Muslims residing in the United States and in general are more distrusted as time goes by, because the case is rather substantial that Allah’s acolytes are not suitable residents for Western nations. As Dutch politician Geert Wilders has said, “Islam is the biggest threat to freedom today.”
(Reuters) – How Americans view Arabs and Muslims has gotten worse in recent years, with negative feelings strongest among Republicans and senior citizens, according to a poll released on Tuesday.
Only 27 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Muslims, down from 35 percent in 2010, according to the Zogby poll, commissioned by the non-profit Arab American Institute. Favorable attitudes toward Arabs dropped to 32 percent from 43 percent in 2010.
The poll also found that 42 percent of respondents believe an American Muslim’s religion would influence his or her decision making in an important government job. The same percentage believe it is justified for law enforcement to profile Arab Americans or American Muslims.
“For me, the biggest concern in the poll is not just that people don’t like us, but what not liking us translates to,” said Institute president Jim Zogby, who is of Lebanese descent. He said attitudes towards profiling and Arabs and Muslims in government posts “affect our ability to function as communities here.” Continue reading this article
On Saturday, quite a few friends of American sovereignty showed up in ultra-blue Boston (!) for a rally to save the country from the alien influx. What a pleasant surprise.
Apparently the protest was organized by Jeff Kuhner, a local radio guy (and legal immigrant from Canada). His page on WRKO-AM radio invited listeners to a “Stop the Invasion Rally.” where participants could “Join Jeff Kuhner for a major rally to protest Governor Deval Patrick’s plan to house illegal aliens from Central America in Massachusetts.”
Here’s a clip of Kuhner:
A local news report thought the participants were angry. Well, good. We are.
An anti-illegal immigration rally on Beacon Hill outside the State House on Saturday, July 26 was teeming with protesters.
While Bree Sison of CBS Boston estimated that the gathering drew hundreds of people, Jeff Kuhner, the host of WRKO’s The Kuhner Report, who organized the rally, put the number closer to 10,000 people.
People carrying signs that said “Deport illegals,” and “Americans before illegals” stood just outside the State House from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Kuhner told Boston.com that he himself is a legal immigrant.
Kuhner came to the United States in the 1990s on a work visa as he worked towards a Ph. D. Still a Canadian citizen, he was issued a green card in 2006. Kuhner said he is currently in the process of becoming a naturalized citizen.
“I’ve never seen any kind of a backlash like this before on any issue ever. People in this state are livid. They feel betrayed by the political elite,” Kuhner said of Gov. Deval Patrick’s decision for Massachusetts to offer shelter to unaccompanied minors.
This week, a state official said it remained “unclear” how many unaccompanied minors crossing the nation’s southern border illegally would be coming to Massachusetts and how many could stay in the state longer. The state has offered to house up to 1,000 children at one of two secure facilities for up to four months.
Kuhner told Boston.com that he thought Saturday’s rally in Boston may well become a national story. “We made the Drudge Report.”
“These are not children. When you say child, the implication is 4, 5, 6 [years old]. They’re teenagers – many of them are gangbangers … If you’re 15, you’re not a child. A child is 12 and under.”
On Thursday, America’s Senator Jeff Sessions took the Senate floor for reflect widely on the recent demands from billionaire elites (Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates) for more immigrant workers while this week Microsoft announced its layoff of 18,000 employees over coming months.
The six-minute video posted on the Senator Sessions Youtube channel didn’t include the whole analysis, which can be found on an office press release, posted below, where I’ve added some links. It’s long, but informative and well researched.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor yesterday on the announced Microsoft layoffs and the displacement of American workers by the H-1B guest worker visa. A text of Sessions’ remarks follows:
“Madam President, three of our greatest `masters of the universe’—as I like to refer to them—have joined in an op-ed in the New York Times just last week to share their wisdom from on high and to tell us in Congress how to do our business and to conduct immigration reform they think should be pleasing to them. I am sure other super billionaires would be glad to join with these three super billionaires and could agree on legislation that would be acceptable to them.
Sheldon Adelson, Las Vegas casino magnate and Republican supporter; Warren Buffett, the master investor; and Bill Gates, the master founder of Microsoft computer systems, all super billionaires, apparently aren’t happy. They don’t have much respect for Congress and, by indirection, the people who elect people to Congress, it appears from the tone of their article—you know, American people, that great unwashed group; nativists, narrow-minded patriots, possessors of middle-class values. They just don’t understand as we know, we great executives and entrepreneurs.
So they declare we need to import more foreign workers in computer science, technology, and engineering, because the country is ‘badly in need of their services.’ They say we are badly in need of importing large numbers of STEM graduates. That is something we have all heard and many of us have perhaps assumed is an accurate thing.
These three individuals, all generous men, have contributed to a lot of causes, and I am teasing them a little bit. They didn’t mind sticking it to Congress, so I just tease them and push back a little bit.
They particularly praised the Senate for its elimination of any limits on the number of work visas that could be awarded to immigrants who have a degree in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and have a job offer. Continue reading this article
The project to divide America’s unwieldy, corrupt state into half a dozen chunks had disappeared from the news in recent months, but now has re-emerged, Phoenix-like, onto the political scene. If the petitions have enough valid signatures then it’s off to the election for the voters to have their say.
Of course, the only area of the current state with a robust economy is the Bay Area which includes Silicon Valley, where tech is booming. A divided California without the wealth producers of tech would be markedly poorer, and wealth redistributors wouldn’t like that. So there would be a liberal establishment backlash if the Six scheme got any traction with the voters. Plus Washington would have to agree — that would never happen.
SACRAMENTO — Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper will submit signatures Tuesday to put what could be one of the most dramatic startups ever on the ballot – a plan to divide California into six states.
Draper, a multimillionaire known as “the Riskmaster,” and his team are expected to announce in Sacramento that they’ve gathered more than enough signatures to put the “Six Californias” measure before state voters.
The measure, a constitutional amendment, needs 807,615 valid signatures to qualify. Because the deadline has already passed for this November, the plan could end up on the November 2016 general election ballot.
Supporters would not say how many signatures they have gathered until Draper holds a news conference Tuesday in Sacramento. However, they said they were confident they had plenty to spare.
Democrats have denounced Draper’s idea, and worry that an outpouring of conservative support and a lengthy campaign for the proposal could hurt both Gov. Jerry Brown in November and the party’s presidential candidate in 2016. Continue reading this article
The liberal website Politico has an interesting tick-tock of how the strategies for illegal alien amnesty played out, with background details of plans, promises and assumptions made according to the open borders calculus.
One interesting item was Speaker Boehner’s pledge to the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference last summer that an amnesty bill would be forthcoming in the House, but other issues filled up the calendar. Lucky for the nation that congressmen work three-day weeks with lots of week-long vacations.
Also noteworthy was Senator Sessions’ observation that newly elected Republicans (who had not experienced the 2007 amnesty battle) had the attitude, “We need to end the lawlessness at the border and build a fence but I love immigrants and I really think we should welcome immigrants and we need more immigrants.”
Fortunately a series of educational meetings educated newbie GOP members that America’s existing immigration system is unduly generous, given persistent systemic unemployment, and should not be expanded further.
President Barack Obama paused for what felt like an eternity to the immigration reform activists seated around the Roosevelt Room.
Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, had just explained why she declared him the “deporter in chief” in a speech in early March. Obama, who was infuriated when he first heard Murguia’s remarks weeks earlier, sat in silence, trying to keep his anger in check, according to advocates in attendance.
When Obama finally spoke, he scolded them. The story was now about infighting between Obama and activists rather than the House Republicans refusing to take up a bill. “If you take the pressure off of them and put it on me, you’ll guarantee that there is no legislation,” he warned.
The frustrations that boiled over three months ago during the White House meeting were years in the making, but were exacerbated by the growing realization that an outcome once thought to be inevitable increasingly looked impossible.
The best chance in three decades to rewrite immigration laws has slipped away just one year after the Senate garnered 68 votes for sweeping reform of the system, 20 months after strong Hispanic turnout for Democrats in the 2012 election sparked a GOP panic, and five years after Obama promised to act.
Immigration reform’s slow but steady failure exposes how an ideologically diverse and powerful network of supporters couldn’t bend the one group that mattered: House Republicans. Proponents turned their attention late to the House because of a longer-than-expected Senate debate, and once they did, the GOP’s political will had faded and hard-liners made inroads with newer lawmakers that were difficult to reverse, according to interviews with several dozen key participants on both sides of the battle.
Last summer, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) privately told the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference that if reformers won the August recess, then Republicans would move a bill in the fall. But the Syria crisis, the government shutdown and the botched rollout of HealthCare.gov consumed attention through the end of 2013. By the time Boehner released a set of immigration principles in January, Republicans saw little short-term benefit to tackling a divisive issue just as their midterm election prospects were strengthening.
As recently as this month, however, there was more movement in the House than previously known. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) had been quietly shopping a PowerPoint presentation of a border enforcement and legalization bill to his colleagues and secured soft commitments from at least 120 Republicans, according to multiple sources familiar with the process.
But then Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) lost his Republican primary election. And young children from Central America crossed illegally over the southwestern border in record numbers. Those two unforeseen events killed any remaining chance for action this year. Continue reading this article
On Tuesday, June 17, I reported on the government’s stealthy attempt to house 500 young border jumpers in a recently closed black college in Lawrenceville, Virginia (population just 1438): Virginia Town Rejects Illegal Alien Kid Drop. On Thursday, an overflow crowd of concerned citizens packed the local high school auditorium to express their outrage at their small community being swamped with illegal aliens. Many citizens showed up with “No illegal immigrants” signs which were not allowed in the meeting, although plenty of police were present. The objections included disease, crime, government overreach and Washington’s warped priorities about spending.
Anne Williams is urged to sit down during a hearing on bringing immigrant children to Saint Paul’s College. U.S. officials acknowledged a contract had been signed June 12, with the refugees to arrive June 19, without consultation with local elected officials.
The upshot was that the resettlement plans were put on hold because of citizen anger. However the government has already signed a lease on the property, and if hundreds of thousands more illegal alien kiddies arrive, then Washington may say screw the Americans’ complaints.
The article below waits until the end to mention the planned Lawrenceville facility would be “one of at least a hundred of these types of shelters across the U.S.”
A fiery debate is raging over a controversial plan to house hundreds of undocumented, teenage immigrants in central Virginia. The Brunswick High School auditorium was packed Thursday night, during a town hall meeting over the issue. Angry neighbors spoke out about the move to set up the emergency shelter at St. Paul’s College in Lawrenceville. The college closed last year after financial difficulties and low enrollment.
Federal Health and Human Services Department officials say they’re putting the effort to convert St. Paul’s College into the shelter on hold. That decision comes among backlash after short notice of the project was given to the community. The community learned of the plans just over a week ago. Federal officials say talks over using the school as a shelter began just a few months ago. However, the ink is already dry on a lease between the school and the federal government.
Neighbors waved “no illegal immigrant” signs well before the town hall meeting started.
One man questioned during the town hall discussion, “When did the U.S. government go into the orphanage business?” His comment received wide applause.
“I’m looking at potentially having to move away,” said Ariel Daniel, a resident who’s opposed to the project.
Hundreds of Central American kids who crossed the border without their parents were supposed to arrive at St. Paul’s College Thursday. Those plans stalled after the immense backlash. The proposed emergency shelter on the college campus would house them until they’re reunited with family members.
“The proposed plans to have St. Paul’s College used as a facility for the UAC (unaccompanied alien children) is on hold,” said Essie Workie of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to the crowded auditorium. Workie also apologized to the crowd for the lack of communication.
Outraged neighbors continued to express fears over safety, security, disease, and how tax dollars are being spent.
Federal officials assured residents that all children will be screened for disease and criminal backgrounds. Officials told the crowd that the number of UAC’s has skyrocketed in recent years, to an estimated 60,000 in 2014. Officials say legally, these children must be cared for. However, the audience didn’t seem convinced, especially with problems facing their own hometown.
“We’re concerned about the children like everybody else. We have a lot of children in our area that need help too,” said Ray Thomas, who owns a business in the area.
Federal officials say the emergency immigrant shelter won’t go forward unless it’s backed by the community.
St. Paul’s College would be one of at least a hundred of these types of shelters across the U.S. Stay with NBC12 for updates on this story.
In advance of the Boston Marathon run on Monday with police-state security measures following last year’s jihad bombings, local media sought to comfort local Muslims that they were not under suspicion in an article titled, “Inclusive spirit reassures Muslims after bombings” (linked below).
The caption of the article’s first photo: “Hamza Syed braced for an anti-Muslim backlash that never happened.”
Below, one explosion at last year’s Boston Marathon.
Despite the lack of lynch mobs or other backlash against Muslims after 9/11 and other Islamic attacks, the Allah bunch residing in America complains that their sensitive feelings are hurt by surveillance and other normal precautions to having a gaggle of potential enemies living in the country.
Why do Americans feel they have to “reassure” Muslims of goodwill? On the contrary, Muslims should be trying to convince Americans that they are not murderous religious fanatics. Allah’s gangsters have killed Americans on our own soil in the thousands, yet we are supposed to feel guilty for not trusting Muslims.
Some will fall under the swoon of Islamic teachings, and part of the modern jihad message is the alleged victimhood of Muslims worldwide, even though they are usually the perps. Here in America, CAIR urges Muslims to report the slightest affront as a hate crime, following the victim theme. In fact, FBI statistics for years show that Jews are five times more likely to be victims of hate crimes than Muslims, who are down the list.
The 2014 budget for the Department of Homeland Security was $49.7 billion. Remember that the DHS was organized as a response to the 9/11 attacks, even though hundreds of billions were already spent on the Pentagon which was supposed to protect America.
One could reasonably regard the $49.7 billion DHS budget as one cost of Muslim immigration. Are the felafels worth it? Why does America continue to allow Muslim immigration?
As for the article about adorable Muslims, brace for extensive silliness. My favorite (bad) remark is from a Muslim who apparently has not read the Koran and its 100+ exhortations to violence against infidels: “Now, when an act of terror occurs, people can see it for what it is: someone exploiting religion, someone with serious issues.”
No, doofus, the jihadists are following their religion!
Sept. 11, 2001, ruptured 13-year-old Hamza Syed’s world. Being Muslim instantly became the only part of his identity that seemed to matter; kids at his school in Lynn besieged him with questions he could not answer. He had immigrated to the United States from Pakistan at age 3, but he no longer felt allowed to call himself American.
A year ago, after the Boston Marathon bombings, Syed braced himself for another anti-Muslim backlash. It never happened.
“I grew up being an outsider, feeling like an outsider, and there wasn’t any moment really after the Boston Marathon where I had that feeling of being an outsider again,” he said. “I grieved with everyone. . . . I could understand their feelings, and they could understand mine, without there being an asterisk next to it.”
On Monday, Syed expects to run the Boston Marathon for the first time, an act he sees as an expression of his love for his resilient city and for its embrace of diversity.
“That is what the Boston Marathon this year is really going to be about,” he said. “I want to say that I was there, that I took part in it.”
To be sure, there were isolated displays of Islamophobia in the aftermath of the Marathon bombings. A woman wearing a hijab was assaulted on a street in Malden. Strangers sent hateful e-mails to Boston’s mosques. Some Muslims feared being questioned by law enforcement or seethed over a tabloid’s portrayal of two innocent Massachusetts men as possibly connected to the bombings.
But the broader tableau showed a city that has become more welcoming of Muslims in the years since the 2001 attacks, many local Muslims said. The scale of the two tragedies was very different, but many Muslims said improved interfaith cooperation and increasingly diverse schools and workplaces contributed to a change in tone. It also seemed, they said, that their non-Muslim neighbors had grown more knowledgeable and less fearful in a dozen years of discussing terrorism, war, national security, and religious liberty in the public square.
“Now, when an act of terror occurs, people can see it for what it is: someone exploiting religion, someone with serious issues,” said Jalon Fowler, a 38-year-old Muslim who ran in last year’s Marathon and will compete again this year.
After the Marathon bombings, many Muslims said they felt reassured by gestures of support and concern from friends and coworkers, from local politicians and clergy of other faiths. Bostonians, they said, seemed to understand that most Muslims were as horrified at the violence on Boylston Street as everyone else was.
“There is never a silver lining to mass murder, or attempted mass murder,” said Imam William Suhaib Webb, spiritual leader of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center in Roxbury, the city’s largest mosque. “But what we learned is, this is a really great city with incredibly sincere people.
“It was like, we’re together, we all anguish about what happened, and we are going to try to speak to the problem together.”
Mosque fears eased Greater Boston’s two most prominent mosques were inundated with press calls and television cameras after the bombings, especially the Islamic Society of Boston in Cambridge, where suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev occasionally worshipped.
Ismail Fenni, acting imam of the Cambridge mosque, tried to field reporters’ questions and to respond to the stunned congregation, few of whom had known the Tsarnaevs.
The Washington Post is a big supporter of extreme diversity and other liberal causes like refugee resettlement. On Monday, it presented a curiously mixed smorgasbord on French politics. The front page below the fold had a piece on France’s Marine Le Pen, noting her “gentler nationalism” in the headline. The photo was quite flattering — and the media can smear anyone they dislike with a crappy picture, but didn’t in this case.
The article contained the usual liberal assumptions that those on the right are xenophobic and suffer from “Islamophobia” (an accusation created by Islamists to smear Westerners who understand the threat of jihadists).
Still, the biased article was balanced by a Q & A with Le Pen where she could respond to the various charges (included below). She wants national sovereignty returned to France and believes immigration should be ended because of the conflict it engenders.
PARIS — From her nondescript offices in the Paris suburbs, Marine Le Pen — the blond, hazel-eyed face of France’s far right — is leading the charge to build a new alliance of European nationalists, this time by blitzing the ballot box.
A 45-year-old lawyer who wants to halt immigration, Le Pen led France’s National Front to historic gains in local elections last month. She did it by destigmatizing the party co-founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen, her 85-year-old father, who once called the Nazi gas chambers a mere ”detail” of history and lost five bids for the French presidency.
In appearances across the country, the younger Le Pen is rolling out a more tempered brand of nationalism that has become a new model across Europe, rejecting her father’s overt racism and playing down the party’s former links to Nazi collaborators. All the while, she is tapping into the rising economic despair of a nation as well as a backlash against the European Union, the 28-country bloc headquartered in Brussels.
Now she is training her sights on a larger prize. From Sweden to Austria, Britain to Italy, nationalist and far-right parties are poised to make record gains next month in elections for the European Parliament. Rather than see their power diluted, Le Pen is seeking to unite a variety of such parties into an extraordinary coalition of anti-E.U. nationalists.
Together, she said, they would work to turn back the clock on the integration and open borders that have defined post-World War II Europe. “You judge a tree by its fruit,” she said last week in her office, a statuette of the Greek goddess of justice resting on a shelf above her. “And the fruits of the E.U. are rotten.”
But these are, after all, nationalists, and forging an international alliance of xenophobes is proving to be just as hard as it sounds. On a continent riddled with old grudges and the ghosts of battles past, working together — for some, anyway — means setting aside centuries-old animosities. Continue reading this article
The “anti-gentrification” activists have gotten media attention by blocking the private Google buses that carry SF-residing workers to headquarters in Silicon Valley, supposedly because the shuttles use city bus stops. The pests show up with signs like “F Off Google” and “Eviction Free San Francisco” (shown below) as a shakedown strategy.
Judging by the media accounts, one might think that San Francisco is a crazed outpost of success-hating anarchists. To be sure, the city is extremely liberal and spends a huge amount of money on goofy big-government programs, like ethnically correct coddling of hispanic crack dealers. But a recent poll shows residents are more sensible about the Google bus issue at least than commie activists might have hoped.
So the perfect diversity Avalon that San Francisco has hoped to create still needs some negotiation it seems.
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — A new poll reveals something that may surprise you about those controversial shuttle buses which carry employees from San Francisco to Silicon Valley. The survey reveals the protesters don’t reflect the feelings of most San Franciscans.
The Bay Area Council paid for the poll and members told ABC7 News they were surprised by the results.
We have all seen the protests that have happened around these shuttle buses. Protesters have said they’re angry about the buses using Muni bus stops and about the fact that the increase of tech workers has created a housing crisis in the city.
The Bay Area Council wanted to find out if the majority of the city had these negative feelings toward tech and say they found the opposite. But they say people do want some regulation.
The survey revealed that at least 57 percent of people have a favorable view of the shuttles and 67 percent support letting the buses use some Muni stops. However, 72 percent do want the city to recover the cost of using those stops. They would like them to charge those companies. Continue reading this article
House Judiciary Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., is scheduled to hold a high-dollar fundraiser in Silicon Valley next week — but frustrated tech donors are already grumbling about the event, disappointed by the lack of progress from House Republicans on one of their top policy priorities: immigration legislation.
According to an invitation obtained by CQ Roll Call, the Goodlatte fundraiser is organized by TechNet, which bills itself as the “preeminent bipartisan political network of CEOs and Seniors Executives that promotes the growth of technology-led innovation.” Suggested contribution levels for Wednesday’s round table and reception with the powerful chairman range between $10,000 and $40,000 for the Goodlatte Victory Committee.
Not every big-time tech donor, however, is ready to cut a check, because Goodlatte’s Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over immigration legislation.
“In this case, because there’s been mixed messages from the Republicans, before I write my check, I wanted some assurances that Bob Goodlatte would be prepared to discuss immigration reform and what the timetable is for immigration reform, because we’re coming down the wire here with the [midterm] elections [approaching] and we need accountability,” said Ron Conway, a top angel investor and venture capitalist, adding that he had contacted TechNet via email with his concerns.
As CQ Roll Call reported last week, Republicans are risking political retribution from their most prominent donors if they do not pursue immigration legislation — and soon.
According to Political MoneyLine, Conway and his wife have already donated more than $140,000 this cycle to Republican and Democratic candidates. That’s enough to earn them a spot just within the top 100 individual contributors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
“I’m waiting to hear back from TechNet, that they can assure us that Bob Goodlatte can give us a tangible schedule … then it’s worth it for us to cut the big checks,” Conway said. “Bob Goodlatte is a huge gatekeeper in this regard, and we need his help.” Continue reading this article
SPENCER: This is an increasing confrontation in Britain between the people who want to bring Islamic law to Britain and to radically change British society and people who believe things are okay as they are, and not only that, immigrants should essentially accept the mores of the country they are coming to rather than try to change the format. This confrontation is only going to grow, it’s not going to go away. This is just one more step toward what is unfortunately looking like an inevitable conflict, because while the British government is anxious to accommodate Islamic supremacist groups, at the same time when they start demanding that bars stop selling alcohol and close down and essentially alcohol be banned, there’s going to be a backlash.
In fact, several dozen did show up on Friday to threaten bar and restaurant owners with 40 lashes if they continued to serve alcoholic beverages.
Loudmouth pest Anjem Choudary led the mob in a march, shrieking Islamic threats.
Violent behavior of this sort and worse is what happens when diverse Muslim immigrants reach a level of population where they can exert their will to create a sharia state by force. Britain has exacerbated the problem by coddling hostile Muslims in the vain hope that they will respond to nice.
Too many Muslim immigrants are soldiers of Islam who believe they have the right to force their religion on unwilling others, as has happened in nearly all of the Middle East, which used to be Christian. The West is crazy to continue admitting Muslim immigrants when many despise the freedoms we value.
Dozens of Muslim protestors gathered to demand that businesses stop selling alcohol in a popular East London area yesterday.
The group, led by former Al-Muhajiroun leader Anjem Choudary, warned restaurants and shops in the Brick Lane area that they face 40 lashes if they continue to sell the product, which is banned under Sharia Law.
Around 60 men and women in burkhas handed over warning letters to Muslim-owned businesses in the area after the protest was initially delayed by a small number of English Defence League members staging a counter-protest.
Controversial cleric Choudary was at the forefront of the protest. The Al-Muhajiroun group he formerly led has been banned under terrorism laws.
Organisers told The Times the protest was held yesterday to coincide with the large number of office workers who would be in the area for Christmas parties.
Choudary told the crowd: ‘The shops are run by Muslims and they know they are selling alcohol and they know the sale and consumption of alcohol is completely prohibited.
‘We cannot live among the non-Muslims and see this evil take place.’
He told those gathered it was his wish that Sharia law, banning alcohol, should be enforced in Britain. [. . .]
Monday’s New York Times had a page 1 feature about culture clash in San Francisco. The tech industry has been roaring back in the city and multicultural toes are being trod upon by young IT workers with iPhones full of money.
The Times’ front-page photo focused on the largely hispanic Mission district, where housing costs are going up.
Next time you bite into your cinnamon horchata cupcake at Mission Minis you can rest assured you’re slightly outside of gangland, west of the edge of a Sureno-claimed chunk of the Mission. Or that families with fewer children area tend toward microhoods with more doggy stores, boarding and veterinary care. [. . .]
Let me stipulate that young tech workers can be insufferable with their hipster arrogance. However, they have jobs, pay taxes and don’t sell drugs on street corners.
But the whole kerfuffle shows what a mess diversity can be. Far from creating a rainbow paradise, immigration and other rapid movements of tribes merely generate new flavors of conflict.
[. . .] While the technology boom has bred hostility, it has also brought San Francisco undeniable benefits. Mayor Edwin M Lee credits the technology sector with helping to pull the city out of the recession, creating jobs and nourishing a thriving economy that is the envy of cash-starved cities across the country.
The industry is “not so much taking over but complementing the job creation we want in the city,” Lee said while giving a tour of middle Market Street to show off its “renaissance” from a seedy skid row to a tech district where Twitter, Square and other companies have made their home.
Yet city officials must grapple with the arithmetic of squeezing more people into the limited space afforded by San Francisco’s 49 square miles. And it is the housing shortage that underlies much of the sniping about tech workers. [. . .]
Nowhere are the changes starker than in the Mission District, once a working-class Hispanic neighborhood, now a destination for the tech elite.
Evan Williams of Twitter and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook have bought homes near there.
Longtime residents of the Mission District complain that high-end apartments, expensive restaurants and exclusive boutiques are crowding out the bodegas, bookstores and Mexican bars. They complain about workers who, like residents of a bedroom community, board company buses every morning and return every evening to drink and dine on Valencia Street.
And they grumble about less tangible things: an insensitivity in interactions in stores and on the street, or a seeming disregard for neighborhood traditions. The annual Day of the Dead procession, meant to be solemn, has turned into a rowdy affair that many newcomers seem to view as a kind of Mexican Halloween. 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.