What a surprise — the administration wants to speed up the process to transform millions of immigrants into grateful Democrat voters. And after eight years of Obama, the Democrat Presidential candidate will need all the help he or she can get. Several million new Democrats might turn the trick for them.
Hispanics culturally prefer large government, and do so for several generations, according to Pew researchers. Democrats therefore see them as a fine fit with their governmental philosophy of welfare goodies for the masses to ensure party loyalty.
Republicans better sharpen up their message and pitch themselves as the jobs party, because demographic change is coming this way.
Nearly 20 years after reporters and congressional investigators caught the Clinton administration trying to register a million immigrants as new citizens and Democratic voters — many without proper documents — some Republicans fear the Obama administration is instituting a similar policy.
The November memorandum issued by the White House and Department of Homeland Security on immigration does more than give a reprieve to millions of illegal immigrants. It also makes a push for legal immigrants to become citizens. It allows legal immigrants in the U.S. to, for the first time, pay their $680 naturalization fee by credit card. And the plan offers to waive the cost, based on income, for families earning up to $47,000 for a family of four.
In the past, the government prohibited such partial waivers. The plan, dubbed “New Americans,” will also include a comprehensive media campaign in major media markets in 10 states.
Critics worry this is part of an effort to register new Democratic voters and turn red states blue by the next election.
“The goal is to naturalize as many as they can with the idea of registering them to vote with the hope that they’re going to vote Democratic as they did in 1996,” said Republican strategist Randy Pullen. “They’re using our money for political means for their 2016 path to victory in their minds.”
But Ali Noorani, director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington, D.C.- based policy organization, said the goal is to “bring them into the full fold of society, make sure they are assimilating, learning English, learning their civics and becoming U.S. citizens.” He called that a positive.
The administration argues immigrants are good for the economy, representing just 13 percent of the population, but 16 percent of the labor force and 28 percent of all new businesses. The White House Task Force on New Americans, according to the November document, will consist of almost a dozen Cabinet-level agencies. They will train and support other agencies and nonprofits to “improve long term integration and foster welcoming community climates.”
But the GOP sees something else behind the plan.
“They’re cutting fees with the intent to spur naturalization on, but someone else is going to pay for this,” Pullen said. “We’re talking about millions of naturalization cases that will have to be handled. The vast majority in the next 18 months.” Continue reading this article
What kind of faith has to insist on a daily basis that it is a “Religion of Peace”?
One that isn’t, perhaps?
Paul Weston is a defender of western civilization, not an easy thing in Islam-endangered Great Britain these days. He is also the Chair of Liberty GB and occasionally uses Youtube to share his thoughts about politics in the face of unfriendly diversity.
Weston’s latest effort concerns the claim of Islam to be peaceful, and he criticizes that idea (not hard, really) plus a challenge to Prime Minister David Cameron to act honestly regarding the security threats in today’s Britain because of the enemy inside the gates.
How can you tell when a civilisation is in danger of collapse? That’s easy, it’s when every leader of every country that make up Western civilisation no longer accept reality and deal only in lies and cowardice when presented with genuine danger. In the midst of worldwide Islamic violence, war, terror, torture and rape we are told Islam is a religion of peace over and over again, which reminds me of George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four … which was supposed to be a warning rather than a political manual on how to run a country.
Nineteen Eighty-Four revolved around an imaginary England run under socialism. There were four main governmental ministries which exerted total control over the population: the Ministry of Love, which housed torture room 101 within a windowless building surrounded by machine-gun posts and truncheon wielding secret policemen; the Ministry of Plenty, which dealt with near-starvation; the Ministry of Truth, which dealt in rewriting history via lies and propaganda; and the Ministry of Peace which dealt in perpetual war with Oceania and Eurasia.
David Cameron and other Western leaders don’t appear to have read it. Every time I hear them say Islam is a religion of peace I am constantly reminded of Orwell’s doublethink and newspeak 1984. It is a sign of total cowardice to state Islam is peaceful when it is in fact an ideology of supremacism and war. Islam is the Koran, the Koran is Mohammed and Mohammed was a warlord and a murderer.
Although Mecca today is the international shrine to Mohammed, he first had to defeat the Meccans when they laid siege to his exiled home in Medina. Mohammed won the battle and was then involved in the execution by beheading of 700 Jewish male members of Medina’s Qurayza tribe. The women and children were taken as slaves and sex slaves. Continue reading this article
More bad news from the already disappointing GOP Congress — despite being the tireless Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Sessions has been pushed out of being Chairman by a party detail about seniority, which was determined by a coin toss.
Ever the gentleman, Sessions calls the replacement Chairman, Mike Enzi, his “friend” but what kind of friend would screw a close associate by demanding a position he didn’t earn on the basis of a fluke of luck? (One also wonders whether Mitch McConnell was nudging in the background.)
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, issued the following statement today regarding committee plans for next year and his friend Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY):
“My good friend Mike and I have been close since we both entered the Senate together 18 years ago. We will long remain good and close friends. We have talked and I am deferring to his seniority so that he can lead the Budget Committee as its Chairman beginning in 2015. Mike graciously deferred to me two years ago after he timed out on HELP as Ranking Member, and it has been my enormous privilege to serve as the panel’s Ranking Member these last four years, as well as to serve as the Judiciary Ranking Member for the two years before that.
The Budget Committee has an exceptional staff and I am proud of what we have accomplished.
Mike is an accountant and a small businessman who understands the need to balance budgets and tell the truth about the numbers. He is a man of integrity and principle, respected by all of his Senate colleagues. I am eager to assist him next year, and I hope to tackle the important issue of welfare reform. (Continues)
Enzi is a carpetbagger, despite kind words. Nobody in the Senate has worked harder in the minority party position to defend budget issues, in particular how open-borders immigration is mauling the citizen worker, than Senator Sessions.
Jeff Sessions has earned the chairmanship, and Enzi using a coin toss to screw a friend makes Enzi a rat and a half.
Sessions will now likely also play, as senior conservative statesman, a leading role in the 2016 presidential process–able to focus much of his time now on influencing the political debate from a position of extraordinary respect among his Senate colleagues. He’ll also be able to focus on helping the Republican Party rebrand itself in a more populist way…
Really? Sessions will have more time but less power? That doesn’t sound like much of an advantage — unless he decides to run for President.
Tuesday’s New York Times included a front-page story titled “Smarter Robots Move Deeper Into Workplace” which described the continuing improvement of technology that allows intelligent machines to perform tasks formerly done by humans.
It’s a decent overview of the present transformation of the means of production of goods and services, including some observations about the affects on would-be workers. It includes a chart of the shrinking proportion of Americans who have left the labor force. The piece recites the usual arguments that robots “assist” rather than replace, but then lists occupations headed for obsolescence like drivers, telemarketers, paralegals and pilots.
But while the article underlines the uncertainty of future labor markets and suggests more attention be paid to the looming revolution of the workplace, there is no mention of the vastly reduced need for importing workers, who are not needed now and even less so in coming years.
So it doesn’t make sense to import an unemployable underclass of immigrants and illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America, which Washington is doing at an increasing rate. Many will turn to crime when jobs aren’t forthcoming.
A machine that administers sedatives recently began treating patients at a Seattle hospital. At a Silicon Valley hotel, a bellhop robot delivers items to people’s rooms. Last spring, a software algorithm wrote a breaking news article about an earthquake that The Los Angeles Times published.
Although fears that technology will displace jobs are at least as old as the Luddites, there are signs that this time may really be different. The technological breakthroughs of recent years — allowing machines to mimic the human mind — are enabling machines to do knowledge jobs and service jobs, in addition to factory and clerical work.
And over the same 15-year period that digital technology has inserted itself into nearly every aspect of life, the job market has fallen into a long malaise. Even with the economy’s recent improvement, the share of working-age adults who are working is substantially lower than a decade ago — and lower than any point in the 1990s.
Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary, recently said that he no longer believed that automation would always create new jobs. “This isn’t some hypothetical future possibility,” he said. “This is something that’s emerging before us right now.”
Erik Brynjolfsson, an economist at M.I.T., said, “This is the biggest challenge of our society for the next decade.”
Mr. Brynjolfsson and other experts say they believe that society has a chance to meet the challenge in ways that will allow technology to be mostly a positive force. In addition to making some jobs obsolete, new technologies have also long complemented people’s skills and enabled them to be more productive — as the Internet and word processing have for office workers or robotic surgery has for surgeons.
More productive workers, in turn, earn more money and produce goods and services that improve lives.
“It is literally the story of the economic development of the world over the last 200 years,” said Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist and an inventor of the web browser. “Just as most of us today have jobs that weren’t even invented 100 years ago, the same will be true 100 years from now.”
Yet there is deep uncertainty about how the pattern will play out now, as two trends are interacting. Artificial intelligence has become vastly more sophisticated in a short time, with machines now able to learn, not just follow programmed instructions, and to respond to human language and movement.
At the same time, the American work force has gained skills at a slower rate than in the past — and at a slower rate than in many other countries. Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 are among the most skilled in the world, according to a recent report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Younger Americans are closer to average among the residents of rich countries, and below average by some measures.
Clearly, many workers feel threatened by technology. In a recent New York Times/CBS News/Kaiser Family Foundation poll of Americans between the ages of 25 and 54 who were not working, 37 percent of those who said they wanted a job said technology was a reason they did not have one. Even more — 46 percent — cited “lack of education or skills necessary for the jobs available.” Continue reading this article
On Monday, Senator Sessions posted a press release expressing his disapproval of Sarah Saldana to be the new head of ICE. He used the occasion to lay out more arguments against the President’s unlawful executive amnesty.
Incidentally, radio person Laura Ingraham noted this morning that the establishment GOP may try to steal the Senate Budget Committee Chairmanship from Sessions. Mike Enzi (@SenatorEnzi) is officially senior to Sessions and therefore can be named Chair even though Sessions has absolutely earned the position. (Listen to the audio.)
LAURA INGRAHAM: I have a housekeeping note here that we all have to keep to the forefront of our minds as we close out our political season this year. The establishment and other crony friends are trying to force Jeff Sessions out as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, an extremely important position. They’re trying to replace him with Senator Mike Ezni. Remember, Liz Cheney tried to replace him and that didn’t work out. So Enzi voted for the CR/omnibus. Sessions said, ‘No way. Of course I can’t vote for the CR/omnibus.’ Sessions is the man. Support Jeff Sessions. And all you Republicans trying to force him out – we’re keeping a list.
In Sessions’ press release, he mentioned the December 10 Senate testimony of Temple law professor Jan Ting who believes that immigration boils down to the numbers:
Although it’s become a cliché to say that everyone agrees that our immigration system is broken, I don’t agree with that. I believe that what’s broken is our willingness to make the hard choice between simply allowing unlimited immigration, as we did for the first century of the republic, or alternatively enforcing a numerical limit on immigration, with all the attendant difficulty, complexity and expense that entails.
Here’s the press release. It reads like it was meant to be a floor speech, but there’s no video on the Sessions Youtube page, at least yet. Surprisingly, the Senate is in session today, Tuesday. Harry Reid must have more terrible nominations to shove through during the abhorrent lame duck session.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, submitted the following remarks for the Congressional record on the nomination of Sarah Saldana as Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE):
“Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of Sarah Saldana. Ms. Saldaña has been nominated to head the nation’s top immigration law enforcement agency, which has been at the epicenter of this administration’s refusal to enforce our nation’s immigration laws.
When asked whether she rejects the President’s unlawful action to unilaterally grant legal residence and work permits to 5 million individuals illegally in the country, Ms. Saldaña, currently the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, responded ‘no.’ Her answer reflects a remarkable disregard for the rule of law that demonstrates that, if confirmed, she will continue the pattern of lawlessness perpetuated by the President and the political leadership of the Department of Homeland Security.
Temple University Law Professor Jan Ting, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, notes that:
‘The most comprehensive analysis of the administration’s deferred-action policies that has been produced to date is a 77-page law journal article published last year by Berkeley law professor John Yoo and St. Thomas law professor Robert Delahunty. In that article the professors catalogued and reviewed ‘the most commonly offered and generally accepted excuses or justifications for the breach of [the president's] duty to execute the laws’ and concluded that the DACA program ‘does not fall within any of them.’
The conclusions of Professors Yoo and Delahunty have been repeatedly endorsed during the past three years by a well-regarded former professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, Barack H. Obama II.’
How many kicks in the head will it take for western nations to learn that Muslim immigration is worst public policy ever?
Today’s example is the terror attack on a Sydney cafe where a couple dozen people were taken hostage by an Iranian, Man Haron Monis, who was accepted as a refugee in Australia in 1996.
Below, a hostage delivers a message from the terrorist that he was attacking Australia in the name of the Islamic State (ISIS):
The guy has a rap sheet filled with violence including dozens of sexual assaults on women through his spiritual ministrations as a sheikh and arranging the murder of his ex-wife. Why was such a violent man allowed to walk the streets?
Below, Sheik Haron apparently likes media attention.
The spin coming out is that Monis is mentally disturbed, and he may well be from a western psychological viewpoint. But Islam encourages violence against infidels, and for that reason is attractive to the criminally minded.
Australians came out Monday in solidarity with the Muslim community following a siege at a Sydney cafe, as tens of thousands tweeted the hashtag #illridewithyou to counter concern about an anti-Islam backlash.
The hostage-taking at the Lindt chocolate cafe triggered a security lockdown in the heart of Australia’s biggest city, with the government and Muslim leaders condemning the attack and calling for unity.
Amid uncertainty about the hostage-taker’s motives and fears of reprisals after an Islamic flag was raised in the cafe, an Australian woman reportedly started the #illridewithyou hashtag to show solidarity with Muslims who might feel threatened on public transport.
The danger to the public would not exist if the government had not allowed thousands of Muslims to reside inside the gates.
Here’s a local report about the jihadist’s background:
Unlike the United States, which continues to admit potentially unfriendly Islamics willy-nilly, the government of Canada may go on a diet to cut down on Muslims. It would be a fine act of leadership on the side of sanity: not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims, making them an unwise choice as immigrants.
It’s much more sensible, if rescue must be pursued, to welcome Christians, Jews and Yazidis who have been under attack by jihadists. Death by Islam has been a growing problem for the last 1400 years, where the totalitarian system has been “spread by the sword” over expanding territory.
The federal government is seeking to resettle more Syrian refugees, but only from the country’s religious minorities, according to sources close to discussions around Canada’s position on refugees from the war-torn nation.
Canada has been struggling to meet an earlier commitment from July 2013 to resettle 1,300 Syrians by the end of this year.
Statistics tabled in the House of Commons last week showed 457 refugees had arrived as of mid-November.
On Tuesday, the government updated that number to 703. Kevin Menard, a spokesman for the immigration minister, wrote CBC News on Friday saying the numbers are “going up fairly quickly.”
Refugee advocacy organizations in Canada have been asking the government to take in 10,000 more Syrians over the next two years, and the UN says it is in dire need of assistance as the civil war intensifies. Continue reading this article
The unfriendlies are energized because of their successes and the weakness of America and Europe.
One theme of the interview is how Muslim societies that earlier were friendly to religious minorities are now in the thrall of violent jihad, like Bosnia which once had a less bloodthirsty Islam in Europe, but is now becoming infected with the headchop frenzy.
Regarding the use of churches as prisons in Iraq:
ROBERT SPENCER: They’ve completely eradicated Mosul of the 2000-year-old Christian population that had been there, and seized all the churches. There were 45 Christian installations in Mosul that are now under the control of the Islamic State. They’ve deliberately chosen to convert the churches into prisons as a sign of their contempt for the faith that had been preached there as a sign that they believe in accord with the koran that Jesus was a Muslim father who taught Islam and that wasn’t taught in the churches where they twisted a hijacked version of the true teachings of the Muslim prophet Jesus.
A 2012 report from the local TV station WTHR in Indiana described stories of aliens who claimed a dozen kids or more to benefit from the Additional Child Tax Credit to gain $1000 per non-existent kid: Tax Loophole Costs Billions. The video version is infuriating. Part Two is here.
The ever curious Byron York wrote about the EITC ripoff recently and discuss the problem on Fox News Friday morning.
It’s funny that nobody ever questions the wisdom of the EITC program, which is supported by politicians across the spectrum. If working people need extra cash from the government to get by, then something may be structurally wrong with the economy — perhaps excess labor in the form of immigrant and illegal alien workers.
President Obama’s unilateral executive action on immigration will make hundreds of thousands, perhaps more than a million, illegal immigrants eligible for federal transfer payments. That will be done primarily through two widely used programs — the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC, and the Additional Child Tax Credit, or ACTC.
As it turns out, those two programs are already among the most corrupt and fraud-ridden in the entire federal government. A newly-released report from the inspector general of the Internal Revenue Service confirms that the EITC is plagued by fraud (which was already well known) and also reveals for the first time that the ACTC is even worse.
The two programs, intended for low-income workers, are what is known as refundable tax credits. That means they give workers a tax refund that is larger than their tax liability. So a family with a tax bill of $1,000 might receive an EITC “refund” of $5,000, meaning the family doesn’t write a check to the government but rather receives a check from the government. The ACTC works similarly for low-income workers with children.
Supported by both political parties over the years, the programs were intended to encourage work and strengthen families. Their growth has been extraordinary in recent years — payments increased 40 percent from 2007 to 2012 alone. And now both are beset by staggering levels of fraud.
According to the inspector general, the IRS paid out $63 billion in EITC benefits in 2013. Of that, 24 percent, or about $15 billion, was given improperly to people not qualified to receive it. That improper payment rate has been enough to qualify the EITC as a “high risk” program for years. Continue reading this article
But when Obama wants the citizens to lay down and passively accept his unconstitutional executive amnesty, suddenly the American people have a “good heart” toward invasive foreign lawbreakers. Funny how that works.
Actually, the statement was part of a threat to a future president not to rescind Obama’s temporary free stuff and work permits — the moochers will be miffed! It is indeed politically difficult to remove a major freebie.
President Obama insisted Tuesday that his successor won’t take the political risk that would come with reversing his recent executive action on immigration reform.
Speaking at a town-hall meeting in Nashville, the president said it’s “theoretically” possible that the next administration could undo the amnesty Mr. Obama has granted to more than 4 million illegal immigrants, but he assured a supportive crowd that such a step it is extremely unlikely.
“It’s true a future administration might try to reverse some of our policies. But I’ll be honest with you — the American people basically have a good heart and want to treat people fairly and every survey shows that if, in fact, somebody has come out and subjected themselves to a background check, registered, paid their taxes, the American people support allowing them to stay. So any future administration that tried to punish people for doing the right thing, I think, would not have the support of the American people,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s true, theoretically, a future administration could do something that I think would be very damaging. It’s not likely, politically, that they reverse everything we’ve done.”
Last month, the president unveiled long-awaited executive action on immigration reform. He granted de facto amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants, freeing them from the threat of deportation and allowing them to legally compete for jobs.
The move sparked a major backlash on Capitol Hill and in states across the country; at least 18 states are suing the president over his steps on immigration.
Roy Beck, of NumbersUSA, appeared Monday on MSNBC to discuss Obama’s illegal amnesty (spare video link). While much of the chatter lately has been about deportations, Beck emphasized the central issue regarding the policy’s effect on the American people: The work permits are the amnesty.
ROY BECK: We want members of Congress to think that it is radioactive to add millions of more work permits to illegal aliens, allowing them to have access to almost every job in America, while the labor force participation rate for every group of Americans is going down. That should be radioactive. So it’s very important to constantly tie the immigration issue to the job issues, and the fact is newspapers and your programs are full of stories about how badly most American workers are doing during this economic recovery. . .
This [amnesty] opens up every job in America to them. There are large parts of the economy that illegal aliens aren’t able to move into. They can’t work for employers that are law-abiding; they can only work for criminal employers. . .
We have to constantly put our focus on the vulnerable Americans, like those in Ferguson. . .
The President says he is doing this action primarily to stop deportations. That’s a very different issue than giving out the work permits. He could stop deportations; he never has to give these work permits that are the most damaging to the most vulnerable members of society. . .
Why should those Americans who both can’t find a job and those Americans whose wages are depressed by the presence of so many foreign workers, why should they have to pay the cost of this?
NumbersUSA’s new print ad emphasizes open borders’ effect on American workers. It’s interesting how the concept of supply and demand is little mentioned in today’s discussion of lawless immigration, but it should be a top concern.
In 1994, the Atlantic monthly published an article by then-reporter Roy Beck that was a wake-up call about extreme immigration diversity being foisted on America: The Ordeal of Immigration in Wausau. I remember reading it around that time and thinking Hmmm…
Now a pro-immigration writer has looked under the Hmong immigration rock, and he probably shouldn’t have gone there. There are immigrants who respond readily to the program of assimilation and become successful, and then there are the Hmong.
Roy Beck’s article illustrated the social disruption that happened when boatloads of rather backward Asians was dumped in a midwestern city. (NB: tribal Hmong are nothing like high-achieving Chinese immigrants.)
A Hmong immigrant was convicted of mass murder, a crime that occurred near Meteor Wisconsin, about 140 miles from Wausau. On November 21, 2004, Chai Vang trespassed on a private hunting reserve to shoot deer. When the owners asked him to leave, a dispute broke out and Vang shot eight Americans, killing six, with four shot in the back.
Back to the present, the current writer admits there were diversity tensions back 20 years ago but asserts that difficulties have been sorted out now, so that means there was never a problem in the first place, observing the Beck piece “seems not so much prescient as dated.” It’s a backwards circular argument and not convincing.
If the Hmong really have progressed from their primitive cultural state, that’s good news.
But as Roy Beck asked, Why were the people of Wausau forced to accommodate such a difficult group that citizens as a whole did not want?
20 YEARS LATER, THE ‘ORDEAL OF IMMIGRATION IN WAUSAU’ SEEMS MORE DATED THAN PRESCIENT.
“It all began simply enough, when a few churches and individuals in Wausau, Wisconsin, decided to settle some Southeast Asian refugees during the late 1970s. To most residents, it seemed like a nice thing to do. Nobody meant to plant the seeds for a social transformation.”
So begins “The Ordeal of Immigration in Wausau,” a landmark magazine story detailing a moment in Wausau’s history that might have been its lowest point in the now 40-year history of the Hmong in central Wisconsin. In 1994, when the story was published in the Atlantic Monthly, Wausau was just barely beginning to heal from a bitter, polarizing fight about how schools should deal with the rapidly rising population of Hmong immigrants.
A “60 Minutes” profile followed the story in the Atlantic. Where the magazine story was lengthy and well-crafted, the “60 Minutes” profile was a blunt instrument. The pages of the Wausau Daily Herald were filled with reactions, clarifications, hand-wringing and a strong sense of resentment at the way the national media outlet had used Wausau as a symbol for a larger debate, caricaturing the city in the process.
Twenty years later, though, even the Atlantic Monthly piece seems not so much prescient as dated. Its predictions didn’t come true, and it’s shot through with a sense of racial anxiety — southeast Asians are taking over this fine white city — that feels gross.
The author of the piece, Roy Beck, achieved national fame from it, and its publication set him on a career path that would make him arguably the nation’s leading anti-immigration voice, as founder and director of the advocacy group NumbersUSA. In a profile this month, The New York Times called him “perhaps the most powerful member of the small but vocal movement that has helped scuttle every effort at an immigration overhaul for nearly two decades.” Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.