France Reconsiders Assimilation -- and Threatens Its Own Identity

One step forward, two steps back. Maybe. France is thinking that the project of requiring Muslim immigrants to integrate into French society is just too hard and perhaps the authorities can just redefine the problem away. However, the surrender to insistent Muslim demands to remake France into a sharia-compliant country would be a fundamental change to the social structure and how the French see their national identity. Secularism and freedom from religion is foundational and stems from the 1789 revolution. Including Islamic values is a surrender of major proportions.

One specific issue has been the burqa ban, which was debated at length for a couple years before passage in 2010. But since then, riots over burqas have occurred in the towns of Marseille and Trappes.

Defender of traditional French values Marine Le Pen called the proposed plan “a declaration of war on the French Republic, the history of France and French culture.”

I’m guessing that the proposed Museum of Colonization designed to teach schoolkids about slavery and colonialism won’t include the history of Muslim Barbary pirates kidnapping more than a million Europeans to be enslaved. For more about that forgotten history, see Christopher Hitchens’ Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates.

France mulls overhaul of ‘assimilation’ policy towards immigrants, Daily Telegraph, December 13, 2013

A government report which proposes ending the ban on Muslim headscarves in schools and emphasising the ‘Arab-Oriental’ dimension of French identity has angered conservatives

A French government report has proposed a radical overhaul of the “assimilation” model which requires immigrants to abandon their culture for that of France, including ending the ban on Muslim headscarves in schools and naming streets and squares after notables of foreign origin.

In response to fears over growing racism and ethnic divisions in the country, it recommends emphasising the “Arab-Oriental” dimension of French identity, barring the media from mentioning a person’s ethnicity and promoting the teaching of Arabic and African languages in schools.

The report on how to better integrate France’s millions of citizens and residents of foreign origin was commissioned by Socialist Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault who plans to overhaul policy next year.

But it has drawn a furious reaction from the country’s conservative opposition, which said it amounted to an abandonment of French culture and secular values. “It will no longer be up to immigrants to adopt French culture but up to France to abandon its culture, its values, its history to adapt to the culture of others,” Jean-François Copé, leader of the UMP main opposition party, said.

The proposals include holding philosophical debates in primary schools to examine questions such as ethnicity, gender and religion and having less focus in school history books on “white, male, heterosexual” figures.

The text by a team of specially-appointed experts also suggests that school children should learn more about slavery and colonisation and that a Museum of Colonisation be created. Continue reading this article

Religion of Bullies Threatens London Liquor Establishments

On Thursday’s segment of JihadWatch on SunTV, Robert Spencer remarked about Muslim plans to harass London businesses which serve alcohol, because Mohammed says beer and similar beverages are verboten.

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.

The threat is not an idle one. Muslim vigilantes roam areas of London they claim for sharia and have attacked non-Muslims of whom they disapprove. A couple months ago, an American college student was beaten and put in the hospital because he was drinking beer with friends. (Video here.)

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.

Muslim protestors demand restaurants and shops stop selling ‘evil’ alcohol warning them they face 40 lashes if they carry on, Daily Mail, December 14, 2013

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. [. . .]

Boehner Repositions for Amnesty

Talk about seizing defeat from the jaws of victory — that would be John Boehner’s leadership of House Republicans. The Speaker has been gifted with the most monumental screw-up in decades by the Democrats’ creation of socialist Obamacare for America which has crashed and burned worse than the Hindenburg.

It’s an epic opportunity for Reeps to kick back and allow liberal Democrats to self-destruct in arguably the most egregious manifestation of big government since the Russian Revolution.

Instead, Boehner apparently intends to tear the GOP to shreds by shoving through a mass amnesty to legalize foreigners when millions of American citizens still suffer unemployment from the lingering recession. In doing so, he would hand Obama a huge political win and rescue the President from the Obamacare catastrophe.

Is that any way to build the brand and win the Senate next year? Pissing off the conservative base is not a wise strategy for steering a political party. Rank and file Republicans will not accept amnesty, and will stay home on election day if it is passed.

Limbaugh opined on Friday that the GOP would be willing to lose some elections to get rid of the Tea Party, and that sounds at least partially right. Republican elites support the business globalization agenda of importing cheap foreign workers for any tasks that cannot be outsourced overseas. The populist conservatism of the Tea Party is particularly hated because it draws a clear line between traditional American values and the modern robber barons who run the country.

A recent Gallup poll determined only three percent of Americans thought immigration was the most important issue. The top item was dissatisfaction with government, a concern that a sledgehammer amnesty might tend to stoke.

Boehner hired an amnesty expert for his staff earlier this month, as a tip-off of intention. Democrat Leader Pelosi reported this week that Boehner had promised her that immigration would be taken up in 2014. The Speaker has gone out of his way to badmouth conservatives like Heritage and the Tea Party who oppose the establishment’s amnesty agenda. His plans are clear now.

Mark Levin: Boehner Trashing Conservatives to Get Amnesty Votes, Breitbart.com, December 12, 2013

On Thursday, conservative talk radio host Mark Levin said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is lashing out at conservatives and throwing “temper tantrums” because he wants to delegitimize them as preparation for the looming fight over amnesty.

Levin said Boehner is “raising his voice” and throwing “temper tantrums” because he needs the votes of Republicans who are on the fence about immigration reform.

“He’s making it clear that it’s now time to take sides,” Levin explained.

Boehner has blasted conservative groups for opposing the budget, saying the Tea Party has “lost credibility.” Continue reading this article

Rapid Population Growth Returns to California

The failing economy of the once-Golden State has perked up enough to start drawing newbies once again, with more than 300,000 new residents in the last year. California had unemployment over 10 percent for four years, so October’s 8.7 percent joblessness indicates the uptick that is so attractive to outsiders.

In San Francisco, the tech industry is growing like gangbusters, leading to a building boom that is not welcomed in some quarters. In fact, the Manhattanization that was so long resisted in the city is now taking place, with skyscrapers popping up all over. More than a million square feet of office space is being built, with 26 high-rises going up in downtown.

However, this growth occurs at an unfortunate time, since this year has been one of the dryest on record, and 38 million residents puts a real strain on water supply. In fact, Senator Feinstein and Rep. Jim Costa voiced their concern to the governor (Lawmakers ask Brown to declare California drought emergency, Dec 11, San Francisco Chronicle). But elites decree that growth must go forward no matter what the consequences, so water supply is never mentioned.

California’s population growth highest since before recession, Associated Press, December 12, 2013

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California’s population grew by the highest rate in nearly a decade over the last year, swelling the state’s ranks to more than 38.2 million, new population figures released Thursday showed.

The state added 332,000 people between July 1, 2012 and July 1 of this year, a growth rate of 0.9 percent that is the highest since 2003-04, before the recession, the state Department of Finance reported.

Demographic experts said the increase highlights the recovery in the job market, especially since net migration added 66,000 people to the state — an increase of 71 percent from the year before. Alameda County, on the outskirts of Silicon Valley and home to a fast-growing technology sector, accounted for the largest share of the migration, with more than 15,000 new arrivals from other states and countries.

“We are at the beginning of an upturn in population growth driven by the reemergence of job growth in the state,” said Stephen Levy, director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy.

Santa Clara County, home to Silicon Valley, and Orange County, which houses a sizable number of tech firms, each received more than 15,000 foreign immigrants, he noted. Continue reading this article

House Hearing Investigates Asylum Fraud

On Thursday morning, the House Judiciary Committee took up the subject of Asylum Abuse: Is it Overwhelming our Borders?

For Democrats and other friends of victimhood, providing an abundant welcome for the hard-luck cases of the planet is job #1. The Dems consider a cushy reception to be far more important than public safety from hostile characters, ranging from Mexicans claiming a “credible fear” (who may be cartel members) to head-choppy jihadists from around the Muslim world. The point is that more people are gaming the system because they are often successful, and there is no penalty for attempting asylum fraud.

The testimony of Ruth Wasem of the Congressional Research Service had several charts showing the rapid rise of asylum claims over the last year or two. Below is one example:

Make no mistake, the administration’s squishy attitude toward immigration enforcement has enticed very dangerous persons to claim asylum to gain entrance.

Mexican drug cartels exploit asylum system by claiming ‘credible fear’, Washington Times, By Stephen Dinan, November 21, 2013

The House Judiciary Committee has begun looking at reports that Mexican drug cartel members are abusing the U.S. asylum system to bypass regular immigration checks and get into the country, where some are setting up smuggling operations and others engage in the same violent feuds that caused them to flee Mexico in the first place.

In one instance, a woman made a claim of asylum and three months later was apprehended at a Border Patrol checkpoint with more than $1 million in cocaine, according to a memo obtained by the committee that says criminal gangs are exploiting holes in the asylum system.

The memo, viewed by The Washington Times, also details cartel hit-squad members who won access to the U.S. after claiming they feared violence after they “fell out of grace” with their employers.

In another case listed in the memo, two families involved in drug trafficking came to the U.S. claiming “credible fear” of persecution, then began targeting each other once they were here.

“It’s outrageous that members of Mexican drug cartels and others involved in illicit activity are so easily able to exploit our asylum laws and live in the U.S. virtually undetected,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican. [. . .]

Incidentally, I learned about the hearing by seeing a clip of Goodlatte on the Lou Dobbs Show. The Judiciary Chairman made the following remarks, starting at 5.20:

“. . . we will not even conference with it [the Senate bill] after we do our work in the step-by-step reforms that address enforcement of our immigration laws first doing legal immigration reforms and then finding an appropriate legal status but not a special pathway to citizenship for people who are illegally in the country.”

Of course, any “legal status” that allows the aliens to get work permits and be free of worry about deportation is all the invaders care about. They didn’t break into the United States so they could vote in our elections. For that reason,

Legalization IS amnesty.

You have to listen carefully when lawyers speak. Goodlatte likes to say he objects to a “special pathway” to citizenship for foreign lawbreakers, but legalization is negotiable.

In the following clip from the hearing, Congressman Trey Gowdy grills Deputy ICE Director Daniel Ragsdale about what constitutes a “credible threat” and other topics.

Following are Chairman Goodlatte’s opening remarks:

Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Full Committee Hearing “Asylum Abuse: Is it Overwhelming our Borders?”, December 12, 2013

The United States of America is extremely hospitable to immigrants, asylees, and refugees.  Our nation’s record of generosity and compassion to people in need of protection from war, anarchy, natural disaster, and persecution is exemplary and easily the best in the world.

We have maintained a robust refugee resettlement system, taking in more United Nations designated refugees than all other countries combined. We grant asylum to tens of thousands of asylum seekers each year. We expect to continue this track record in protecting those who arrive here in order to escape persecution.

Unfortunately, however, because of our well justified reputation for compassion, many people are tempted to file fraudulent claims just so they can get a free pass into the United States.

The system becomes subject to abuse and fraud when the generous policies we have established are stretched beyond imagination by the Administration.  It also becomes subject to abuse when people seek to take advantage of our generosity and game the system by identifying and exploiting loopholes. Continue reading this article

Responsible Legislators Disagree with Obama that Terror Threat Is Diminished

One of the ways that the Obama Administration misleads about the jihadists threat is by its use of the term “al-Qaeda.” While that was the group that attacked us on 9/11, it is only one of dozens of similar jihad gangs around the world working for a global caliphate of universal Islamic rule. Several are well known, like Somalia’s al-Shabaab that recently massacred dozens of shoppers in a Nairobi mall (shown below).

Congressman Mike McCaul, Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, appeared on Fox News Monday to draw attention to Obama’s inaccurate characterization of the war on terror. The President routinely says, “Al Qaeda is on the run” which, strictly speaking, may be accurate. But other jihadist enterprises are on the march throughout the world. The murder of the American ambassador to Libya a year ago was a big win from the viewpoint of hostile Muslims everywhere, and that nation’s assembly recently voted to follow sharia law.

As Rep. McCaul remarked on Fox:

“The president has this narrative that I believe is a false narrative that gives a false sense of security, that since the killing of bin Laden everything is fine, al-Qaida is on the run, and this war on terrorism is over. And quite the contrary. I would say it’s not a pre-9/11 threat as he indicates, but rather a threat that spreads like wildfire, like a spiderweb across northern Africa. We’ve seen Egypt fall, we’ve see Libya fall, this is where they look for power vacuums and they breed and thrive in those vacuums, Syria now the culmination of the Sunni-Shia conflict is perhaps one of the biggest breeding training grounds in the world with jihadists pouring in from all over the world, not just from the Middle East but from Europe and the United States. [. . .]

But the smaller-scale attacks, like we saw in Boston earlier this year, we are not protected from. They are much more difficult to detect, deter and disrupt. So when he says we’ve taken out core al-Qaida, he’s talking about a very, very small faction of radical extremists.”

A few other examples of energized Islam: France felt it was necessary to send troops to Mali to knock back the sharia forces earlier this year. The majority Christian Central African Republic has been split by a civil war started by Muslims who took over the capital this year. The Nigerian city of Kano is run by jihadists, who destroyed the local supply of beer in November for the love of Mohammed. The jihad government of Egypt was taken out, but supporters of Allah-flavored tyranny hope to get back in power there.

Some wins, some losses, but overall the Islamic war of violence and demography is proceeding along nicely from their perspective.

Elsewhere, a bipartisan pair of legislators, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI), recently agreed on CNN that America is less secure now than earlier (Watch).

CNN Transcript, State of the Union, December 1, 2013

CANDY CROWLEY: The big question that’s always asked, are we safer now than we were a year ago, two years ago? In general?

FEINSTEIN: I don’t think so. I think terror is up worldwide, the statistics indicate that, the fatalities are way up. The numbers are way up. There are new bombs, very big bombs, trucks being reinforced for those bombs. There are bombs that go through magnatometers. The bomb maker is still alive. There are more groups that ever and there’s huge malevolence out there.

CROWLEY: So congressman, I have to say, that is not the answer I expected. I expected to hear, oh, we’re safer. Do you agree?

ROGERS: Oh, I absolutely agree that we’re not safer today for the same very reasons.

So why doesn’t the government stop admitting Muslim immigrants? Doesn’t the country have enough diverse hostility yet?

Rasmussen Poll: Deportation Policy Not Tough Enough

While Obama-friendly stenographers in the press promote the idea that the administration has a “high rate of deportations”, 60 percent of the citizenry believes not enough homeward trips are happening. Perhaps the voters understand that the deport numbers are inflated to make Obama seem a serious law enforcement guy in order to advance the amnesty project.

But the President even admitted to an audience of hispanic journalists in 2011 that the record repatriation numbers were “deceptive” because of phony baloney counting. He can’t help himself from bragging about how clever he thinks he is.

Below, the public wants lawbreaking illegal aliens sent home pronto.

60% Think U.S. Not Aggressive Enough In Deporting Illegal Immigrants, Rasmussen Reports, December 10, 2013

More than 20 House Democrats last week urged President Obama to halt the deportation of illegal immigrants until Congress passes a comprehensive immigration reform plan, but voters by a two-to-one margin oppose that idea. Most already think the federal government is not vigilant enough in deporting those who are in this country illegally.

Only 29% of Likely U.S. Voters think the government should stop deporting illegal immigrants until Congress passes an immigration reform plan. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% oppose a halt to deportations. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Tijuana Tent City of Deported Lawbreakers Alarms Catholic.org

Typically, professional Catholic handwringers fret about Mexicans suffering in Mexico, and conclude it’s America’s fault. The specific Mexicans are deported individuals, so they are willful lawbreakers exhibiting hostility to American sovereignty and to the people of this country.

Tijuana’s tent city of deportees, aka La Mapa, is filled with hundreds of dome camper tents.

Plus, the writer insists upon calling them “refugees” as if they were victims rather than persons who created their own unfortunate situation through lawbreaking.

The “refugee” usage is only one of a number of melodramatic, inaccurate characterizations.

The evil pit of despair that awaits illegal immigrants deported to Tijuana, Catholic Online, December 6, 2013

Tijuana is home to a massive number of refugees awaiting a chance to return to the United States after being deported. Many of those refugees are making their homes in a semi-permanent tent city where drugs and violence are rampant.

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) – As a virtual civil war continues in Mexico and the economy improves in the U.S., illegal immigrants are once again eying the United States as a destination for a better life. those who are caught are dumped in Tijuana where they must settle into a tent city.

Although many are entering the country illegally, they are doing what they can to assimilate. In the infamous “El Mapa” tent city in Tijuana, more than half of the residents speak English and have family waiting for them north of the border.

California authorities say most of the deportees, about two-thirds, have criminal convictions. This appears to be true, except those criminal convictions are not for violent crimes. Many are for misdemeanors including traffic infractions. A full one-third have no criminal record at all.

Mexican immigrants are lured to the United States with the tempting prospect of work and an opportunity to raise children in a place that isn’t riddled with gang violence. The southwestern border of the U.S. has always been porous with waves of immigrants passing both directions with the seasons since people can remember.

When Mexicans settle en masse in the United States, gang violence often follows. They bring it.

Continue reading this article

Democrats Cry Crocodile Tears over Citizen Unemployment, While Pushing Immediate Work Permits for Millions of Illegal Aliens

In the nation’s capital, hypocrisy is the universal sport, played enthusiastically by both parties in the Congress. However there are times when the craven political lies are so extreme as to make eyes roll back and heads explode from the shamelessness demonstrated.

One such was Thursday’s all-Democrat “hearing” to promote an extension of emergency unemployment benefits for American workers about to lose their checks. The purpose was to smack Republicans who want to end crazed overspending, and the Dems presented a theatrical tableau consisting of teary-eyed citizens telling their hard-luck stories.

At the same time, the Democrat loudmouths leading the “hearing” are the biggest advocates for amnesty for millions and a doubling of legal immigration — the worst policy imaginable for citizen employment. Far from being the friend of American workers, Democrats are their worst enemies. One example: ALL Senate Democrats voted for the loophole-ridden S.744 amnesty bill. That bill would be clearly harmful to US workers, since it would reduce average wages in America for 12 years and increase unemployment for 7 years, according to a CBO report.

Some star Democrats were in attendance at the dog and pony show, including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (lifetime immigration enforcement grade F), former Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (lifetime immigration enforcement grade D) and liberal chatterbox Rosa DeLauro (lifetime immigration enforcement grade F).

The House Democrats ran true to form, and were more concerned with government benefits being spread around rather than improving the job-creation climate in the current economy, in which growth is tepid at best.

You can watch the entire presentation online through C-SPAN, although it is 90 minutes long with much headache-inducing political posturing: Long-Term Unemployment Benefits.

For a shorter sample, you can watch Nevada Congressman Stephen Horsford as he made a general statement about unemployment in his state, then addressed out-of-work electrician Stan Osnowitz:

“Stan, I want to ask you a specific question, because one sector that has been hardest hit in my state is the construction sector. And I have building trade workers and unions, like IBEW, and a lot of other trades that have been unemployed now for more than a year. And there really are no jobs in that sector coming back anytime soon in my community because of the sustained recession. The construction industry was our number two sector behind gaming. So it’s been hardest hit. So it is good to hear a union perspective. So I want to ask you, as a building trades worker, what about the quality of the job that you’re looking for? I mean you come from a sector with good, livable wages, good benefits with pension, and apprenticeship to come back and retrain. What happens to you if the jobs that they are trying to put you in don’t really provide for family-sustaining wages for you and your family?”

Stan Osnowitz:
“As you sit out of work, you start questioning your ability to do a job. Your worth drops, your self-confidence drops, and it takes quite a bit to build it back up. It’s hard to be unemployed. I feel myself as a craftsman. I build. I enjoy building. I like to look back on what I built and say I did that. That’s my pride. When I don’t have that, when I don’t have a job, you feel worthless. It’s a feeling I don’t like. I’ve been in the trade 43 years. I have worked everything from bridges, to steel mills, to car plants, and I’ve always given the top, best job I could, and the quality is what my pride is and that’s what I try to give. To do anything else is unfulfilling. It doesn’t give you a feeling of worth. It doesn’t make you feel good. It’s hard to do something else, not after all of these years and all the training: the continuous training that we go under.”

As it happens, Nevada has had a huge influx of illegal alien labor into the construction industry. In 2003, house framer William Ennis described how his career was ruined: “I started out making $800 to $1,200 a week here for a 40-hour week. It got to where I was having to work seven days a week, 12 hours a day, just to make $600 a week. And that’s just in the past three or four years.”

If anyone in Congress wanted to help jobless construction workers, a good start would be immigration enforcement.

In another screaming hypocrisy, Father Larry Snyder, the President of Catholic Charities USA, spoke at the hearing, remarking, “Our Catholic tradition teaches us that society acting through the government has a special obligation to consider first the needs of the poor and the vulnerable.”

In fact, Catholic Charities gets billions of dollars from the American taxpayer for questionable activities that include resettling refugees and advising illegal aliens about beating immigration law.

Obama Packs DHS with Amnesty Attorneys

Obama promised to change America fundamentally, and it’s one pledge he works daily to fulfill. The latest blow against the nation is the President’s unilateral move to transform the Department of Homeland Security into an illegal alien welcoming agency. The President has loaded up the DHS with dozens of amnesty-activist immigration attorneys who can change policy from law enforcement to anti-borders anarchy. Because the lawyers have been hired via civil service and not as political appointees, they are permanent employees.

J. Christian Adams blew the whistle on this scheme, and appeared Friday on Fox News to explain, and he remarked that “this unit will have the power to effectively suspend immigration laws… This administration knows that personnel is policy. And they are changing the personnel to change the policy.”

Adams accomplished similar whistle-blowing earlier after working as a lawyer in the DoJ, where he revealed the inside story in his 2011 book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department.

Adams also wrote about his findings:

Amnesty Incorporated: DHS Hires Activist Immigration Lawyers, PJMedia, By J. Christian Adams, December 4, 2013

Despite the sequester, the Department of Homeland Security has just completed a hiring blitz of attorneys to oversee and manage immigration litigation.  Almost all of these new civil service attorney hires hail from an activist pro-amnesty and pro-asylum background.  Sources within the Department of Homeland Security report that the process for hiring these new career civil service lawyers was unconventional and was conducted by an Obama political appointee within DHS.

The new attorneys have activist backgrounds with a variety of pro-amnesty groups such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the Advancement Project, and open borders groups funded by the Tides Foundation.

PJ Media previously reported on attorney hires within the Justice Department Civil Rights Division in the Every Single One series.  That series demonstrated that every single attorney hire had a leftist or Democrat activist pedigree. The Department of Justice Inspector General criticized those DOJ hiring procedures as producing ideological outcomes.  PJ Media only obtained the resumes of DOJ hires after this publication was forced to sue Eric Holder in federal court under the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, sources inside DHS have provided PJ Media with the employment history and pro-amnesty backgrounds of the newly hired lawyers who will be enforcing federal immigration laws.

The ideological histories of these new DHS lawyers undermine confidence that the federal government will vigorously enforce federal laws, notwithstanding any congressional “mandates” to do so.

These lawyers were hired through unconventional means by former DHS chief counsel for Citizen and Immigration Services Stephen Legomsky.  Sources at DHS report that when Legomsky was hired by Secretary Janet Napalitano’s Department, he was not even an active member of any bar association.  After resigning in October 2013, Legomsky is now a professor of law at Washington University.  His scholarship is most notable for its hostility toward barriers to entry for foreigners coming to the United States.

The article continues with a list of short bios and mug shots of the treason attorneys.

Obama Preaches against Income Inequality while Plotting Amnesty which Would Worsen Disparity

The President gave a speech on Wednesday that focused on income inequality in America, calling it a “defining issue of our time.” He has gone to his old playbook of arguments, hoping that Americans will respond to a message of class warfare, even though recent polling from Gallup and elsewhere show that the citizens remain most concerned about jobs and the economy. Period.

Of course, if Obama really cared about the economic distress of Americans, he wouldn’t be working to increase the labor pool via amnesty and doubling legal immigration, a sure way to drive wages down. Did his Ivy League education forget the class about the relation between supply and demand? In fact, the CBO reported that the Senate immigration bill would reduce average wages in America for 12 years, increase unemployment for 7 years and reduce per capita GNP growth over 25 years.

Why do busy uber-rich guys like billionaire Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg bother with hawking immigration “reform”? Because they want a firehose stream of exploitable workers from abroad and the millions of dollars in extra profits. The billionaires get richer with cheap foreign labor, and American workers suffer as a result.

Naturally, the indispensable Senator Jeff Sessions nailed the President’s hypocrisy with facts:

Sessions: President’s Rhetoric On Wages Undermined By Immigration Plan That Will Hammer American Workers, December 4, 2013

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, issued the following statement today regarding President Obama’s speech on the decline in economic conditions for U.S. workers:

“It is shocking for the President to give a speech about income disparity and falling wages while pushing an immigration plan that will hammer American workers and widen the disparity. The Congressional Budget Office confirms the White House-backed plan would reduce wages, reduce per capita GNP, and increase unemployment. The President says people are worried ‘the system is rigged’ and yet it is the President who has teamed up with a small cadre of CEOs to double the flow of immigrant workers when these exact same companies are laying off American workers in droves.

Wages for American workers are lower today than they were more than a decade ago—and take-home pay has fallen each year since the President came into office. A recent study demonstrated that all net job growth since 2000 has gone to immigrant workers while the number of U.S.-born Americans working has declined by 1.3 million.

The President’s policies also threaten college students who are about to enter a difficult economy. His plan would more than double the number of temporary foreign workers for wealthy tech companies. As Professor Ron Hira, a leading expert on H-1B visas, has noted, the visas are being used for ‘facilitating offshoring and providing employers with cheap, temporary labor—while reducing job opportunities for American high-tech workers in the process.’

Harvard professor Dr. George Borjas found that high levels of immigration between 1980 and 2000 caused the wages of lower-skilled American workers to drop nearly 8 percent. He also found current immigration levels have resulted in a $402 billion annual wage loss for workers but a $437 billion increase in profits for business owners.

It is time to have an open and honest conversation about our shrinking middle class and the consequences of our immigration policies on American workers and their wages. Unfortunately, that is not what we got from the President today.

The truth is that the policy formula favored by President Obama—more regulation, hostility to American energy, anti-growth taxation, surging debt, bigger government, more federal interference, government-run healthcare, and mindless immigration policies—are the cause, not the cure, for growing middle class distress.”

House Hearing Examines Presidential Overreach in Light of Constitutional Balance of Powers

Tuesday’s House hearing, The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws, was more gripping than a wonky examination of law might suggest. Constitutionalist Tea Party Republicans were in attendance, while the Democrat side of the dais was somewhat empty. Perhaps members of the President’s party didn’t want to be seen defending him, now that Obamacare has become the disaster without end.

The House is the branch of government most damaged by the “imperial President” (a phrase used by liberal Prof. Jonathan Turley in his testimony).

The opening statement of Chairman Bob Goodlatte was straightforward and specific.

Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Full Committee Hearing “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws” December 3, 2013

Chairman Goodlatte: Today’s hearing is about the President’s role in our constitutional system.

Our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having certain defined functions delegated to it by the Constitution.  The President is charged with executing the laws; the Congress with writing the laws; and the Judiciary with interpreting them.

The Obama Administration, however, has ignored the Constitution’s carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra-constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement. [. . .]

From Obamacare to immigration, the current administration is picking and choosing which laws to enforce.  But the Constitution does not confer upon the President the “executive authority” to disregard the separation of powers by unilaterally waiving, suspending, or revising the laws.  It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the President must “faithfully execute” Acts of Congress.  The President cannot refuse to enforce a law simply because he dislikes it. [. . .]

In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer” and that “where [Congress] won’t act, I will.”  Throughout the Obama presidency we have seen a pattern: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn’t get his way.

For instance, while Congress is currently debating how to reform our immigration laws, the President effectively enacted the DREAM Act himself by ordering immigration officials to stop enforcing the immigration laws against certain unlawful immigrants. [. . .]

Also noteworthy was Congressman Trey Gowdy, the former prosecutor, who asked witnesses on the panel of lawyers, “If you can suspend mandatory minimum and immigration laws, why not election laws?” referring to the President.

Professor Turley expressed his deep concern with the slow-moving Constitutional crisis and its harm done to the House of Representatives:

TURLEY (starting 6.45): The great concern I have for this body is that it is not only being circumvented, but it is also being denied the ability to enforce its inherent powers. Many of these questions are not close in my view; the President is outside the line. But it has to go in front of a court and that court has to grant review, and that’s where we have the most serious Constitutional crisis I view in my lifetime. And that is, this body is becoming less and less relevant.

Iowa Congressman Steve King is not a lawyer, but he is well read on the Constitution. His questioning of Prof Turley brought another statement of concern about how this President is destroying the brilliant system created by the framers:

TURLEY (starting at 5.28): I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. We have a rising fourth branch in a system that was tripartite. The center of gravity is shifting and that makes it unstable. And ithin that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.

You can view the entire hearing using C-SPAN online: Presidential Powers and the Constitution.

Page 102 of 241« First...102030...100101102103104...110120130...Last »