In San Antonio, a six-year-old boy was hit by a drunk-driving illegal alien on Thursday evening and died en route to the hospital. First-grader Brandon Abrams (pictured) was struck as he rode his bike on the sidewalk while waiting for an ice-cream truck.
The driver, 17-year-old Luis Enrique Landin, reportedly lost control of his pick-up when he reached for the cell phone he had dropped.
Landin faces the charge of intoxication manslaughter and was driving without a license. Authorities placed an immigration hold on him, yet bail was set at $100,000. Go figure. Plenty of illegal alien criminals have used bail to depart for the dear homeland.
A day after watching a 6-year-old neighborhood boy fly through the air when he was fatally struck by a teenage driver suspected of being intoxicated, Jane Withers refused to leave the spot where the boy’s mother tried in vain to save him.
Overcome by the magnitude of the tragedy that left Brandon Abrams’ family grieving and a 17-year-old jailed on intoxication manslaughter charges, Withers helped set up a makeshift memorial soon after the incident at 6 p.m. Thursday in her Northwest Side neighborhood.
Brandon was waiting on the sidewalk for an ice cream truck when he was struck. According to a police report, the driver involved, Luis Enrique Landin, told officers he’d dropped a cellphone and was reaching to pick it up when he lost control of his Ford Ranger in the 9300 block of Autumn Sunrise.
Withers saw it all from her garage.
“I saw (Brandon) fly in the air and hit the ground,” she said, pausing to hold back tears. “I’ve never seen anyone fly through the air so much. … He was doing the right thing, riding on the sidewalk.”
She said Landin told her he had just looked down to get his phone when he hit the boy.
As she spoke, Brandon’s bright red bike lay crumpled on the grass. The impact had knocked him out of his little black shoes, marked as evidence on the roadside.
She maintained a constant vigil at the site throughout the day Friday, as friends, family and neighbors dropped off stuffed animals, candles and flowers for Brandon.
By Friday evening, about 100 mourners gathered at the site to remember the Nichols Elementary school student who had just won first place at his Cub Scout pack’s Pinewood Derby.
Landin was arrested on a charge of intoxication manslaughter Thursday and bail was set at $100,000. Police said he was driving without a license.
On Friday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had placed a hold on his release, meaning the agency intends to take custody of him because it believes he’s is in the country illegally. Continue reading this article
Blogger Mickey Kaus has a common-sensical list of simple questions about the upcoming amnesty legislation which is bearing down upon the nation. The points he brings up are part and parcel of the arguments against mass amnesty that restrictionists have been making for a long time, and are still true after all these years.
But the current environment is one of emotional panic on the part of the Republicans plus a push to act rapidly by the President before the craziness wears off. The Republicans have little interest in whether the amnesty will behave as promised; the nouveau border-blasters merely want it to be over and done with, even though an amnesty will hasten the decline of conservatism and the rule of law in this country.
If politicians cared about what the public wants, they might have noticed recent polls from Gallup and Pew showing that there is little interest in doing something about immigration compared with increasing jobs and cutting the deficit.
To all my respectable friends: A big push for “comprehensive immigration reform’–meaning some combination of an amnesty plus some border-securing (“enforcement”) measures–begins this week. It will be portrayed in the MSM as a debate between rational bipartisan problem solvers and retrograde bigots. But it’s not that easy! Here are six questions to think about:
1. Why won’t this new reform be a repeat of the 1986 reform, when the amnesty provisions were implemented but the enforcement half was blocked by ACLU-style lawsuits and bureaucratic weakness? The result was a broken border and the approximately 11 million new unauthorized immigrants we’re talking about giving amnesty to today. (If it wouldn’t bother you if an Obama amnesty attracted millions of new unauthorized immigrants, then let’s be open about that.)
2. After this new reform is passed, some people will sneak into the country illegally. What happens to them? Won’t the same arguments–the need to bring people “out of the shadows,” the need not to offend Latino voters, etc.–produce yet another amnesty for them down the road? Don’t potential future border-crossers realize this?
3. What about the wages of unskilled workers? Unskilled workers have gotten the short end of the economy of recent decades. Many of the jobs they used to do are now done by cheaper workers overseas. Luckily there are still some unskilled jobs that have to be done in the U.S. Are we now importing desperate unskilled foreigners to do those jobs too? Doesn’t the law of supply and demand say this will drive wages for basic work down, at least a bit? Low-income workers are the people Democrats claim to care the most about. Will the immigration reform Dems champion force them to take yet another hit?
4. Are we really that good at assimilating? Yes, American culture is powerful. But now there is an entrenched lobby for bilingual education, and identity politics curricula that teach young people they’re right to resist assimilation. Formal and informal race preferences reward Americans for maintaining separate ethnic identies. And then there’s Univision, which would go out of business if too many people spoke the common language.
5. Isn’t Mexico special? Other immigrants had to cross oceans and cut ties to get here–and many still do. But half of our new unauthorized immigrants come from a single country a day’s drive away–a nation with a not-implausible claim to much of our Southwestern territory. The “border” may mean something else to them than it does to us, or to other immigrants. Everywhere else in the world this is a recipe for turmoil. Why are we immune?
6. Why not “Enforcement First … Amnesty Second”? Preventing unathorized immigration–i.e. having a working border–isn’t easy. We’ve made strides, and immigration flows have slowed significantly. But we still have ways to go –only a minority of employers use the E-Verify system, for example–and we don’t know if the unauthorized flow will resume if the economy, particularly the construction industry, picks up. Why not wait and find out if enforcment measures (including any new ones that would be part of “comprehensive” reform) work–and then, if they do, go ahead give the undocumented the legal status that would ordinarily encourage more uncontrolled border-jumping?
It’s not like there won’t be political pressure for amnesty in the future.
According to squawking leftists, the refusal of Americans to welcome millions of illegal aliens into the national community is a result of citizens’ mean-spirited racism.
On the contrary, normal humans prefer the company of their own tribe the best, as borne out by worldwide polls from Ipsos and Pew showing many people in the attractive first world think their country has too many immigrants. Human nature dictates that we prefer the safety and comfort of shared values, language and jokes. The psychologically normal reaction to diversity is suspicion, which is why the media must propagandize constantly about the moral superiority of multiculturalism. As Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam observed, “Diversity decreases trust.”
Now a national poll has been published showing how the citizens of France do not like what diverse Muslim immigration has done to their society. The aforementioned Ipsos poll found in 2011 that 52 percent of French citizens thought the country had too many immigrants; in the new France-focused Ipsos survey, that number was 70 percent.
A survey in France published this week revealed 70 percent of the population believe there are too many foreigners living in the country and 74 percent believe Islam is not compatible with French society.
The survey, which was carried out by polling institute Ipsos and the Jean-Jaures Foundation, was published in left-leaning French newspaper Le Monde.
As well as having a distrust of Islam and a belief there are too many foreigners in the country, the poll also highlighted French misgivings on everything from globalization to Europe, the media and democracy.
But many of the more interesting results of the survey surround the controversial issues of immigration, religion and racism, which are frequently at the centre of political and public debate.
Some of the stand-out stats include:
· According to the survey, only 29 percent of French people believe the “vast majority of immigrants who have settled in France are well-integrated”.
· 46 percent believe unemployment levels can only be cut by reducing immigration.
· 57 percent believe anti-white racism is quite common in France
· 77 percent believe religious fundamentalism in France is a concern.
· 62 percent say they no longer feel at home in France.
Studying the results of the survey for Le Monde, French historian Michel Wincock concluded that “the ingredients for populism are there and not just in the ranks of Marine Le Pen’s Front National party”. Continue reading this article
Funny, but President Obama’s policy priorities don’t correspond at all with what the voting public wants fixed. American citizens want the economic mess cleaned up, in particular by increasing the number of jobs and decreasing the deficit.
That was the common-sense result of recent polling from Pew Research. The paper, released January 24 and titled Deficit Reduction Rises on Public’s Agenda for Obama’s Second Term, surveyed various concerns of the American public. The topic “dealing with illegal immigration” (a pretty squirrelly expression that could encompass both sides) is far down the list. Perhaps the public has no faith in Washington not to make the problem worse.
On Monday, President Obama shared his vision for the next four years with the nation in his second inaugural address. In the speech the president laid out an ambitious agenda for the next four years and there’s been a lot of talk about how much can actually be accomplished. He touched on a series of issues including climate change, immigration reform, economic inequality and gay rights- becoming the first president in modern history to talk about gay rights in an inaugural speech. Many of you had questions about the president’s speech and also about what we can expect in the second Obama term.
Obama’s favorite issues are chosen to please his far-left base and to give Marxist historians material for adulatory books.
The California model of government, with high taxes and a Democrat-majority legislature and governor, is looking pretty good to top union goons, er labor leaders. While union membership is dropping like a rock in the United States as a whole, organized labor is growing in the once-Golden State, which has had some of the nation’s worst unemployment for the last four years.
A major reason cited for union success is the willingness of hispanic immigrant workers join up to demand more money and benefits using their “collective voice.” Their aptitude for group action sounds like a great fit for unions — no wonder organized labor has abandoned independent-minded American workers and embraced foreigners who are willing and obedient unionists.
(Since this is an LA Times report, we can assume that the word “immigrants” is used in the liberal style to include illegal aliens.)
Say, why didn’t the foreigners organize unions in their home countries to get better wages?
The latest snapshot of the U.S. working class shows that unions are in trouble, their ranks thinning amid a backlash against organized labor and a still sputtering economy.
But California and a few nearby states in the Southwest are showing a vastly different picture — labor’s ranks are on an upswing. The Golden State’s union organizers signed up more than 100,000 new members last year, while the nation as a whole shed 400,000, according to data released Wednesday.
The reason: Latino workers.
After working hard to get here, many Latino immigrants demand respect in the workplace and are more willing to join unions in a tough economic environment, organizers say.
“There’s an appetite among these low-wage workers to try and get a collective voice to give themselves opportunity and a middle-class lifestyle,” said Steve Smith, a spokesman for the California Labor Federation.
Just 12.5% of the workforce was represented by unions nationwide in 2012, down from 13% the year before. But 18.4% of California’s workforce was represented by a union last year, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Continue reading this article
The case of Cardinal Roger Mahony is a reminder that justice delayed is justice denied; if a perp can slow down the functioning of the legal system for years, then memories fade, the urgency to prosecute dissolves and the statute of limitations kicks in. Mahony has been involved in a continuing cover-up of criminal activity since the mid-1980s, the facts of which are gradually coming to light even now.
Recent revelations from a Los Angeles court shows communications from Mahony to Msgr. Thomas Curry about how to cover up the widespread sexual abuse of kids. Nothing was done to protect the children; the only action taken was to shield the Catholic church from public disapproval and legal repercussions.
The law is wrongly assuming that Arizona residents, including local law enforcement personnel, will now shift their total attention to guessing which Latino-looking or foreign-looking person may or may not have proper documents. That’s also nonsense. American people are fair-minded and respectful. I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation. Are children supposed to call 911 because one parent does not have proper papers? Are family members and neighbors now supposed to spy on one another, create total distrust across neighborhoods and communities, and report people because of suspicions based upon appearance?
The latest news about the sordid story shows hypocrisy of biblical proportions. While Mahony was claiming to be the friend of illegal hispanics, he allowed their status to be used as a club against them to protect his pervert priests. Msgr. Peter Garcia raped at least a dozen illegal immigrant boys whom he believed would not report him to authorities because of their illegality, and he threatened one boy with deportation if he notified police.
Such is the moral universe of one of the Catholic church’s most illustrious leaders.
Documents from the late 1980s show that Archbishop Roger M. Mahony and another archdiocese official discussed strategies to keep police from discovering that children were being sexually abused by priests.
Fifteen years before the clergy sex abuse scandal came to light, Archbishop Roger M. Mahony and a top advisor plotted to conceal child molestation by priests from law enforcement, including keeping them out of California to avoid prosecution, according to internal Catholic church records released Monday.
The archdiocese’s failure to purge pedophile clergy and reluctance to cooperate with law enforcement has previously been known. But the memos written in 1986 and 1987 by Mahony and Msgr. Thomas J. Curry, then the archdiocese’s chief advisor on sex abuse cases, offer the strongest evidence yet of a concerted effort by officials in the nation’s largest Catholic diocese to shield abusers from police. The newly released records, which the archdiocese fought for years to keep secret, reveal in church leaders’ own words a desire to keep authorities from discovering that children were being molested.
In the confidential letters, filed this month as evidence in a civil court case, Curry proposed strategies to prevent police from investigating three priests who had admitted to church officials that they abused young boys. Curry suggested to Mahony that they prevent them from seeing therapists who might alert authorities and that they give the priests out-of-state assignments to avoid criminal investigators.
One such case that has previously received little attention is that of Msgr. Peter Garcia, who admitted preying for decades on undocumented children in predominantly Spanish-speaking parishes. After Garcia’s discharge from a New Mexico treatment center for pedophile clergy, Mahony ordered him to stay away from California “for the foreseeable future” in order to avoid legal accountability, the files show. “I believe that if Monsignor Garcia were to reappear here within the archdiocese we might very well have some type of legal action filed in both the criminal and civil sectors,” the archbishop wrote to the treatment center’s director in July 1986.
The following year, in a letter to Mahony about bringing Garcia back to work in the archdiocese, Curry said he was worried that victims in Los Angeles might see the priest and call police.
“[T]here are numerous — maybe twenty — adolescents or young adults that Peter was involved with in a first degree felony manner. The possibility of one of these seeing him is simply too great,” Curry wrote in May 1987. Continue reading this article
Seriously, budget hawks rightly pillory the spendaholic President for his annual trillion-dollar overruns, but spending $2.6 trillion to give citizenship to 12 to 20 million border hoppers and visa overstayers is also monstrous and unacceptable.
In addition, the fact that many of the illegals have been here for years yet have prospered demonstrates that they don’t need a path to citizenship, nor do they care about anything but work permits.
The only person I’ve noticed bringing up the amnesty cost issue is Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach:
President Obama must not be very serious about immigration reform because the proposal outlined over the weekend is out of touch with sentiments in the U.S. House and with the American public, said Kris Kobach, one of the nation’s leading anti-illegal immigration advocates and Kansas’ secretary of state. [. . .]
Kobach agrees with verifying the legal status of workers, but he said allowing a path to citizenship could add more than $2 trillion to the nation’s debt if illegal immigrants become eligible for Medicaid, Medicare and other benefits.
He acknowledged illegal immigrants would be paying taxes, but he said because many of them are low-skill workers it wouldn’t make up for the additional costs.
“You’re basically giving citizenship to people who will be a fiscal drag on the economy,” he said.
It’s always interesting to see how other countries are responding to the state-enforced destruction of their traditional culture via diverse immigration.
The diversification project, which is run by and for elites, requires decades of steadfast propaganda from media, schools and churches, because human nature dictates that we all prefer the safety and familiarity of our own tribe. There has been some success with convincing people that diversity is the highest good, loyalty to tribe always resurfaces under stress, such as happened in the former Yugoslavia when ethnic wars broke out after the breakup of the central government.
LONDON: British public views immigration as the biggest problem facing their society with one in three people believing that tension between immigrants and people born in the UK is a major cause of division, a new survey has found.
A report by the thinktank ‘British Future’, titled “State of the Nation: Where is Bittersweet Britain Heading?”, found that one in three people believes tension between immigrants and people born in the UK is the major cause of division, while well over half regard it as one of the top three causes. Continue reading this article
Canada’s SunTV host Michael Coren welcomed author Peter Brimelow for opinions on how Obama will peddle illegal immigration amnesty in the President’s second term.
When Coren asked what candidate could attract the white working class voters who are curiously unsupportive of Republicans, Brimelow answered, “Actually almost anyone could do it” and then cited British politician Enoch Powell as an example. Powell was a well-spoken classics scholar who was nevertheless popular among the English working class because he stood up for them by warning against immigration.
People are getting killed in the LA race war of hispanic gangs against black Americans. Two well publicized victims were Jamiel Shaw, 17, and Cheryl Green, 14, a couple of kids with no gang affiliation, who were in the wrong place when hostile hispanic gangsters were intent on marking territory. But other city residents have been killed in race-based gang attacks with much less attention.
Certainly if a group of white guys used violence to chase blacks out of their town, the media would be shrieking with shock and anger. But it’s hispanics who are shooting blacks, so the national press is not interested.
A leader of the Azusa 13 street gang and his son were sentenced in federal court Monday to lengthy prison terms after pleading guilty to conspiring to attack blacks and force them to leave the city.
Santiago “Chico” Rios was sentenced to 19 years and seven months in prison by U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess. His son, Louie “Lil Chico” Rios, who is hearing-impaired and required a sign-language interpreter, received a 10-year sentence.
Both Rioses have “Azusa” tattooed above their upper lips. Louie Rios has “Azusa gang member” tattooed on the back of his head.
At sentencing, Feess said Santiago Rios was a “proponent of the racial cleansing of the city of Azusa” and an admitted participant in “every significant aspect of the gang’s activities.”
The Rioses and 49 other Azusa gang members were arrested in June 2011 and charged with, among other things, a conspiracy to “cleanse” Azusa of its black residents, according to prosecutors.
All 51 have been convicted. Eight remain to be sentenced, said Reema El-Amamy, the federal prosecutor in the case.
Santiago Rios was a reputed Azusa 13 “keyholder” — a shotcaller anointed by the Mexican Mafia prison gang to tax drug dealers, sell drugs and funnel the proceeds to Mafia members, according to a federal plea agreement.
In that position, he implemented an Azusa 13 policy dating from 1992 of targeting and harassing black people in Azusa, according to the agreement. The push to attack blacks was allegedly instigated by Ruben Rodriguez, a Mexican Mafia member from Azusa who has since died.
The gang would assault blacks they spotted in public places and spray racist graffiti. Some gang recruits were asked to attack blacks as a way of proving their worth to Azusa 13, according to the plea agreement. Continue reading this article
One might think that a prudent public official with an important job like Senator would normally do a background check of all persons working in his office. Apparently Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) didn’t, and as a result welcomed an illegal alien who was also a sex-offender to volunteer in his Washington office.
What’s notable in this case is how the DHS was told not to arrest and deport the guy until after the election, where Menendez was running for another term. The intern was arrested on December 6, which was reported a few days later, but the administration tut-tutted away any suggestion that there was a political delay.
The perp is question is Luis Abrahan Sanchez Zavaleta, a Peruvian visa overstayer who was arrested for numerous sexual assaults on an eight-year-old boy.
Senator Menendez is on the Foreign Relations Committee, which has national security functions, so checking everyone’s identity in his office seems a no-brainer.
Photos of the perp haven’t appeared in the American media, but the Spanish-speaking press has been more forthcoming:
The following report notes that Zavaleta was arrested and then released, presumably to show up for deportation at a later date. Or will be amnestied under Obama’s DREAMer free-for-all for which he applied? Is child molestation a serious enough crime to warrant deportation under Democrat values? We will see, if the media will diligently follow up on the case.
WASHINGTON — Federal immigration agents were prepared to arrest an illegal immigrant and registered sex offender days before the November elections but were ordered by Washington to hold off after officials warned of “significant interest” from Congress and news organizations because the suspect was a volunteer intern for Sen. Robert Menendez, according to internal agency documents provided to Congress.
The Homeland Security Department said last month, when The Associated Press first disclosed the delayed arrest of Luis Abrahan Sanchez Zavaleta, that AP’s report was “categorically false.”
Sanchez, 18, was an immigrant from Peru who has overstayed a visitor visa that allowed him to enter the United States. He eventually was arrested at his home in New Jersey on Dec. 6. He has since been released from an immigration jail and is facing deportation. Sanchez has declined to speak to the AP.
After the AP story, which cited an unnamed U.S. official involved in the case, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and six other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the Obama administration for details about the incident.
According to those documents, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Newark had arranged to arrest Sanchez at the local prosecutor’s office on Oct. 25. That was fewer than two weeks before the election.
Noting that Sanchez was a volunteer in Menendez’s Senate office, ICE officials in New Jersey advised that the arrest “had the possibility of garnering significant congressional and media interest” and were “advised to postpone the arrest” until officials in Washington gave approval. The documents describe a conference call between officials Washington and New Jersey to “determine a way forward, given the potential sensitivities surrounding the case.”
The senators, in a letter to the Homeland Security Department, said the agency documents showed that Sanchez’s arrest “was delayed by six weeks,” as AP had reported. They asked for details about the department’s review of potentially sensitive, high profile immigration cases when arrests are delayed. Continue reading this article
Greeley Colorado has suffered as much as any community from the onslaught of government-mandated diversity. First it was hundreds of illegal aliens welcomed to work at the local Swift meatpacking plant with the predictable ensuing crime and influx of Spanish-speaking kiddies in the schools. After a much publicized ICE workplace raid (remember those?), the company relented and switched to legal Somali refugees as workers, who brought another flavor to diversity problems.
The latest report reveals that not all of the workers arrested in 2006 were actually deported. One example is Santos Gervacio Vicente-Vicente, who is still here and has apparently used the intervening time to plop out some extra anchor kids, as shown below.
In Colorado, the average per pupil spending for 2012-13 is $6,474, so the education price tag for each kid, assuming high school graduation, will be around $77,688. Multiply that by five kids and the cost to taxpayers of not deporting Mr. Vincente and his brood will be $388,440. That’s assuming no more kids and no increase in education spending. But not to worry — surely they will all be valedictorians!
Since the following is a sob story designed to created sympathy for illegal alien job thieves, we readers are told that the lawbreaker remains fearful over his experience with immigration enforcement and his family’s suffering continues. Boo hoo!
People forget now, but meatpacking used to be a desirable job that offered middle-class wages to blue-collar citizens. The film American Dream won the 1991 Academy Award for showing Americans in Minnesota struggling to keep their jobs while their employer engaged in union-busting, which occurred a few years before the massive insourcing of foreign workers willing to work cheap.
Santos Gervacio Vicente-Vicente grows agitated and the words tumble out in increasingly rapid Spanish as he recalls the morning of Dec. 12, 2006.
“I still have fear,” he says. “When I remember, it makes me very nervous. I was treated like an animal.”
Vicente-Vicente is one of 273 workers arrested that Tuesday in Greeley in the largest immigration raid in U.S. history — and one of those continuing to deal with the fallout six years later.
Entire towns and thousands of residents — both citizens and undocumented immigrants — were affected when federal agents went to the headquarters of Swift & Co. on the north end of Greeley and five other company meatpacking plants in Texas, Utah, Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota. The raid swept up 1,297 undocumented workers.
In Greeley, homes in Latino neighborhoods were seemingly abandoned as residents fled or hid in fear — some not leaving basements or closets for weeks. As many as half the desks in nearby schools sat empty because of rumors that the government would round up children next. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.