Ron - This isn't something I've invented. All you have to do is go to the web-site and check it out. There are a lot of real problems. But, thanks to your persistent questioning, I think I have an answer to this one.

                         Prior to the enacting of the immigration act of 1986, few people were terribly polarized on the immigration issue. But that one piece of legislation drew a line in the sand that didn't exist prior. What it did was this: a certain number of illegal aliens--mostly Hispanic, and overwhelmingly Mexican--were granted amnesty.
                         That one development by itself would not have been much of a problem if it hadn't been for the 1965 immigration act that preceded it. The 1965 law gave immigration preference to people through the concept of "family reunification." That meant, in vague terms, if you had a family member who was a US citizen, you were able to gain a few notches up on the climb to legal entry into the country.

                         But if your family was from England, for instance, and they came over on the Mayflower, your extended family in the home country would be removed by so many generations that the concept of "family reunification" didn't mean much. If you'd come from Mexico in 1985, however, and you were granted amnesty in 1986, your extended family was only one border away, and separated by a period of only one year.

                         The real killer, though, concerning the 1986 legislation was this: there were a number of enforcement provisions to the law that were never enforced. By not living up to the promise that the government made to the American people on enforcement, by failing to enforce the law that they themselves passed, illegal immigrants began to pour over the border with the anticipation that there would soon be another amnesty.

                         So that's where we are now.

                         The problem faced by any Hispanic politician is, no matter what he/she may really think about the law, or the issues of immigration, if he/she doesn't support the concept of continued immigration and/or amnesty, he/she risks losing the support of his/her base constituency.

                         Therefore, these politicians are precluded from taking positions they feel might actually be best for the country, or even best for native born Hispanics they are sworn to represent. They are compelled to bow to the pressures of the extreme groups that wish to promote a divisive point of view. That causes friction in the larger social structure of the country and leads to conflict between native born Americans and immigrants.

                         So whether The Nation of Aztlan has any in depth support or not, what support it does have is magnified by the events that went before it.