Another report puts operational border security at only 13 percent. And Obama has admitted that [...]]]> The recent media reports of illegal immigration decreasing to net zero always seemed a little convenient for Obama. Once the border had been “secured” then Obama could advance his comprehensive amnesty scheme in order to keep his illegal alien base happy.

Another report puts operational border security at only 13 percent. And Obama has admitted that his high deportation numbers were “deceptive” — a result of phony counting techniques.

So if the illegals aren’t coming any more, it isn’t because of anything Washington has done.

Actually, they are still coming.

Reporter Sara Carter (who covers borders and national security) has plenty of contacts among Border Patrol and ICE officers, and they are telling her that illegal aliens continue to cross the Mexican border for their usual reasons of job stealing, drug smuggling etc. The enforcement experts say that the influx may be somewhat diminished, but is certainly nowhere near zero.

The Pew Hispanic survey (Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero), cited by many as evidence of a secure border, is based upon DHS numbers. And border agents are being told by superiors to arrest fewer illegals overall to concentrate on criminals (aren’t they all?) and avoid areas of high traffic.

Another measure is the money transfers going south, and Carter reports remittances to Mexico are up over last year.

Listen to Sara Carter being interviewed May 16 about her article on the John and Ken radio show starting at around 1:40.

The Obama administration prefers the illegal immigration issue to be off the viewscreen for the election. Their propaganda strategy is to spin that the problem is over, because Romney’s pro-enforcement stance is popular among voters and Obama’s raza-tarian leanings are not.

Border agents dispute claim that illegal immigrant tide is slowing, by Sara Carter, Washington Examiner, May 14, 2012

The once red-hot issue of illegal immigration has cooled considerably in recent months, in large part because of studies like one from the Pew Hispanic Center that said the flood of people entering the U.S. from across the Mexican border has slowed, and that the number actually returning to Mexico from the U.S. has increased, reversing a decades-long trend.

But federal law enforcement agents on the border are skeptical that the illegal immigrant tide is slowing. And new information from the U.S. financial sector shows that more money is flowing from American cities to Mexico in the form of remittances from immigrants than last year.

Federal law enforcement officials interviewed by The Washington Examiner say security is being compromised as the government seeks to keep a lid on the border as a campaign issue during the presidential election cycle. Department of Homeland Security’s Border Patrol agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are being told not to make arrests of noncriminal illegal immigrants, and not to patrol areas of high traffic along the roughly 2,000-mile Southwest border.

A Border Patrol official working along the Texas border said administration officials are deliberately failing to document what is actually happening on the border. “In many cases my supervisors make it clear that they don’t want increased apprehension numbers, which means no arrests,” he said.

The government is also failing to patrol hundreds of miles of federal wildlife reserves that fall under the jurisdiction of the Interior Department. That has given smugglers and illegal immigrants a clear corridor to enter the county and has skewed national arrest figures, an official said. The U.S. is allowing “drug and human smugglers in without a fight” in parts of the Southwest, he said.

T.J. Bonner, former president of the National Border Patrol Council, said recent reports stating that immigration has declined are not substantiated by the facts. He said Border Patrol agents are being hampered by numerous restrictions.

“For every illegal crosser who is arrested, two get away,” Bonner said.

Bonner said the Pew report, which uses statistics provided by DHS, is “surprising, considering remittances to Mexico are up despite a bad economy.”

Maria, an illegal immigrant who spoke with The Examiner on condition that her last name not be used, said few, if any, of her Baltimore neighbors in a community consisting largely of illegal immigrants have fled back to their homeland.

Statistics from the Bank of Mexico, that country’s largest bank, showed that remittances totaled $3.29 billion in January and February, up 7.9 percent over the same period last year. Remittances to Mexico are on a pace to total about $19.7 billion this year, according to the recent reports.

An ICE official who spoke on background said, “The guys in my office were laughing when we heard the Pew report and when we see DHS flat-out lie. We are in a constant battle with higher-ups to do our job. The problem is if we did it right, the numbers wouldn’t add up” — that is, they wouldn’t support the administration’s desire to keep the immigration issue off voters’ minds in 2012, he said.

But administration officials argue that current studies suggesting illegal immigration has dropped are a sign that efforts to secure the border are working. President Obama said he hopes immigration reform will soon be a reality if he is re-elected. In an interview last month with Spanish-language television channel Univision during his trip to Cartagena, Colombia, Obama said immigration reform will be a top priority early in his second term but warned that in order for it to pass “what we need is a change either of Congress or we need Republicans to change their mind.”

Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, said the administration is attempting to change everyone’s mind by cherry-picking data to boost ICE deportations and keep border numbers low.

ICE officers are often ordered not to make arrests of noncriminal aliens and “supervisors have been ordered not to put anything in writing,” said Crane, who testified to this before the Senate Judiciary Committee and whose union represents roughly 5,500 ICE officers.

A senior ICE official pointed to statistics that showed the agency is doing everything possible with its level of funding. ICE is tasked by Congress with removing 400,000 people a year. As of May 5, ICE has already removed 229,664 people, of which 118,430 were convicted criminal aliens, he said.

“Realistically we don’t have the resources to remove 11 million aliens, but our priorities are to remove criminal aliens, immigration fugitives, illegal re-entrants and recent border crossers,” said the official.

Sara A. Carter is The Washington Examiner’s national security correspondent. She can be reached at scarter@washingtonexaminer.com.

Information about the killer is now being revealed that was kept [...]]]> In Los Angeles, the illegal alien killer of high-school football star Jamiel Shaw (pictured at right) was found guilty of first-degree murder last Wednesday. This week the court has entered the penalty phase to determine whether Mexican gangster Pedro Espinoza will get the death penalty.

Information about the killer is now being revealed that was kept from jurors during the trial, and we learn that Espinoza was a particularly violent character in jail where he acted as a gang enforcer. News reports say he was the aggressor in eight incidents while he was incarcerated, including attacks on other inmates. Plus he was similarly berserk in juvenile detention.

Espinoza’s vicious jail behavior makes authorities’ release of him even more difficult to understand. He was clearly a very dangerous man, yet he was not deported out of America but was allowed to walk free on Los Angeles streets. It was only 28 hours between release and the murder of Jamiel Shaw. Given his previous behavior, that fact is not surprising.

Clearly public safety means nothing in the sanctuary city of Los Angeles if it interferes with the lifestyles of illegal alien criminals.

You can hear more details about Espinoza from the trial penalty phase on the John and Ken radio show, including remarks from Jamiel Shaw Sr.

As another measure of Espinoza’s crazy violence, during the main part of the trial, Culver City detective Bryan Thompson described how Espinoza tried to fight him in the police station.

Below, illegal alien gangster Pedro Espinoza in court.

Penalty phase begins for gang member convicted of killing Jamiel Shaw, Wave Wire Services, May 15 2012

A prosecutor urged jurors Tuesday to recommend a death sentence for a gang member who gunned down a standout Los Angeles High School football player he mistook for a gang rival, citing a history of violence dating back to the defendant’s teen years while he was in juvenile camp.

Defense attorney M. David Houchin countered that his 23-year-old client, Pedro Espinoza, did not get any of the accolades that the 17-year-old victim, Jamiel Shaw Jr., received throughout his life.

“The mirror image is an opposite image when you look at Mr. Shaw,” Houchin told the Los Angeles Superior Court jury, which is being asked to recommend whether the admitted gang member should be sentenced to death or life in prison without the possibility of parole for Shaw’s March 2, 2008, shooting death.

The panel deliberated about four hours before convicting Espinoza May 9 of first-degree murder and finding true the special circumstance allegation that Shaw’s slaying was carried out to further the activities of a criminal street gang.

The victim was shot twice — once in the abdomen and once in the head  — only yards from his home in Arlington Heights. Prosecutors said the teen had been walking home carrying a red Spider-Man backpack that made Espinoza perceive him as a gang rival.

In her opening statement in the trial’s penalty phase, Deputy District Attorney Allyson Ostrowski told jurors that they will hear about Shaw’s “promise as a football player,” including being named most valuable player and being looked at by universities such as Stanford and Rutgers.

Jurors will also hear about who Espinoza is, including gang-related incidents in which he was the aggressor while in juvenile camps, along with eight incidents in the Men’s Central Jail that included attacks on other inmates and possession of jailmade weapons after he was arrested in connection with Shaw’s killing, Ostrowski said.

She said the prosecution will ask jurors to recommend “the maximum sentence … because his crimes and his history require it.”

Espinoza’s attorney countered, “Any, any reason, any individual juror may have, be it compassion, be it mercy, anything … can tell you in your heart that the appropriate penalty is life in prison without the possibility of parole.”

Deputy Probation Officer Carl Patton testified that Espinoza jumped into a fight involving a rival gang member who was outnumbered and that he kicked the other teen in the face after being handcuffed during an April 12, 2006, earthquake drill at a juvenile camp.

The deputy probation officer said that on another occasion, he called Espinoza into a room with chairs of various colors and asked him why he would sit in the blue chair.

“He said, ‘Blue’s our color,’” Patton testified, noting that he asked the teen what if sitting in a blue chair meant he was going to death row.

“How did the defendant respond?” Ostrowski asked.

“He said he was down for death row,” Patton said, noting that he was surprised by the teen’s response.

“I said, ‘Do you know what type of crime you have to commit to get to death row?’ He said, ‘Killing,”‘ the deputy probation officer said.

Los Angeles County sheriff’s Deputy Albert Murad testified that he was escorting inmates including Espinoza back to the “high power module” at the Men’s Central Jail in November 2008 when Espinoza rushed forward and attacked another prisoner.

“He was using the chains as a weapon, striking him in the face,” Murad told jurors.

Another sheriff’s deputy, Chris Hernandez, testified that Espinoza stuck his arm through a food tray slot in his cell and used a jail-made weapon to slash another inmate as he walked by in June 2009 before flushing the weapon down a toilet in his cell. Espinoza later said the inmate “had it coming” and had been “running his mouth since he got here,” Hernandez said.

Other prosecution witnesses testified that Espinoza was also involved in gang-related run-ins in October 2005, February 2006 and on April 1, 2006.

“He seemed unremorseful considering the history I have working with juveniles …,” Probation Department employee Raymond Chavez said of Espinoza’s demeanor following the Oct. 6, 2005, incident in which he “literally jumped over” a table during a classroom session and began punching another teen.

“This gentleman was poker-faced as though it was second nature,” Chavez said.
Jurors heard from Shaw’s varsity football coach at Los Angeles High School, who called the victim “a special athlete.”

“Jamiel was a star from the very beginning,” Hardy Williams said, noting that Shaw had “speed” and “moves” that set him apart even as a ninth-grader.

Jurors were shown a video compilation that included footage from the games in which Shaw played and the numerous honors he was awarded. Williams said, “It was hard to watch that,” noting that he had expected “the sky is the limit” for what would have been Shaw’s senior year.

The players and the whole school were “torn up” about his murder, Williams said. He noted that Shaw’s varsity number — 4 — has been retired and won’t be used again.

Jurors are also expected to hear from Shaw’s parents, who have campaigned for a law that would enable police to arrest undocumented-immigrant gang members and hand them over to federal authorities. Espinoza had just been released from jail following his arrest for brandishing a firearm.

Hanson’s latest thoughts concern what might be done, considering recent reports of the $16 billion hole in the budget. Gov Jerry Brown has been making a [...]]]> Fifth-generation Californian and classics scholar Victor Davis Hanson has been one of the more realistic chroniclers of the state’s rapid swirl down the toilet bowl from Golden State to Mexifornia.

Hanson’s latest thoughts concern what might be done, considering recent reports of the $16 billion hole in the budget. Gov Jerry Brown has been making a lot of noise that the terrible state finances mean that voters should pass his tax-raising initiative coming up in November. (Despite promises of reform, Brown has done nothing about bloated salaries and pensions of public employees and other objectionable spending, like taxpayer-subsidized college educations for illegal aliens.)

John and Ken, the Los Angeles radio guys, read the article with colorful commentary starting at around 4:20 in a Tuesday audio segment — Listen.

After some introductory explanation with shocking examples of dystopia, Hanson lists ten to-do items to fix the state. The first is to tax remittances, an idea which I floated in a 2002 Washington Times opinion piece, a policy that has been tried in Oklahoma and reportedly generated $3.7 million in the first year of implementation.

Sadly, California is now a one-party state, where far-left crazies run the government and the Republican party is deceased. It’s hard to imagine that Hanson’s sensible fix-it list will be considered by those in power, much less implemented.

Can California Be Fixed? NRO, May 15, 2012

Recently, I was driving down pot-holed, two-lane, non-freeway 101 near Monterey (unchanged since the 1960s) when the radio blared that on a recent science test administered to public schools, California scored 47th in the nation. As I looked at the congested traffic on the decrepit highway and digested the idea that our public schools are competitive only with Mississippi and Alabama, I wondered — is that what we get for a more than 10 percent income tax, 10 percent state and local sales taxes, and the highest gas taxes in the nation?

To sum up why California has yet another deficit — this time a $16 billion whopper — is pretty easy: The number of demonized one-percenters who pay over 10 percent in their salary to the state has been shrinking, as thousands flee with their ideas, energy, business, and capital to nearby no-tax states, and others make less money due to more and more costs and regulations — while the number of those receiving all sorts of state housing, food, medical, education, and legal support is soaring. (In crude parlance, California increasingly is seen by some as a very bad deal, in terms of the sort of schools, safety, transportation, and housing per taxes paid in comparison to Reno, Tahoe, or Austin, but by far more people as a very good deal in comparison to the costs versus benefits in, for example, Oaxaca or El Salvador.)

In the last two decades, the number added to the prison rolls (ca. 115,000) was not that much smaller than the number of new tax-filers (150,000). And of the last 10 million added to the state’s population, 7 million are on Medicaid.

But California being California, such reductionist thinking is taboo, and we are not allowed to make any suggestion that there is a connection between fleeing entrepreneurs, massive and illegal influxes of undocumented foreign nationals in recent years, and record public salaries and unfunded pensions.

So that said, are there any out-of-the-box things California might do to save or make a few billion dollars, other than the obvious measures of slashing spending and dismantling burdensome regulations?

1. Slap a user tax on the some $10–15 billion that is estimated to leave the state in remittances to foreign countries, or at least through executive action make foreign cash remittances grounds for disqualification from state public assistance.

2. Cancel high speed-rail asap.

3. Open up immediately the estimated now off-limits 35 billion barrels of oil off the central California coast, the vast majority of which can be safely and cleanly exploited by on-shore horizontal drilling.

4. Cap the amount one can receive from a California public pension, or multiple pensions at $100,000.

5. Eliminate three-quarters of the thousands of public California board members, who stymie commerce and are mostly costly and unproductive term-limited insider politicians.

6. Mandate one official language for state publications and office business.

7. Cut by 75 percent the number of administrators at the UC and CSU systems (their numbers from 1993 have grown by 212 percent), and pay them at the commensurate twelve-month faculty rate.

8. Clamp down on the vast underground and untaxed cash economy that has exploded to the point that one can buy tax-free almost anything needed, from a new lawn mower to a four-course meal, at roadside emporia and canteens.

9. Deport the 20,000 plus illegal-alien felons now in California state prisons to their countries of origin.

10. Have George Clooney do another $40,000 per head Hollywood fundraiser, but with Sacramento, not Barack Obama, as the beneficiary.

The only item with which I disagree is #9 the idea of deporting criminals to their home countries from American prison cells. There’s no reason to think that Mexico and other riff-raff nations would imprison their citizens at their cost for crimes committed in the United States. Some countries refuse to accept any of their deported criminals even after the bad guys have served their time in prison, so we see international responsibility is a rare commodity.

Reading the Constitution is a reminder of the wisdom [...]]]> One of the great things about the Tea Party movement has been its rekindling of popular interest in the Constitution. Pocket copies of the document are handed out at gatherings, and people read them to understand what limits are supposed to exist on government in this country.

Reading the Constitution is a reminder of the wisdom of the founders, and how fortunate we are to have a blueprint of laws that is simple, yet protects individual rights like freedom of speech and religion.

With proper respect in mind, why would the United States of America need another system of law, particularly one that is the enforcement strategy of a religiously framed totalitarian system, namely Islam?

Washington’s destructive diversity policy of Muslim immigration has brought that hostile ideology to this country, and one of its strategies of insinuation is using the tenets of sharia law in American courts.

Sometimes Muslims use the cultural defense to defend their crimes, particularly against women, where the argument is that in the home country, women must obey men or face physical punishment including honor killing. But Muslims’ culture has been constructed by centuries of living under sharia. Islam is an all-encompassing system for society, more political than spiritual.

Interestingly, David Yerushalmi, one of the pro-Constitution lawyers involved in the Kansas legislation, reports that the ACLU in on the side of barbaric sharia law that regards women as subhuman and non-Muslims as enemies:

It is not known whether Governor Brownback will sign the bill into law.

In U.S., Kansas lawmakers pass an effective ban on Islamic law, Reuters, May 14, 2012
By Reuters Staff MAY 14, 2012

Kansas lawmakers have passed legislation intended to prevent the state courts or agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws in making decisions, a measure critics have blasted as an embarrassment to the state.

The legislation, which passed 33-3 in the state Senate on Friday and 120-0 previously in the House, is widely known in Kansas as the “Sharia bill,” because the perceived goal of supporters is to keep Islamic code from being recognized in Kansas.

The bill was sent to Republican Governor Sam Brownback, who has not indicated whether he will sign it.

In interviews on Saturday, a supporter of the bill said it reassured foreigners in Kansas that state laws and the U.S. Constitution will protect them. But an opponent said the bill’s real purpose is to hold Islam out for ridicule.

Kansas Representative Peggy Mast, a lead sponsor of the bill for the past two years, said the goal was to make sure there was no confusion that American laws prevailed on American soil.

Mast said research showed more than 50 cases around the United States where courts or government agencies took laws from Sharia or other legal systems into account in decision-making.

Commonly, they involved divorce, child custody, property division or other cases where the woman was treated unfairly, Mast said.

“I want people of other cultures, when they come to the United States, to know the freedoms they have in regard to women’s and children’s rights,” said Mast, a Republican. “An important part of this bill would be to educate them.”

State Senator Tim Owens, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said there was no need for legislation reaffirming American laws that already exist. All the proposed legislation does, he said, was target one particular group – Muslims – for discrimination.

In a recent radio interview with conservative Laura Ingraham, he argued that hispanics favor border enforcement and oppose illegal immigration, a view that does not line up with polling. He stated, “Hispanics support everything that the [...]]]> Senator Marco Rubio of Florida is just the kind of Republican the dinosaur press likes — young, photogenic and pro-amnesty.

In a recent radio interview with conservative Laura Ingraham, he argued that hispanics favor border enforcement and oppose illegal immigration, a view that does not line up with polling. He stated, “Hispanics support everything that the general population supports. Hispanics support border security.” Not so, at least according to mainstream surveys cited below.

For example, various polls showed that the majority of Americans approved of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, but hispanics not so much, as illustrated by the WSJ/NBC poll shown in the 2010 graph below.

A 2010 Pew investigation (Illegal Immigration Backlash Worries, Divides Latinos) showed a stronger loyalty to the hispanic tribe than to the rule of law. One finding: 86 percent of hispanics support a “path to citizenship” for illegals. Another: 78 percent like the ongoing wrong interpretation of the 14th Amendment that awards American citizenship to the anchor babies of illegal aliens. And 61 percent of hispanics disapprove of border fences.

Interestingly, about four in five of the current illegal alien population of 11+ million are hispanic, so the the issue affects many.

The point is that Sen Rubio is selling hispanics as being just like traditional Americans, which is true in some areas, like the concern about jobs and the economy. After all, 55 percent admit they came for “economic reasons” aka the money, not for American freedom or anything like that.

Furthermore, the majority of hispanics identify with the family’s country of origin, not the nation in which they chose to live. Patriotic assimilation to American values does not appear to be happening in this tribe.

The items above are just a few examples showing how Sen Rubio’s contention that hispanic opinions about illegal immigration are just like everybody else is simply not true.

More important is his wrong-headed idea that a modified DREAM Act supplying work visas will be acceptable to either the friends of American sovereignty or the raza-tarian extremists.

Since illegals come for the money only, not to become Americans, a work visa is absolutely a huge reward. A work visa is amnesty.

And every kid is the victim or beneficiary of the parents’ actions. It’s not the taxpayer’s job to fix that when Juan Junior is dissatisfied with his lot in life.

On the other side, the leftist hispanic demander cadre won’t be happy until illegals get the Whole Enchilada of citizenship. Plus their DREAM Acts have always been bad-faith documents crammed with loopholes, so a legislative compromise could be disastrous.

Anyway, here’s the Senator from Florida:

May 11,2012 – Senator Rubio Discusses Immigration with Laura Ingraham

Senator Marco Rubio: “On the immigration issue one of the great injustices that’s happening in the American debate today is the idea that somehow Hispanics are in favor of illegal immigration. The enormous majority, the overwhelming majority, of Hispanics in this country are here legally. I think sixty percent of the Hispanics in this country were born here and so that’s number one. Number two is Hispanics support everything that the general population supports. Hispanics support border security. Hispanics support employment security. Hispanics support enforcing our immigration laws. These are facts. This notion that’s been created that somehow Hispanics are in favor of illegal immigration and that the way to win Hispanic votes is to support illegal immigration is not just wrong, I think it’s offensive and so I want to begin by that.

“Now, I believe that the most important thing we need to do in the illegal immigration issue that our country faces is a combination of enforce our laws and modernize our legal immigration system. We are not the anti-immigration party. We are not the anti-illegal immigration party. We are the pro-legal immigration party. We, meaning Republicans. And we need a legal immigration system that works, that honors our heritage both as a nation of immigrants and also as a nation of laws. That’s the way I think we should approach this issue.

“The Democrats have said that they’re going to make a push on the DREAM Act again this year, something that I do not support. And so I said well, if you’re going to make a push on the DREAM Act and they control the Senate, then we Republicans should figure out an alternative to your flawed approach to the DREAM Act. An alternative that tries to help kids who find themselves as victims. These are young people that came into America through no fault of their own. But how can we help them without rewarding those who have broken the law and not encouraging people to break the law in the future?

“The case that I always cite is the one in Miami of a girl who entered the United States when she was 4 years old. She was brought here by her parents. When you’re 4, you go where your parents go, even if what they’re doing is wrong. And she’s grown up here her whole life. She’s a valedictorian who’s been accepted to Dartmouth to study molecular biology and most Americans say it doesn’t feel right if she’s lived here her whole life to deport her. So what can we do to help her without rewarding illegal immigration or encouraging it in the future? And that’s what I’ve been trying to figure out. What we can do, as a response to the DREAM Act that the Democrats have offered. And we’re working on it, we’re trying to find something that, as I said, accomplishes that.

Treats this in a humanitarian way but does not in any way open the door in the future for illegal immigration and doesn’t have some of the problems the DREAM Act has in it. So, it’s not going to be an easy endeavor.”

Laura Ingraham: “And your idea, again it’s just formulating, but your idea would not mean that people who are in other countries now doing everything they can to get here now illegally, so they can be the beneficiary of it, because they wouldn’t be included, is that right? People who come in now illegally?”

Rubio: “That’s right. It’s a very narrow criteria and we’re still working on it, but it would basically be people that have come here at some point in the past, at a very young age, have lived here consecutively, have no felony record, graduated from high school, are going to go to school or serve in the military, they have to finish school. And then what they would get basically is a non-immigrant visa. What I’ve tried to do is use the existing immigration system to accommodate them. You get a non-immigrant visa, which we do now for student visas and things of that nature. Then, afterwards, if you graduate, you can renew that and convert it into some sort of a work visa. And then at some point in the future, again we don’t know what that date is, that’s one of the things we’re working through, they would not have a special pathway to citizenship. They would have the same rights as anybody else in the world with a non-immigrant visa, which is the existing legal immigration system. Not a special pathway, not anything less, not anything more than legal immigration holders have.

“That’s kind of the general concept. We’re working through it. I mean, the devil is always in the details, but if that’s what the Democrats are going to push on this year, I feel like the Republicans should have an alternative.”

Ingraham: “And you believe that the Democrats are going to push this quote DREAM Act, I can’t stand the name, but DREAM Act in October to try to spike the Hispanic vote and pick a fight with Republicans, and make you look like a hater.”

Rubio: “I have no doubt about the fact that they would use this for that. In fact, one of the things that’s already been documented is that the White House – and articles have been written, two or three now – the White House has been calling in DREAM Act advocates and asking them, almost ordering them not to work with me on this issue because they have been counting on using this issue as a wedge issue in October to drive up turnout.

“I mean how do you get Hispanics that voted for you in 2008 – who now have higher unemployment, who have lost their businesses, lost their homes, and lost their jobs – how do you convince them to vote for you again? You need an issue like this.”

Ingraham: “Yeah, that people like you and Mitt Romney are haters. That’s what they’re going to use. You and Mitt Romney and people on talk radio are all haters. And this is the same tactic they always use. Senator Rubio, thank you for your analysis on all these issues. We really appreciate it.”

Rubio: “Thank you Laura.”

Interestingly, the Obama administration recently removed traffic violations [...]]]> Secure Communities is a common-sense federal program where the fingerprints of persons already in jail are sent to a national database to determine immigration status. Yet the open-borders Raza-tarians condemn the policy as an affront of the self-designated right of illegal aliens to break any American laws they want.

Interestingly, the Obama administration recently removed traffic violations from Secure Communities, even though illegal alien drivers, drunk and otherwise, are a major cause of foreigner-caused death among Americans. The new directive supposedly does not cover drunk driving illegal aliens — yet. When memories fade about shocking cases like the death of the nun Denise Mosier at the hands of a drunk-driving Bolivian, inebriated drivers will likely be quietly included among Obama’s protected class.

But today, the news is good. Despite Governor Deval Patrick’s stubborn defense of foreign criminals, the feds finally implemented Secure Communities in the Bay State.

Even the Boston Herald’s editorial board concurred that government protecting public safety is a good idea:

State now more secure, Boston Herald, May 11, 2012

To the bitter end the Patrick administration wanted it made clear that deploying the federal Secure Communities program in Massachusetts was absolutely not its idea. It simply defies logic that a team largely responsible for the safety of 6 million citizens would so vigorously resist a program that targets a small number of illegal aliens who have committed a crime.

Finally, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has gotten around to including Massachusetts on the list of states where sharing information on local arrests with federal immigration authorities will now be automatic and mandatory.

Local law enforcement agencies have of course always run fingerprints on suspects through FBI criminal databases. But that information now will be shared automatically with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which will determine how to proceed if a suspect is not a legal resident.

It’s not as if there has been a lack of evidence that action is needed. Just ask the family of Matthew Denice. Nicolas Guaman, an illegal immigrant from Ecuador with a record of prior arrests, stands accused of being behind the wheel of a pickup truck that struck and killed Denice last year. Had Secure Communities been in place when Guaman was arrested back in 2008 for assaulting a cop, it is no exaggeration to say Denice might still be alive.

Patrick has long insisted he couldn’t unilaterally “join” Secure Communities. And he’s right. But he certainly could have lobbied his friends at the White House to include Massachusetts among the active states sooner, which he refused to do.

In a recent speech the governor decried immigration laws in other states that establish “an environment of fear.” But what of the very legitimate fears of those who choose to abide by the rules of this commonwealth and this country? As the state’s chief executive Patrick should put their needs first.

A score of 13 percent is a failing grade even for government work.

It’s relevant to remember [...]]]> Well into the 21st century, Washington continues its failure to protect our sovereign borders after decades of broken promises. The feds have spent billions of dollars on failed schemes, and now the result is a miniscule 13 percent operational control.

A score of 13 percent is a failing grade even for government work.

It’s relevant to remember that in 1996, ICE Commissioner Doris Meissner declared that controlling the border “would be a three- to five-year effort,” putting success at 2001 at the latest.

California Border Patrols Busier Than Ever, San Francisco Chronicle, January 31, 1996

Meissner said that controlling the border is going to be a long- term, step-by-step process. “We’ve always said this would be a three- to five-year effort to build up to what would be needed,” she said.

Judicial Watch has the latest failure of border security. It almost makes one think that Washington isn’t serious about protecting America’s perimeter.

“Operational Control” Over 13% Of Border Meets U.S. Goal, Judicial Watch, May 10, 2012

In a chilling revelation, the agency created after 9/11 to protect the United States from another terrorist attack claims it achieved its “goal” by gaining “operational control” over a mere 13% of the nation’s borders.

It gets better. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took six years to accomplish this great feat that, as simple math indicates, leaves an overwhelming portion of the nation’s foreign borders out of “operational control.” The term is used to describe areas where the DHS agency on the front lines, the U.S. Border Patrol, has the ability to detect and interdict illegal activity.

The operational control goal was set by DHS in 2004 and mission accomplished was reported—and internally celebrated—in the fall of 2010. The American public is only hearing about this now because the information is included in a new federal report that largely focuses on implementation challenges facing the Border Patrol.

With 20,000 officers, the agency is responsible for securing nearly 6,000 miles of Mexican and Canadian international land borders and more than 2,000 miles of coastal waters surrounding Florida and Puerto Rico. The priority mission of the Border Patrol, according to its own website, is preventing terrorists and their weapons—including weapons of mass destruction—from entering the United States.

That makes the celebrated 13% figure even scarier because it means the feds only had the ability to detect and interdict illegal activity in a snippet—1,107-mile range—of the nation’s foreign borders. Previous audits have also documented the serious vulnerabilities that plague the nation’s borders. For instance, a few years ago undercover federal investigators easily smuggled radioactive material and other contraband into the U.S. through Canada.

Subsequent to that, a congressional report exposed that less than 1% of the U.S.-Canada border is adequately secured by the U.S. The situation is worst in the south. Just last summer the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center revealed that stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border are controlled by drug-trafficking organizations. The cartels actually “control access to the U.S.-Mexico border” and the “smuggling routes across it,” according to the Justice Department probe.

So what can we expect related to border security in the years to come? Homeland Security officials are still developing a new goal and measure for border security, according this week’s federal audit. Evidently, they’re combining their creative juices to come up with a new goal that will reflect a “more quantitative methodology across border locations and the agency’s evolving view of border security.” Scary, isn’t it?

There could have been no [...]]]> One of the worst cases ever of a preventable crime by a previously arrested but not deported illegal alien gangster came to a near-conclusion today in San Francisco. Edwin Ramos was convicted of murdering Tony Bologna and his two sons (pictured below) in a mistaken-identity gang hit nearly four years ago.

There could have been no mistake that Ramos was a dangerous criminal. He was a member of MS-13, known to be one of the most violent gangs, and was an illegal alien. He had been found guilty as a juvenile of two felonies: a gang-related assault on a Muni passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman. But San Francisco coddled rather than deported a very dangerous man, and the Bologna family was the victim of government malfeasance. The city sanctuary policy dictated that the legal system would not concern itself with Ramos’ immigration status, so he has allowed to remain in America and kill.

For more background, see my 2008 article, San Francisco Triple Murder Highlights Immigrant Crime Wave.

Uber-liberal San Francisco doesn’t do death penalties even in the most brutal cases, so Ramos will likely be sentenced to life in state prison, where he will be have plenty of fellow hispanic gangsters for company.

Ramos convicted of killing S.F. man and his sons, San Francisco Chronicle, May 9, 2012

Alleged gang member Edwin Ramos was convicted Wednesday of the slayings of a San Francisco father and his two sons, the culmination of one of the most notorious crimes in the city in recent years.

The San Francisco Superior Court jury returned guilty verdicts to three first-degree murder counts in the killings of Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, who were shot to death while driving home in the Excelsior neighborhood on a bright Sunday afternoon June 22, 2008.

The jury heard three months of testimony in the case before beginning deliberations last Wednesday on the 25-year-old Ramos’ fate.

The case first drew widespread attention for its random brutality. It became a national story when The Chronicle reported that city juvenile-justice officials relying on San Francisco’s sanctuary-city policy had twice shielded Ramos, a suspected illegal immigrant from El Salvador, from possible deportation after he committed gang-related crimes as a minor.

Assistant District Attorney Harry Dorfman, the lead prosecutor on the case, portrayed Ramos as a seemingly charming but cold-blooded killer who shot the Bolognas in a misguided attempt to avenge a compatriot in the MS-13 gang who had been shot and wounded earlier that day.

“You are looking at a murderer, a gang murderer,” Dorfman told the jury in his closing argument, pointing to Ramos. “Hold him responsible for all the sorrow and grief he caused that day.”

With no murder weapon or ballistics tests to link Ramos to the shootings, the prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Tony Bologna’s son Andrew Bologna, 21, the only survivor of the attack.
He testified that the family had been returning from a gathering in Fairfield when Ramos blocked their car at Congdon and Maynard streets in his Chrysler 300, then rolled alongside and opened fire.

The district attorney said Ramos had mistaken at least one of the Bologna sons for an MS-13 rival – in fact, none belonged to a gang. Prosecutors brought in an assortment of gang members and their girlfriends, many of whom were granted immunity, to describe the gang world in which Ramos lived.

Ramos’ legal team, headed by Marla Zamora, said he had left gang life and associated with MS-13 members only to sell them drugs.

Zamora said Ramos was the fall guy for the real killer, Wilfredo “Flaco” Reyesruano, the now-vanished leader of a faction of the MS-13 gang.

Ramos, who took the stand in his own defense, testified that he had been driving Reyesruano to the hospital to visit their wounded gang friend but had gotten lost in the Excelsior trying to find the freeway. When they encountered the Bolognas, he said, Reyesruano yelled gang epithets and, without warning, opened fire.

Ramos “didn’t know what Wilfredo was going to do that day,” Zamora told the jury.

In portraying him as an innocent, the defense downplayed Ramos’ history as a juvenile offender.
Ramos was not in the United States legally at the time he was identified as one of three alleged MS-13 members who beat up a man on a Muni bus in the Mission District in 2003. Prosecutors told the jury that Ramos and his gang colleagues had been “checking” passengers to determine what gang they were affiliated with.

Instead of referring him to federal authorities for possible deportation, San Francisco juvenile authorities placed Ramos in a shelter and later released him to his mother in April 2004.

Four days after his release, he assaulted a pregnant woman and her brother, and was sentenced to the city’s Log Cabin Ranch for felony attempted robbery. He was released in February 2005, again without city juvenile authorities reporting him to federal immigration officials.

The Juvenile Probation Department had ordered employees not to report minors to immigration officials under the agency’s interpretation of San Francisco’s sanctuary policy, which barred city officials from cooperating with deportations.

The revelations about Ramos’ history of juvenile offenses fueled a controversy over the policy, and ultimately led then-Mayor Gavin Newsom to order that all undocumented juvenile offenders be reported to immigration officials.

The policy has since been eased to allow authorities to exercise discretion in deciding whether to report offenders.

Tony Bologna’s widow, Danielle, sued the city in 2009, claiming that officials’ interpretation of the sanctuary policy had led to the killings of her husband and sons. A judge threw out the suit, ruling that officials were not responsible for any crimes Ramos may have committed.

Vivian Ho and Jaxon Van Derbeken are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. vho@sfchronicle.com, jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com

The experience of France — of weeks of nationwide rioting in 2005, violent attacks against free speech, Islam-based mass [...]]]> The numbers are still a little sketchy, but there is no question that Muslim immigrants were a big factor in Socialist Francois Hollande’s win. A huge majority of Islamic voters wanted an open-borders pro-Islam politician in charge.

The experience of France — of weeks of nationwide rioting in 2005, violent attacks against free speech, Islam-based mass murder, offensive territory-marking street prayer — is another example that unwise immigration diversity has bad consequences. Now we see the results at the ballot box as demographic change increases.

93 Percent Of French Muslims Voted For Hollande, Business Insider, May 8, 2012

According to a survey of 10,000 voters conducted by Opinionway for Le Figaro (not online), 93 percent of French Muslims voted for Francois Hollande in the second round of the French election, La Vie reports.

Another poll put Muslim support for Hollande at 85 percent.

A prior Opinionway survey showed that 59 percent of Muslim voters (numbering about two million in total) voted for Hollande in the first round of the French elections, with Sarkozy only managing four percent. [. . .]

And why wouldn’t Muslim immigrants vote for the Socialist? Hollande targeted them in his campaign by using a rap song that celebrated their presence:

‘N**gas in Paris’ a winning campaign ad or offensive ‘ethnic’ marketing?, CNN, April 27, 2012

Could a song by Jay-Z and Kanye West help improve the image of French presidential candidate Francois Hollande?

Jay-Z and Kanye West’s recent hit “Niggas in Paris” is about them. They rap about being so phenomenally rich, about how they “ball so hard,” buy Rolexes and cars, pop gold bottles with models in Paris nightclubs, that the rest of us slobs couldn’t fathom their lives.

It may seem like an odd choice for a campaign song for a politician trying to appeal to oppressed racial and ethnic minorities.

But it’s apparently working for — or at least not hurting — Francois Hollande. The French Socialist eked out a win last Sunday in the first round of presidential voting to decide who will run France for the next five years. He will face President Nicolas Sarkozy in a run-off May 6.

This month, Hollande appeared in a slickly edited online video featuring West and Jay-Z’s stadium anthem. In the video, Hollande — who has been roundly criticized for his lack of charisma — strides like a rock star amongst his black, Arab and multiethnic supporters in the working-class suburb of Creil.

“Got my niggas in Paris, and they going gorillas,” West raps as Hollande is shown leading discussions between men in suits and then talking to voters of multiple races and ages. Crowds in the street and the subway smile excitedly as Hollande approaches them.

Supporters raise their voter cards to the camera. A man shouts, “To hell with Sarko!” – a common shorthand reference to Sarkozy.

A black woman holds the French flag and exclaims, “François, president! Inshallah, Inshallah!” — Arabic for “God willing.” [. . .]

Galliawatch also concurs that the Muslim vote was decisive:

Is it really the end? Galliawatch, May 08, 2012

As a reader has pointed out, the French did not put Hollande in office, the Muslims did. With the final tally showing that 1,131,067 votes separated the two candidates, and that 93% of the 2 – 3 million Muslim votes went to Hollande, it is fair to say – in a manner of speaking – that Nicolas Sarkozy won. He would have won had there been no Muslims, but since he was one of the major promoters of the Islamization of France, he not only reaped what he sowed, but the whole country will now be forced to pay an incalculable, never-payable price for his stubborn resistance to reality.

The majority of the French people have been fruitlessly voting for what they thought was the “Right”, ever since Jacque Chirac’s first election in 1995. For almost twenty years, concerned French citizens have been trying to elect a government that would steer the country into safer waters, only to find that they put into office a group of impostors. [. . .]

Another Galliawatch post showed a photo of a current T-shirt and used its message as the title: “Before, Africa was yours, now France is ours”.

One of his favorite topics is [...]]]> Now that Timothy Dolan has been promoted by the Vatican to Cardinal, he has become more welcome on big media. There is a meme going around that the press-savvy New York cleric could become the first American Pope, which makes him something of a hot property as religious figures go.

One of his favorite topics is a mass amnesty for millions of foreign lawbreakers, many of whom are hispanic Catholics, curiously enough. Since one-third of Americans raised in the church no longer describe themselves as Catholic (according to Pew research) the cassock brigade is keen to fill the abandoned churches. Hispanics comprised 32 percent of all U.S. Catholics in 2008, up from 20 percent in 1990. Immigration-fueled demographic change has been very helpful to the Catholic church.

In standing up for his organization, Cardinal Dolan accuses Republican border defenders of being “very tough,” splitting up families and displaying general meanness against lawbreakers. In earlier remarks, he compared Arizona friends of sovereignty to nativists and Know-Nothings of another century.

Interestingly, Dolan has noticed that pro-enforcement candidates get the cheers on the campaign trail. The reason is that citizens want their borders and jobs protected from foreign predation.

The most hurtful attack on America of Dolan and his powerful bishop cronies is their active support of open borders and an unlimited firehose of hispanic workers from south of the border. Catholic teaching approves of poor people crossing borders against the law, and tells them it is their right to do so when the reason is economic gain.

America doesn’t have enough jobs for citizens already here. Four years of a terrible jobs depression has left a real unemployment rate of 14.5 percent, the U-6 number that includes the underemployed and discouraged job-search dropouts. Millions suffer economically in terms of lost jobs and foreclosed homes, yet the Catholic church wants more excess foreign workers. Catholic Charities also gets millions of dollars from the government to help “immigrants.”

Furthermore, it is an odd sort of Christianity that sees fit to take employment from hard-working citizens and redistribute it to lawbreaking foreigners. That idea is more Marx than Jesus.

And the bishops recently recommended that people disobey laws that run counter to Catholic teachings.

Below, a hispanic protested Arizona’s immigration enforcement law in front of the Supreme Court while holding a Mexican religious symbol.

Of course, erasure of borders and sovereignty is the goal of Catholic elites, not of citizen parishioners. A 2009 Zogby poll showed 64 percent of parishioners preferred immigration enforcement rather than the mass amnesty pursued by Catholic leaders.

MSNBC talking head Chris Jansen interviewed Cardinal Timothy Dolan on May 2:

CJ: The New York cardinal being touted as having a shot at being the first American pope, Timothy Dolan, is taking aim at republicans over immigration policy this morning. never shy about wading into controversial political waters like the contraception debate, he has a warning for republicans. i spoke with the charismatic cardinal and asked him about the upcoming supreme court decision on immigration.

TD: Catholics feel — catholic bishops feel very strongly about that immigration needs reform. We’re just upset where the loudest cheers in the campaign trail for whatever candidate can say the most punitive or the most angry things about immigrants. The catholic church is — we call our mother church, and she’s traditionally welcomed the immigrant. we are a church of immigrants, so we’re particularly sensitive to the rights of immigrants.

CJ: But the republicans, you think, have gone too far on the immigration –

TD: I would say if any republican asked my opinion, i’d say you need to get your house together when it comes to immigration because right now, fairly or not, you have the reputation of being very tough on immigrants. If a republican answered me, i’d say you better come up with a much saner, more civil, more just immigration policy . But, boy, when you have a policy that splits up families, when you have a policy that drives people underground, when you have a policy where now the government, whether it be in Arizona or in Alabama, is asking our soup kitchens to ask for documentation before they give people food or housing or clothing or medical care, that’s not right. that’s not catholic. That’s not christian. That’s not religious. And it’s not American. The bishops are pretty adamant on that.