Lefties run the schools and often train kids to be little community organizers. I ran into an example in 2010 when I attended the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco as Arizona’s pro-sovereignty law was being argued. There was a group of mostly white kids from King Middle School in Berkeley with signs protesting Arizona’s law as Jim Crow and racist. I talked to one boy who told me they learned the stuff in class and appearing at the protest was part of their school work — talk about assisting your own dispossession! This brainwashing can lead kids into becoming anarchists or Occupiers.
OAKLAND — With a smile stretching from ear to ear, a girl with dreadlocked hair and purple rain boots yelled, “Mic check!” — initiating a chant among others sitting in a circle at Abundant Beginnings summer camp.
“What do you want?” she shouted confidently. “Justice!” other campers replied. “When do you want it?” she followed. “Now!”
The chant echoed across Oakland’s Lake Temescal on a sunny summer day, just as shouts from Black Lives Matter or other civil rights protesters resonate on overcast nights in downtown Oakland.
But these weren’t the voices of typical protesters.
Leading the chant was 3-year-old Jonnie-mae Taylor, of Berkeley.
While some Bay Area children spent their summers sharpening their math skills or playing group sports, Jonnie-mae and other campers — about 20 of them on this day, between 2 and 10 years old — learned about social responsibility and justice during outdoor activities.
The camp is one of many places kids are testing their voices about social issues. In a handful of recent Bay Area demonstrations against police violence involving people of color, those leading the chanting and carrying signs were children and teenagers — often encouraged by parents or older youth eager to impart critical life skills at a time when tensions are high across the country. Continue reading this article
The redefinition project is even measurable: A Google News search for Central American illegal immigrants done on January 11 gets 151,000 items; in comparison, a Google News search for Central American refugees generates a stunningly higher 1.23 million results. The mainstream media is so well trained!
Following is a recent example of category rebranding, from the mouth of a top anti-sovereignty anarchist, Rep. Luis Gutierrez:
WASHINGTON — Latino advocates and leaders rallied outside the White House Friday morning to demand that President Obama stop a new policy of rounding up and deporting families who entered the United States illegally after fleeing poverty and violence in Central America.
Amid rising concern among Democrats in Congress over the raids that began last week with 121 women and children detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in three states, the group asked that Obama show “moral leadership” and grant temporary protected status to the families, similar to what many Central American war refugees were given in the 1990s. “We have a refugee crisis, not an immigration problem,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, who said he was gathering support in Congress for a letter to the president asking him to stop the raids.
But welcoming unscreened millions is admitting not only the unfortunate poor but also the violent gangsters who are propelling many to leave the region. Certainly diverse gangsters recognize the better crime opportunities that a wealthier nation offers and come also. But why relocate Central America’s pathology here? Obama’s open doors invite the entire package.
Central American nations have some of the highest murder rates on earth:
Following are O’Reilly’s remarks in video and text about illegal aliens being transformed into “refugees.”
Interestingly, San Francisco’s Tuesday election for sheriff has been reported to hinge partially on the sanctuary issue. Incumbent Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi released Kate Steinle’s accused killer even though federal immigration officials requested the man be detained for deportation. Interestingly, a recent UC Berkeley government studies poll found a majority of Californians opposed sanctuary policies, including 73 percent of Democrats. So it’s possible Mirkarimi might get a bad surprise on Tuesday.
TUCKER CARLSON: A critical issue in the 2016 presidential race is how the candidates will deal with illegal aliens entering this country, some of them committing deadly crimes. For hundreds of families the issue is more than political, it’s personal and decidedly tragic. Those families have declared today a national remembrance day; they’re going to hold vigils across the country in the memories of their loved ones killed by people who shouldn’t have been here in the first place.
Our next guest will be among those. Last year Mary Mendoza’s son police sergeant Brandon Mendoza of Mesa, Arizona, died after a drunk man in this country illegal for almost two decades crashed head-on into him. The man was wanted for a variety of crimes. Mrs. Mendoza joins us now to tell us how she is honoring the life of her son. Mrs. Mendoza, thanks for joining us this morning. Can you tell us how you’re honoring the life of your son Brandon?
MARY MENDOZA: Well today is National Remembrance Day, and we’re going to have a ceremony down at the Capitol in Phoenix at 5 p.m. this evening where we will gather and remember all the Arizona victims. And since Brandon’s death I’ve been trying to honor him as best I can, to carry on his his legacy and what he was doing in the neighborhood that he patrolled. We’re having the annual Mendoza Thanksgiving dinner to Boys and Girls Club that he started of several years ago. I’m trying to get scholarship funds out there because it was so important for him to have children get education and have goals in life. Continue reading this article
Friday’s New York Times front page included a whiner about a college student who claimed she was too busy to obtain proof of citizenship required to vote in Kansas (where sovereignty warrior Kris Kobach [pictured] is Secretary of State).
A 21-year-old because miffed when his visit to the DMV didn’t produce the voting card he expected, so he is part of a lawsuit. The characters presented by the Times seem like slackers at best, and are not very sympathetic. Doesn’t anyone tell the kids these days that becoming an adult requires getting all your official papers?
The Times must think that actually requiring people to prove citizenship to vote is too hard for young and/or diverse people.
Amelia Flores, a high school senior with plans to become an electrical engineer, eagerly filled out a form to register to vote for the first time at the Kansas State Fair last month. But she left the fair without registering, stymied by a state law championed by Republicans who dominate elected offices in Kansas that requires her to provide proof of citizenship.
“I think it’s ridiculous and restrictive,” said Ms. Flores, who later received a notice in the mail informing her that she must produce a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship to complete the registration. “A lot of people are working multiple jobs, so they don’t have time to get this stuff done. Some of them don’t have access to their birth certificate.”
Ms. Flores, who said she was born in Washington State, unwittingly joined a list of more than 36,000 people in Kansas who have tried to register to vote since the law went into effect in 2013, but then did not complete their registration. This month, under a rule adopted by the Kansas secretary of state’s office, county election officials throughout the state began to cull names from the voters list, removing people who had been on it at least 90 days. Those removed from the list must start the registration process over in order to vote.
The move has touched off a new battle over voter registration, pitting the Republican secretary of state, Kris W. Kobach, an ardent supporter of strict voting rules, against Democrats and advocates of voting rights who say the law was intended to suppress voter turnout. Mr. Kobach was named in a federal lawsuit filed in September by two plaintiffs who had applied to register to vote in Kansas but were added to the roll of incomplete registrants when they did not submit proof of their citizenship.
In an interview, Mr. Kobach said culling the list would help address complaints from county clerks that notifying people of the law’s requirements was costly and often ineffective. He asserted that most of the people on the list had moved since their initial registration or “never had any intention of voting in the first place.” And he defended the law as necessary to prevent voter fraud.
“We now live in a society where there is a record number of noncitizens who live with us,” he said. “This is a common sense way of ensuring that only U.S. citizens are able to vote.” Continue reading this article
On Thursday, Fox Business’ Stuart Varney was appropriately shocked that violent foreign criminals are routinely released into America by the feds. Yes, it is truly appalling that Washington and its liberal cronies at the local level believe importing a future Democrat majority is worth the harm innocent Americans suffer.
VARNEY: Sheriff, have I got this right, that you arrested people for an offense, but you had to release them because they were foreigners — is that accurate?
BABEU: Well not just that. That happens all the time in my county and the state of Arizona and in fact throughout America. When it comes to immigration law, it appears there is no law because there’s no consequences. And what’s happened in the last two years alone, Stuart, that 67,000 of the most violent criminals in the Western Hemisphere, members of the cartels, people who are kidnapping people, raping them, murdering them — hundreds and hundreds of them that are being released into our community. And I pointed out three just this week that were released: one from Sudan, one from Iraq, one from Russia, all tried and convicted of both kidnapping numerous aggravated assaults in numerous states and also two of them were convicted of murder and they were released into my community here in Arizona. Continue reading this article
When presented with Rasmussen’s poll question, “Should the U.S. Justice Department take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants?” 62 percent of voters responded Yes.
However, it’s unlikely that the Obama DoJ would ever investigate a policy that the Democrats support so whole heartedly (except when it’s inconvenient).
Another question concerned cutting off federal funding for sanctuary cities, and that strategy is far more likely to gain traction since it falls within Congressional powers. Senator Tom Cotton has submitted legislation to defund illegal-alien-protecting cities. In the House, Congressmen Lou Barletta, Matt Salmon and Duncan Hunter have introduced similar bills. Certainly there will be many sponsors in the House. Obama would hate to sign defunding into law, but such legislation draws a line that the GOP desperately needs to make, particularly after its snuggling up with the President to pass his power-grabbing trade deal.
Following the murder of a young woman in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant from Mexico, voters want to get tough on so-called “sanctuary cities” that refuse to enforce immigration laws.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the U.S. Justice Department should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% oppose Justice Department action against sanctuary cities. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Fifty-eight percent (58%) believe the federal government should cut off funds to cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Thirty-two percent (32%) disagree, while 10% are not sure. This marks little change from May 2011 when legislation was unsuccessfully proposed in Congress to stop all federal funding for sanctuary cities.
Republicans and unaffiliated voters are much stronger supporters of both actions than Democrats are.
In addition to San Francisco, numerous major cities in the United States are now sanctuary cities including New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Miami, Denver, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston and Detroit.
JUDGE JEANNINE: The White House wants people fully engaged in the Presidential election for 2016. You worked in the Justice Department on voting rights. What is going on in respect to illegals and the possibility of their voting?
ADAMS: The Obama administration is doing everything it can to inject new voters in the 2016 election, Judge. In DHS for example, they’ve issued orders to get all nine million green card holders — these are legal permanent residents — converted to citizenship before the 2016 election. Of course, most of them are going to vote one way: you can understand why the Obama administration is doing this. Those are the people who are here legally.
They’re also affecting the pipeline of people here illegally. The Supreme Court just this week received briefs in a case where the federal government is stopping states like Kansas and Arizona from checking to make sure that people are actually citizens when they register to vote, and the Obama administration justice department, the Election Assistance Commission, which is a federal agency, has tried to block states from making sure that only citizens are registering to vote. Continue reading this article
Illegal aliens have a lot for which to be thankful this season, given that Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty will give work permits to at least five million foreign job thieves. Plus, the President’s cornucopian package includes Social Security and Medicare even though the he claimed his amnesty wouldn’t cover benefits that cost taxpayers billions of dollars yearly. In addition, businesses now have a big financial incentive to hire illegals because they are not required to receive Obamacare.
Funny how the system is being rejiggered to screw the citizens and benefit the invasive foreigners.
Border watchdog and filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch appeared on Fox News on Thanksgiving morning to discuss the government’s inducement to hire illegals, including some observations as a former employer:
LYNCH: Let me explain how this works using my own company. I used to have 250 employees. Fifty of them would be front office workers, sales, marketing etc, I gave them insurance. My guys in the back though, the lower-skilled, the lower-wage, I can’t afford to give them insurance. So if I don’t give them insurance I get hit with a fine. Now that fine could be anywhere from two thousand and five thousand, not three, could be anywhere between. So if you look at the higher range, if I don’t pay insurance I have to pay a million dollar fine — five thousand times two hunderd employees. But now because Obamacare is not given to anyone legal US citizens or legal aliens, the illegal aliens — the five million or I think more like 10 million, who just got the work permits from President Obama — I can now hire them legally and get rid of my US citizen employees and save myself the million dollars. . .
I find something very ironic. He gave the other day after Ferguson a speech in Chicago about how it is that there are so many hardships in the black community and then he goes on and talks about his amnesty. Anybody who’s familiar with this knows that amnesty of this kind throws the black community under the bus. We’ve got 22 percent unemployment for young black men, highest in this country, in some cities it’s 50 percent.
So now what happens is that these people are all going to go in and take those jobs. Employers are going to be forced to hire the illegal aliens. if you think about it because the Obamacare businessman the employer mandate suffers you. It actually pins the employer versus the employee in a way that’s like the Hunger Games, so you bring in the illegal aliens and that’s it. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing. It’s devastating for the economy because you’re going to look at those 200 employees that I had — where are they going? They’re going on the welfare line. . .
And don’t think for one moment that the illegal alien who just got this work permit who might be picking crops or hanging sheetrock is going to say “Ooh, now I can do that legally.” They’re going to be able to go to those better payroll jobs, working at UPS, working at the United States Postal Service. This is devastating to the American worker.
Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.
President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.
Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.
The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market.
“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”
A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty. Continue reading this article
Most voters rate the federal government’s handling of illegal immigration as poor and think states should be able to act on their own to stop the problem. They also favor use of the National Guard in their own state to deal with illegal immigrants.
Just 13% of Likely U.S. Voters now think the federal government is doing a good or excellent job dealing with the illegal immigration problem in this country. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% rate the government’s performance in this area as poor. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Sixty percent (60%) believe a state should have the right to enforce current immigration laws if it believes the federal government is not enforcing them. Just 28% disagree, while 12% are undecided.
This is comparable to findings in December 2011 when Arizona announced its intention to go it alone because of the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws. But the Obama administration challenged the state’s effort in court, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately limited what Arizona could do.
Texas Governor Rick Perry also has been critical of the federal government’s handling of the current immigration crisis and has announced plans to send his state’s National Guard to the border to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters nationwide favor using their state’s National Guard if necessary to deal with illegal immigration. Only 27% are opposed. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure. Continue reading this article
(Reuters) – As President Barack Obama considers sidestepping Congress to loosen U.S. immigration policy, a Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Americans are deeply worried that illegal immigration is threatening the nation’s culture and economy.
Seventy percent of Americans – including 86 percent of Republicans – believe undocumented immigrants threaten traditional U.S. beliefs and customs, according to the poll.
The findings suggest immigration could join Obamacare – the healthcare insurance overhaul – and the economy as hot button issues that encourage more Republicans to vote in November’s congressional election.
With Congress failing to agree on broad immigration reforms, Obama could act alone in the next few weeks to give work permits to up to 5 million undocumented immigrants and delay some deportations, according to media reports.
Hispanic and liberal voters would welcome that, but the online survey suggests much of the rest of the nation may not.
Despite arguments from the White House and groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that legal immigration benefits business, 63 percent of people in the online survey also said immigrants place a burden on the economy. Continue reading this article
Americans don’t want illegal or excessive immigration. When the issue has been in the news, like in 2010 when the Arizona law was in the headlines, polling shows the sentiment that is always there, that citizens want their borders and sovereignty enforced, not ignored.
Now, when citizens see the full horror of the liberal ideal of a borderless America, they are appalled.
Most voters don’t want any of the young illegal immigrants who’ve recently arrived here housed in their state and say any legislation passed by Congress to deal with the problem should focus on sending them home as soon as possible.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the primary focus of any new immigration legislation passed by Congress should be to send the young illegal immigrants back home as quickly as possible. Just 27% say it should focus instead on making it easier for these illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Advocates for the illegal immigrants argue that they are flooding into the country to escape violent situations in their home countries, but just 31% of U.S. voters think they are coming here now for their own safety. Most voters (52%) believe they are coming here for economic reasons. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.
Voters are more uncertain, however, when it comes to the $3.7 billion in new spending that President Obama has asked for from Congress to deal with these new illegal immigrants. Twenty-six percent (26%) think Congress should approve the president’s request even if it does not provide for quicker deportation of these illegals, but 40% oppose approval if money for sped-up deportation is not included. One-in-three voters (34%) are not sure.
A retired doctor and his wife phoned Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday to tell their story about the San Bernardino Catholic church urging members of the parish welcome illegal aliens into their homes. Not only did the archbishop invite parishioners to harbor lawbreakers (a felony, right?) but he also to keep quiet about it to the media. Furthermore, the government put the church up to the scheme.
No problema about the cost though, since the church promised to reimburse the generous (if foolish) care providers. However, the Catholic church receives millions of Americans’ tax dollars to pursue its alleged good works of refugee resettlement and other immigration services, shown as “Government Revenue” in the 2010 Catholic Charities graph, so it’s not so surprising that Washington and the church would work in partnership:
Retired Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony was a big supporter of illegal alien amnesty, as when he protested Arizona’s immigration enforcement law in 2010.
Limbaugh was properly shocked by the call, particularly given his newfound interest in the America-killing immigration catastrophe of open borders. He has been slow on the uptake but seems more comfortable with the subject lately.
RUSH: This is Ann and Ed in Southern California. Welcome. It’s great to have you on the phone. Hello.
ANN: Hi, Rush. How are you?
RUSH: Just fine. Thank you very much.
ANN: Great. Well, we have some interesting news. My husband Eddie is on the phone with us. We live in Southern California, and we’re Catholic, active Catholics in our community, and there was a town hall meeting last evening, emergency meeting called by our local parish priest, ordered by our bishop (unintelligible) and the Archdiocese of San Bernardino. They have made the decision that they’re going to absorb the immigrants that are coming through because the federal government called the bishop’s office on Monday and they’re gonna be busing these immigrants to our communities and asking us to open our homes and to house them for up to a month. The church will reimburse us for any out-of-pocket expenses and we were told not to talk to anybody about it, especially the media. I’m not especially happy about it. My husband is a retired doctor, and he will share his concerns with you regarding this matter. Eddie, do you want to go ahead and talk about your thoughts?
EDDIE: Longtime listener, Rush. Thanks —
RUSH: Thank you, Eddie.
EDDIE: I’m very concerned about the health care crisis that we’re facing and these illegal aliens that are coming into the United States. Doctors are being asked not to talk to the media, they’re on gag orders, both doctors and nurses, and we got a big problem because there are a lot of diseases that can come through this border bringing all kinds of stuff —
RUSH: Eddie, I just read that in some cases the lice are so bad you can see them crawling down the faces of some of the kids.
ANN: Yeah, the lice won’t kill you, but Ebola will, and so will gonorrhea and there’s syphilis and AIDS and hepatitis and diphtheria and polio, meningitis, and this new coronavirus coming in from the Middle East, so —
RUSH: Hang on. I gotta take a break. Hold your thought and we’ll continue after the break.
RUSH: We rejoin Ann and her retired doctor husband, Eddie, on the phone jointly, together with us from Southern California. Eddie, could you put Ann back to the phone or is she on with you?
ANN: Yes. Hi. I’m here with you.
RUSH: Okay, Eddie, I’ll come back to you in just a second, but, Ann, I want to clarify. Did you say that it is the Catholic Church that the government called and asked for assistance?
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.