have it as integral members of the Puerto Rican community. This is the integral juridical tie between the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and their citizens.[2] The court stated that “Puerto Rican political community is defined better by the citizenship of Puerto Rico than by US citizenship. That is a fact not subject to historical rectifications and a reality which no law can change.”

Since the summer of 2007, the Puerto Rico State Department has developed a protocol to grant Puerto Rican citizenship certificates to Puerto Ricans.[19] Certificates of Puerto Rican citizenship are issued to any persons born on the island as well as to those born outside of the island that have at least one parent who was born on the island. Any U.S. citizen with at least one year of residence on the island is also eligible for the official citizenship certificate. The certificate is not a valid travel document.

Judicial review

In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State, 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998), plaintiff was a United States citizen born in Puerto Rico and resident of Puerto Rico, who executed an oath of renunciation before a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. In rejecting Plaintiff’s renunciation, the Department notes that Plaintiff demonstrated no intention of renouncing all ties to the United States. While Plaintiff claims to reject his United States citizenship, he nevertheless wants to remain a resident of Puerto Rico. Plaintiff’s response to the Secretary’s position is to claim a fundamental distinction between United States and Puerto Rican citizenship. The U.S. Department of State position asserts that renunciation of U.S. citizenship must entail renunciation of Puerto Rican citizenship as well. The court does decide to not enter to the merits of the citizenship issue; however the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because the plaintiff wanted to retain one of the primary benefits of U.S. citizenship while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. The Court described the plaintiff as a person, “claiming to renounce all rights and privileges of United States citizenship, [while] Plaintiff wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely to travel freely throughout the world and when he wants to, return and reside in the United States. The court based this decision on the Immigration and Nationality Act section 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38), that provide the term “United States” definition and evince that Puerto Rico is a part of the United States for such purposes.

Based on the federal court ruling on Colon v. U.S. Department of State, months after the U.S. State Department accepted his renunciation, Juan Mari Bras was notified on June 4, 1998, by the U.S Department of State, that they were rescinding their acceptance, and refused to accept Juan Mari Bras renunciation, determining that Mari Brás could not renounce his American citizenship because he did not request another national citizenship, and he was born and remains living and working in Puerto Rico. This, said the federal agency, makes Mari Brás a U.S. citizen, the only national citizenship that Washington recognizes for Puerto Ricans.

SOURCE

No human being is illegal

11218054_769950829780967_2378944164919153384_nNo human being is illegal.

– Jorge Ramos, news anchor at Univision


First, Trump booted Univision anchor Jorge Ramos out of his news conference. Then things got interesting.

DUBUQUE, Iowa — Two minutes into Donald Trump’s news conference here Tuesday night came the question he tried to silence.

“Mr. Trump, I have a question,” said Jorge Ramos, the top news anchor at Univision and one of the country’s most recognizable Mexican-Americans, as he stood up in the front row of journalists.

“Excuse me,” the Republican presidential front-runner told Ramos. “Sit down. You weren’t called. Sit down.”

Ramos, holding a piece of paper, calmly tried to ask Trump about his plan to combat illegal immigration. “I’m a reporter, an immigrant, a senior citizen,” he said. “I have the right to ask a question.”

Trump interrupted him. “Go back to Univision,” he said. Then the billionaire businessman motioned to one of his bodyguards, who walked across the room and physically removed Ramos from the room.

Trump’s dismissal of a major television news anchor lit up social media. Reporters asked Trump why he removed Ramos. At first, he accused Ramos of violating his news conference protocol. “He stood up and started screaming,” Trump said of Ramos. “He’s obviously a very emotional person,” said Trump.

But moments later, Ramos returned to his seat in the front row — and Trump called on him. For five minutes, they tangled over immigration policy, an issue on which both men have passionately different views. It was one of the more compelling moments of the 2016 campaign.

“Good to have you back,” Trump told Ramos, signaling to him to begin his questioning.

“Here’s the problem with your immigration plan,” Ramos said. “It’s full of empty promises.”

Ramos pointed out it would be unconstitutional to deny citizenship to what Trump calls “anchor babies,” children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. Trump disagreed, saying it could be done as an act of Congress and that some legal scholars argue the 14th Amendment should be changed.

“A woman’s getting ready to have a baby,” Trump said. “She crosses the border for one day, has the baby, all of a sudden for the next 80 years — we have to take care of” the child.

The next question from Ramos: How do you build a 1,900-mile wall across the U.S. border with Mexico?

“It’s very easy,” Trump said. “I’m a builder…. What’s more complicated is building a building that’s 95 stories tall.”

The questioning continued. At one point, Trump said, “I can’t deal with this.” A Trump aide interrupted and told Ramos, “Is there one question — one question?”

Yet Trump let the questioning continue, seemingly determined to prove his case. “I have a bigger heart than you do,” he told Ramos. “We’re going to do [deportations] in a very humane fashion.”

Trump went on to assert that gang members in Baltimore, St. Louis and other cities are illegal immigrants.

“Listen, we have tremendous crime,” he told Ramos. “We have some very bad ones… Do you mind if I send them back to Mexico?”

Ramos replied, “No human being is illegal, Mr. Trump.”

The response: “Well, when they cross the border, from a legal standpoint, they’re illegal immigrants when they don’t have their papers.”

When Ramos pressed Trump on polls showing his unpopularity with Latinos, Trump would not accept the premise of the question. First, he interrupted Ramos and turned the question on him: “How much am I suing Univision for right now? Do you know the number? I know you’re part of the lawsuit.”

Trump filed suit against the network in June, alleging defamation and breach of contract, after Univision ended its relationship with him and canceled plans to broadcast the Miss Universe pageant he owns following his controversial comments about Mexican immigrants.

“I’m a reporter,” Ramos said.

“Five hundred million dollars,” Trump replied. “And they’re very concerned about it, by the way. I’m very good at this.”

SOURCE

WHEN AMERICANS LYNCHED MEXICANS

18787_749471355162248_204765998759994265_n

THE recent release of a landmark report on the history of lynching in the United States is a welcome contribution to the struggle over American collective memory. Few groups have suffered more systematic mistreatment, abuse and murder than African-Americans, the focus of the report.

One dimension of mob violence that is often overlooked, however, is that lynchers targeted many other racial and ethnic minorities in the United States, including Native Americans, Italians, Chinese and, especially, Mexicans.

Americans are largely unaware that Mexicans were frequently the targets of lynch mobs, from the mid-19th century until well into the 20th century, second only to African-Americans in the scale and scope of the crimes. One case, largely overlooked or ignored by American journalists but not by the Mexican government, was that of seven Mexican shepherds hanged by white vigilantes near Corpus Christi, Tex., in late November 1873. The mob was probably trying to intimidate the shepherds’ employer into selling his land. None of the killers were arrested.

From 1848 to 1928, mobs murdered thousands of Mexicans, though surviving records allowed us to clearly document only about 547 cases. These lynchings occurred not only in the southwestern states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, but also in states far from the border, like Nebraska and Wyoming.

Some of these cases did appear in press accounts, when reporters depicted them as violent public spectacles, as they did with many lynchings of African-Americans in the South. For example, on July 5, 1851, a mob of 2,000 in Downieville, Calif., watched the extralegal hanging of a Mexican woman named Juana Loaiza, who had been accused of having murdered a white man named Frank Cannon.

Such episodes were not isolated to the turbulent gold rush period. More than a half-century later, on Nov. 3, 1910, a mob snatched a 20-year-old Mexican laborer, Antonio Rodríguez, from a jail in Rock Springs, Tex. The authorities had arrested him on charges that he had killed a rancher’s wife. Mob leaders bound him to a mesquite tree, doused him with kerosene and burned him alive. The El Paso Herald reported that thousands turned out to witness the event; we found no evidence that anyone was ever arrested.

While there were similarities between the lynchings of blacks and Mexicans, there were also clear differences. One was that local authorities and deputized citizens played particularly conspicuous roles in mob violence against Mexicans.

On Jan. 28, 1918, a band of Texas Rangers and ranchers arrived in the village of Porvenir in Presidio County, Tex. Mexican outlaws had recently attacked a nearby ranch, and the posse presumed that the locals were acting as spies and informants for Mexican raiders on the other side of the border. The group rounded up nearly two dozen men, searched their houses, and marched 15 of them to a rock bluff near the village and executed them. The Porvenir massacre, as it has become known, was the climactic event in what Mexican-Americans remember as the Hora de Sangre (Hour of Blood). It led, the following year, to an investigation by the Texas Legislature and reform of the Rangers.

Between 1915 and 1918, vigilantes, local law officers and Texas Rangers executed, without due process, unknown thousands of Mexicans for their alleged role in a revolutionary uprising known as the Plan de San Diego. White fears of Mexican revolutionary violence exploded in July and August 1915, after Mexican raiders committed a series of assaults on the economic infrastructure of the Lower Rio Grande Valley in resistance to white dominance. The raids unleashed a bloody wave of retaliatory action amid a climate of intense paranoia.

While there are certainly instances in the history of the American South where law officers colluded in mob action, the level of engagement by local and state authorities in the reaction to the Plan de San Diego was remarkable. The lynchings persisted into the 1920s, eventually declining largely because of pressure from the Mexican government.

Historians have often ascribed to the South a distinctiveness that has set it apart from the rest of the United States. In so doing, they have created the impression of a peculiarly benighted region plagued by unparalleled levels of racial violence. The story of mob violence against Mexicans in the Southwest compels us to rethink the history of lynching.

Southern blacks were the group most often targeted, but comparing the histories of the South and the West strengthens our understanding of mob violence in both. In today’s charged debate over immigration policy and the growth of the Latino population, the history of anti-Mexican violence reminds us of the costs and consequences of hate.

William D. Carrigan, a professor of history at Rowan University, and Clive Webb, professor of modern American history at the University of Sussex, are the authors of “Forgotten Dead: Mob Violence Against Mexicans in the United States, 1848-1928.”

By WILLIAM D. CARRIGAN and CLIVE WEBB – SOURCE