In a recent celebration of diversity, the San Jose Mercury-News praised the family values of Mexicans who watch television together, not like tiresome Americans who are too disconnected to view with others.
Below, the Pacheco family of Fremont gathers en masse to watch a telenovela soap opera on the Spanish-language network Univision.
Plus the newspaper seems curiously cheerful that hispanics will outnumber whites in California by 2014. You would think an English-language publication would understand that a growing population who prefer their news and entertainment in Spanish is not a plus for its business model.
But the Mercury-News thinks that increasing numbers of Spanish speakers are a fine addition to California’s diversity. The paper even positively observes that the Pacheco family spends hours daily glued to Spanish-language television because they want to follow the news of Mexico and apparently have much less interest in the affairs of the nation they chose to inhabit.
It is curious that the Mercury-News would celebrate this particular aspect of diversity.
Almost every weekday after work and school, the entire Pacheco family — grandparents, young adults, children — crowd into their Fremont living room for their evening ritual: watching Univision.
The Spanish-language network hums for hours through the Pachecos’ apartment, bridging three generations who watch and comment on its steady stream of news, soap operas and daily soccer highlights from Barcelona to Guadalajara.
“Hispanics watch television together,” said Raul Rodriguez, general manager of KDTV-14, the Bay Area affiliate of the national Univision network. “You haven’t been able to see that since the ’50s or ’60s on English-language television.”
The station’s cross-generational appeal — to say nothing of the fact that Latinos soon will surpass whites as California’s largest population group — helped make KDTV’s 6 p.m. broadcast to the Bay Area’s highest-rated early-evening news show last year for adults between 25 and 54, beating English-language competitors such as KTVU, KGO, KNTV and KPIX. Continue reading this article
Another dangerous policy change is the renewal of rubber-stamp visas for Saudi nationals to enter the United States. Keep in mind that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
Before the terrorist attacks, Saudis had access to a program called Visa Express, that only required a visit to a travel agent in the Kingdom. That policy was discontinued a few months after the 2001 terror attacks.
But now an updated version is back, only with a reassuring new name — the Global Entry trusted traveler program. Judicial Watch notes “just three years ago the U.S. government actually placed Saudi Arabia on a list of 14 countries whose travelers would face enhanced security.” How quickly things can change in Washington when powerful people exert their influence.
Robert Spencer and Michael Coren discussed the policy change last week on SunTV:
The latest news is that some House Republicans are asking questions about the bonehead program that endangers America’s national security.
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul and the panel’s subcommittee chairmen are calling on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to explain why DHS has extended a trusted traveler program to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
In a letter to Napolitano released Thursday, the seven GOP lawmakers voiced their concerns about “potential risks” associated with opening the Global Entry trusted traveler program — which “allows expedited clearance for pre-approved, low-risk travelers upon arrival in the United States” — to Saudi Arabia
“Of the 19 individuals who hijacked American planes on September 11, 2001 — 15 were from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” the committee members wrote in the letter dated March 27 but released the following day. “More recently, following the plot to blow up an international flight over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, the Department saw fit to increase the scrutiny of passengers from countries like Saudi Arabia. This must be a factor in determining who to admit into the Global Entry Program.”
Napolitano and Saudi Arabian Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef announced the agreement to expand the trusted traveler program to Saudi Arabia and begin plans for a similar program for American travelers to Saudi Arabia in January. Continue reading this article
The issue of dual citizenship is an interesting one, because it is so little discussed in the public sphere. Even so, a majority of US voters don’t think it is acceptable.
My take is that Americans understand the basic unfairness of dual citizenship and the corollary of immigrants having a spare country in case things go bad here. Plus, the policy promotes dual allegiance, and the principle of polygamy applied to nationality.
Border security and a path to citizenship are the most talked about issues when it comes to immigration reform, but another part of the debate involves multiple citizenships. Thirty-four percent (34%) of Likely U.S. Voters say that if someone wants to become an American citizen, he or she should be allowed to remain a citizen of another country at the same time.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 54% of voters don’t think potential U.S. citizens should be allowed to maintain dual citizenship. Another 12% are undecided.
Below, day of shame: President Reagan signs immigration amnesty bill in November 1986.
In February, Senator Grassley took to the Senate floor to deliver a speech on the history of the 1986 IRCA to explain the expectations and the failures. Now we are facing a replay, only multiplied by many times over in terms of the number of foreign lawbreakers being rewarded.
However, a vital difference today is that amnesty hucksters don’t even pretend that the promised enforcement will be followed. DHS Secretary Napolitano recently remarked that “triggers” were not a workable approach, thereby undermining the Gang of Eight’s framework. Senate Democrats this week voted to give Obamacare to illegal aliens. Democrats are pushing the amnesty hard because they can, calculating the Republicans are running scared about the overrated problem of the hispanic vote.
As if the ultimate hispander (amnesty) will help the GOP.
The Iowa Republicans cleaned the speech up a little and posted the text:
As we look forward to a debate this year about immigration reform, I want to share my thoughts and my past experiences on this issue. I particularly want to share my personal experience from the 1980s amnesty law and how we can learn from that debate.
But, before I dive into this history, I want to commend the many senators that are working together to forge a consensus and produce a product on this terribly difficult issue. I commend them for sitting down and agreeing to a set of principles. As Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, I expect to play a role in brokering an even broader consensus with additional members.
I’ve read the bipartisan framework for immigration reform that this group has written. And, the one thing that struck me is the sentence in the preamble. It states, “We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.” In other words, the group understands that we need a long-term solution to this problem. We need a serious fix so that future generations don’t have to deal with 11 or 15 or 30 million people who are here illegally. That sentence is the most important part of that document, and we must not lose sight of that goal.
But, we need to learn from our previous mistakes so that we truly don’t have to revisit the problem. So, let’s discuss the 1986 amnesty under President Reagan.
In 1980, President Reagan campaigned on a promise that he would work to reform our immigration laws and legalize foreign workers in the U.S. The President’s policies were further shaped by the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy that was created in 1978 under President Carter. President Reagan signed a bill into law on November 6, 1986. This law is known as the Immigration Reform and Control Act, or IRCA.
The process to finalize a bill was long and arduous. It took years. In 1981, when I was a freshman Senator, I joined the Judiciary Committee, and I was a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy. Back then, subcommittees did real work. We sat down and wrote the legislation. We had 100 hours of hearings and 300 witnesses before we marked up a bill in May 1982. Continue reading this article
How much does the Obama administration despise public safety? Let’s count the ways. First, there is the wholesale attack on the gun ownership of law-abiding citizens, who use firearms to protect themselves and their families.
The latest attack on public safety is the cutback on Border Patrol coverage of the southern perimeter. What great news for Mexican drug cartels and Islamic terrorists! The cutback is also a fine opportunity for millions of foreigners who might hope to be included in Obama’s rubber-stamp amnesty for future Democrats.
It’s not like we have anything like a fortified border, so lots of boots on the ground are required. But the Obama gang plans to cut the hours of the Border Patrol in order to make the sequester cause pain, as they promised.
While Homeland Security officials stick to their claim that the border is as “secure as it’s ever been,” this week the Border Patrol effectively cut some 4,000 agents from its force due to budget cuts — 20 percent of its total manpower.
The cuts, meant to close a $250 million shortfall due to “sequestration,” forced Border Patrol brass to make some tough choices. One option included putting agents on furlough two days a month — but agency administrators instead opted to eliminate overtime, according to Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council.
“The border is not secure. It’s safer than it has been in decades but it is by no means secure and it won’t be if you cut 20 percent of your workforce,” Moran said Wednesday.
“This is no longer about border security,” Moran added. “This has become a corporate mentality. They say it’s about the mission but if it was we’d be out there securing the border. They’re worried about securing bottom line.”
A Homeland Security Department spokesman took exception to Moran’s remarks, calling them out of line and untrue. The department maintained the cuts were necessary to comply with automatic spending cuts — “the sequester.” Continue reading this article
Ever get the feeling that the open-borders gang has unlimited funds to destroy America? In fact, they essentially do, according to research from the Sunlight Foundation, which found $1.5 billion has been spent since 2007 in anti-sovereignty lobbying behavior. That means $300 million annually devoted to replace traditional Americans with big-government-loving Marxicans from the third world. The Soros bunch alone has spent more than $70 million since 2005 to increase diverse immigration to America and thereby change the national culture forever.
Apparently, independent-minded citizens (like those in the Tea Party) are seen as too troublesome for an all-powerful welfare state. Replacement is job #1 for many powerful interests, from ethnics to universities. Traditional Americans increasingly are seen as only good for sending their tax money to support the big-government project.
The Daily Caller’s Neil Munro does a good job of analyzing the report and including relevant background information:
A loose alliance of business and political groups has spent almost $1.5 billion since late 2007 to rewrite the nation’s immigration law according to a new report.
The flood of money hired 3,136 lobbyists at 678 lobbying groups to pass one or more of 987 small or large bills, said the March 25 report from the Sunlight Foundation.
“[I]n the five years (2008-2012) since the reform last died on the Senate floor, we count 6,712 quarterly lobbying reports filed by 678 lobbying organizations in 170 sectors mentioning 987 unique bills, associated with more than $1.5 billion in lobbying spending,” the Sunlight Foundation’s Lee Drutman and Alexander Furnas write.
The report corroborates lobbyists’ recent comments to The Daily Caller that business and progressive groups are spending very heavily to pass a joint “comprehensive immigration bill” this year, which could include enhanced guest worker program and some form of amnesty.
One lobbyist said he had been given a surprise offer to promote the new bills, while another said that meetings of experienced immigration lobbyists are crowded with new advocates who know little about immigration law.
“They’re hiring nearly everybody,” the second lobbyist told TheDC.
The Sunlight Foundation’s report, however, does not focus on the 2013 fight, and instead concentrates on the scale and pattern of immigration lobbying. It does not compare funding spent by pro-immigration groups to the much smaller spending by the handful of groups fighting to curb immigration and the influx of guest workers.
Those groups include Federation for American Immigration Reform and NumbersUSA, which want to scale back the annual inflow of roughly one million new immigrants.
“The true stakeholders of what happens with America’s immigration policies — the American public — are left out and left behind as powerful and well-financed industry lobbyists run roughshod over their interests,” Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform told The Daily Caller.
“Special interests lobby with their checkbooks … citizens lobby with their votes and terminate the careers of those who neglect their interests,” he added.
The report says that the NumbersUSA group has an annual budget of $6 million, and has hired lobbyists at three lobbying firms.
Federation for American Immigration Reform and NumbersUSA rallied public opposition to defeat 2006 and 2007 immigration bills that were championed by the progressive activists and corporate lobbyists.
Those 2006 and 2007 bills would have granted a conditional amnesty to roughly 11 million illegal immigrants, and also increased the use of guest-workers in restaurants, construction, software, farming and retail.
OpenSecrets says that NumbersUSA spent $600,000 in lobbying in 2012. That’s less than 10 percent of the $8 million spent by one company, Microsoft Corp., which is trying to up its employment of professional guest-workers under the H-1B program.
The number of lobbying firms working on immigration increased to 355 in 2012, up from 317 in 2011, according to OpenSecrets.org.
In fact, the Sunlight Foundation itself is one of the many groups that are partly funded by the Soros Foundation, which is using its money to help pass the immigration bills. Sunlight received $300,000 from Soros in 2010 and 2011.
The Soros group has spent more that $70 million since 2005 to boost groups seeking to increase immigration, according to a February report by WNYC.org. Continue reading this article
There is one discouraging aspect, however. In an hour of discussion about the sharia threat, not one of the expert speakers pointed out that Islam has invaded America largely through diverse immigration; further, that admitting likely enemies should stop.
So back in those days, we had a great — I thought, the greatest trial judge in the United States at the time, later the Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey, who, after hearing arguments about it, would not allow that defense to be presented to the jury, on the common-sense principle that we are in the United States, and we follow American law in the United States. And it didn’t matter what Sharia said, or really — not just to single out Sharia — what any other religious code would say in terms of where religious law would collide with the civil law. Because there’s a lot of Supreme Court law that says that, you know, basically if you allow chaos like that, you have every person being a law unto himself. And that’s not an acceptable way to have a civil society. So that defense got bounced out pretty easily.
The reason I think that’s interesting is — flash forward almost 20 years, in my own home state of New Jersey. And we had a woman, a Muslim woman, who was married to a Muslim man who she was trying to divorce, who was serially raping and beating her. And she went into New Jersey state court to try to get a protective order. And the court refused to give her the protective order under circumstances where there was no doubt that the attacks and the sexual abuse was actually going on. But the court reasoned that he was simply following his religious principles, under which his own understanding of them was that she had no right to say no.
So think about that. We go from 20 years ago — where a Sharia defense basically gets laughed out of court on a very straightforward, confident idea of American law that we follow our own law in the United States, we don’t — Sharia’s not the law of the land — to a situation we have now where — not just in New Jersey; that case happened to be reversed on appeal — but in almost every state in the Union, we’ve had Sharia principles creeping into our law. Continue reading this article
La Times has a typically Mexo-friendly report about wealthy Mexicans relocated to the San Antonio area, where they gather in deluxe communities designed with safety in mind (pictured). And these are the 1% ultra rich, with private jets, who generally like to flaunt their wealth when they feel comfortable in doing so.
The Mexicans who have relocated (legally! via business-related means) to south Texas may fear the drug cartels, yet a number are connected with Mexican organized crime. So some of the Porsches are owned by cartel honchos.
Interestingly, the Mexicans in San Antonio are compared with Cubans who turned Miami into a foreign enclave of diversity and crime. The rich Mexes say they want to improve the image of “the immigrant” in the United States — good luck with that!
Settling in San Antonio with private jets and Porsches, their influence has been compared to that of well-heeled Cubans who took refuge in Miami decades ago.
SAN ANTONIO — The Mexican businessmen in Rolexes and Burberry ties meet on the north side of town, at Cielito Lindo Restaurant, or at new neighboring country clubs. Their wives frequent Neiman Marcus, Tiffany’s and Brooks Brothers at the nearby mall. Their children park Porsches with Mexican license plates in the student lots at Reagan High School.
They are part of a wave of legal Mexican immigrants who have been overlooked in the national debate over how to deal with their largely impoverished illegal compatriots. Propelled north by drug cartel violence, they paid thousands of dollars to hire attorneys and obtain investors’ visas for themselves and their families (including maids). They have regrouped in gated developments in several Texas cities, where their growing influence has been compared to the impact of well-heeled Cuban refugees who arrived in Miami decades ago.
Nowhere is the evidence more striking than in San Antonio, Texas’ second-largest city and a short private-jet hop from Monterrey, Mexico, where many of the new immigrants built their wealth. They have poured into developments with names like the Dominion, Stone Oak and Sonterra that were cut into the rocky hills and oak groves north of the Loop 1604 highway that rings the city.
More than 50,000 Mexican nationals now live permanently in San Antonio, city officials say, turning an upscale enclave known as “Sonterrey” or “Little Monterrey” into the city’s second-fastest growing ZIP code.
Real estate agent Ana Sarabia caters to the new arrivals — finding them immigration lawyers, new schools, banks and office space — and sees them reshaping her hometown.
“I can see it transitioning,” said Sarabia, 45, who lived for a time in Mexico City. “This has always been a bicultural city. Parts of it have now become a new Mexico.” Continue reading this article
There are probably lots more fake crimes committed to get victim visas that don’t get reported as such, but this story doesn’t avoid the criminal’s scheme. The “robber” turned out to be a juvenile family member who has since relocated to Mexico from Marin County, where the altercation took place.
Seriously, is there a dumber idea than for Washington to offer a gold-plated visa to anyone who claims to be a crime victim? The fraud magnet aspect has been noticed in the House, where Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) has introduced the U Visa Reform Act of 2013, H.R. 463.
She observed, “While a criminal act against any individual in this country is inexcusable and reprehensible regardless of immigration status, it is not good immigration policy to staple green cards to police reports for those in the country illegally.”
Following are Black’s remarks in the House when she introduced the bill in February:
Here’s the fraud story from Marin County, which used to be a nice place:
A San Rafael woman was arrested on allegations she staged an armed robbery against herself so she could get a crime victim’s visa to stay in the country.
Josselin Yuliana Rodas, 29, was booked into Marin County Jail on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud, child endangerment and filing a false police report. Her bail was set at $75,000.
San Rafael police are also seeking charges against the teenager who allegedly robbed Rodas at her request. The juvenile, who has since left the country, is a relative of Rodas, said San Rafael police spokeswoman Margo Rohrbacher.
The robbery was reported Jan. 4 on Belvedere Street in the Canal neighborhood. Rodas and another woman said it happened after they left a nearby market with Rodas’ 16-month-old child.
The women said the robber approached while they were putting the baby and the groceries in their car. The robber demanded their purses and struck Rodas in the head with a handgun.
One of the tiny barriers on the national suicide via sovereignty abolition is the idea of border security as a prerequisite to the mass legalization amnesty. Even the great diverse hope of the elite GOP Marco Rubio said that his support for the Gang of Eight amnesty plot depends on the border being secured.
Now questions are being asked about how secure the border really is and how that might be factually measured. Usually the government has gotten by with citing numbers of apprehensions, although nowhere else in law enforcement do arrest numbers mean anything without the comparison of crimes committed.
Unfortunately recent DHS history has apparently been largely forgotten. In 2011, the agency canceled its billion-dollar Secure Border Initiative (SBI), a high-tech approach that was more about watching than protecting. At that time, an official from the GAO testified that a new system to replace SBI would take at least a decade to get up and running:
[Richard] Stana, who testified Tuesday before a House subcommittee on border and maritime security, said the security project would next expand to California, New Mexico and Texas but isn’t likely to be fully in place until at least 2021, and possibly not until 2026.
If Congress passes comprehensive immigration reform, it will depend on the Obama administration to enforce the law. How might that work?
A glimpse of the future came Wednesday when the House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security held a little-noticed hearing titled “Measuring Outcomes to Understand the State of Border Security.”
Immigration reform depends on a secure border. Nearly every lawmaker pushing reform, and certainly every Republican, stresses that the border must be proven secure before millions of currently illegal immigrants can be placed on a path to citizenship.
But how do you measure border security? For years, the government estimated the number of miles of the border that were under “operational control” and came up with various ways to define what that meant.
Then the Department of Homeland Security threw out the concept of operational control, which Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called “archaic.” The administration promised to create something called the Border Condition Index, or BCI, which would be a “holistic,” and a far better measure of border security. Continue reading this article
In Colorado, the investigation of the murder of prison warden Tom Clement is considering a possible terrorist angle. The “primary working theory” is that Clement’s recent denial of Homaidan al-Turki’s (pictured) request to be transferred to a Saudi prison may be behind the murder.
Crime investigators are justified in pursuing a terrorist connection. Al-Turki has a business selling CDs with jihadist recordings of Anwar al-Awlaki, the influential Yemeni cleric who was fatally droned in 2011. So al-Turki wasn’t a gentle post-graduate student of linguistics, as portrayed by his supporters.
DENVER — Investigators looking into the shooting death of the director of the Colorado Department of Corrections will look at the possibility that Tom Clements’ murder may be tied to the recent decision not to grant a transfer of a Saudi man in a Colorado prison.
Homaidan Al-Turki was convicted in 2006 of unlawful sexual contact by use of force and other charges. Prosecutors said he sexually assaulted a housekeeper and kept her as a virtual slave for four years.
His conviction angered Saudi officials. The U.S. State Department sent Colorado Attorney General John Suthers to Saudi Arabia to meet with King Abdullah, Crown Prince Sultan and Al-Turki’s family.
Last week, Colorado prison officials denied a request from the Saudi Arabian government to release Al-Turki to his home country to serve his life sentence.
Prosecutors opposed Al-Turki’s transfer fearing he would be released upon return to Saudi Arabia.
Celments was the one who decided to deny the transfer. He wrote in a letter to Al-Turki that because Al-Turki refused to undergo sex offender treatment in prison, “I have decided not to support your request for transfer to Saudi Arabia at this time,” reported the Associated Press. Continue reading this article
The world is certainly curious when the Muslim ruler of a Middle Eastern nation takes it upon himself to caution the American people about a particular gang of Islo-extremists who happen to run Egypt. But King Abdullah of Jordan apparently thought Barak Hussein Obama and the State Department could use some helpful advice about the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically what kind of rough characters are wearing those proper business suits.
In a new Atlantic article about King Abdullah, Monarch in the Middle, the king opined that American officials don’t take the Brotherhood seriously enough:
Which is not to say that the Hashemites don’t harbor visceral dislike for the Brotherhood. Abdullah expounds on that dislike to many of the Western visitors he receives—in part because he believes his Western allies are naive about the Brotherhood’s intentions. “When you go to the State Department and talk about this, they’re like, ‘This is just the liberals talking, this is the monarch saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is deep-rooted and sinister.’ ” Some of his Western interlocutors, he told me, argue that “the only way you can have democracy is through the Muslim Brotherhood.” His job, he says, is to point out that the Brotherhood is run by “wolves in sheep’s clothing” and wants to impose its retrograde vision of society and its anti-Western politics on the Muslim Middle East. This, he said, is “our major fight”—to prevent the Muslim Brothers from conniving their way into power across the region.
It doesn’t help that Obama has had some overblown opinions about his own persuasive abilities relating to the Muslim street. One stunningly arrogant example was his statement in a 2007 radio interview that an Obama Presidency would make America safer:
I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only the country looks at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. . . If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view…My sister is half-Indonesian. I traveled there all the way through my college years. And so I’m intimately concerned with what happens in these countries and the cultures and perspective these folks have. And those are powerful tools for us to be able to reach out to the world. . . then I think the world will have confidence that I am listening to them and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world that will ultimately makes us safer.
Back to the present time, CNN’s Jake Tapper interviewed the author of the Atlantic article about King Abdullah, examining his increasingly lonely position as a pro-western leader in the more radicalized Middle East.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.