The Lone Star state suffers from too much illegal alien crime. Authorities say the number of crimes committed by illegal aliens is rising. In addition, the problem of unlawful entry is multiplied by having the longest border — 1,254 miles.
Because this is a local story, there are some interesting facts specific to Texas, such as the crossing of 1600 illegal alien Indians last year. Who knew?
(In a recent hearing, Texas Department of Public Safety director Steve McCraw said there have been 22 murders, 24 assaults, 15 shootings and five kidnappings in Texas linked to Mexican cartels since 2010.)
AUSTIN, Texas — As Washington refuses to agree on a federal immigration policy, violent illegal immigrants from around the world are committing crimes in Texas. They are putting a strain on both the criminal justice system and the state budget.
“It is the result of poor policies allowing violent illegal immigrants to come into this country,” said Williamson County Prosecutor John Bradley.
Over the past year, Bradley has prosecuted two murders in Cedar Park involving illegal Hondurans. In one case, a man raped and murdered a nine-year-old girl. The second killed his wife.
“We caught these two individuals and punished them,” Bradley said. “But that should never happen again.”
But it is happening. In some cases, Bradley has seen the same offenders returning to Texas to re-offend.
Unlike legal citizens who offend, lawmakers and others believe that crimes committed by illegal immigrants may be more preventable through tougher policies at the border.
The topic recently came to light during Governor Perry’s re-election campaign. In a television ad the wife of a Houston policeman killed by an illegal immigrant implied that her husband’s murder could have been prevented, had Perry’s opponent been tougher on criminal immigrants.
Some lawmakers say the problem would not be so bad if ICE had more staffing. ICE is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency of the federal government.
U.S. Representative Michael McCaul believes the size of ICE should be doubled.
Last year, more than 1,600 illegal immigrants from India crossed into Texas and overwhelmed the courts and jails in the Rio Grande Valley. Waves of immigrants have also come from Brazil and China.
Rep. McCaul is concerned that ICE can no longer deport all offenders.
“And they will tell me that we don’t have the resources to deport everyone in this country who is here illegally,” McCaul said. “Being in a border state, it is starting, I think, to pose a greater risk to our security.”
Then, there is question of cost and what taxpayers must spend.
According to ICE, nearly 10,000 inmates in Texas prisons have a detainer, which means their legal status is in question. They account for nearly 15 percent of the total prison population, and each cost about $18,000 a year to feed, house, care for, and even educate. Continue reading this article
Norwegian MP Christian Tybring-Gjedde is shown in the following video making a strong statement in defense of Western values of “science, secularity, democracy, equal worth, equality, pluralism and freedom.” He doesn’t mention Islam or Muslims, but he makes it clear that “non-western immigrants” are the problem with the new diversity.
KitmanTV helpfully included the transcript/translation:
THIS week President Obama toured the Southwest, in part to promote what he claims are federal advances in border security. But he has said little about the lawsuits by his administration and the American Civil Liberties Union against Arizona’s immigration law, passed just over a year ago but still unenforced, thanks to a federal injunction.
The law requires law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone arrested for a crime if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is in this country illegally; it also allows them to cite illegal immigrants for failing to carry documents required under federal law, whether they’ve committed a crime or not.
As the fight over the law, Senate Bill 1070, carries on — Gov. Jan Brewer has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case — violent crime rooted in unchecked illegal immigration continues to spread here in southern Arizona. It makes me wonder if the lawyers, judges and politicians involved grasp what it is like to be a law enforcement officer on the Mexican border.
As sheriff of Cochise County I am responsible, along with my 86 deputies, for patrolling 83.5 miles of that border, as well as the 6,200 square miles of my county to the north of it — an area more than four times the size of Long Island. Continue reading this article
President Obama on Tuesday encouraged Congress to move forward on immigration reform, saying his administration has “strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible.” But most voters don’t share the president’s view.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30% of Likely U.S. Voters think the U.S. border with Mexico is even somewhat secure, while 64% disagree and say it is not secure. These results include only three percent (3%) who say the U.S.-Mexico border is Very Secure and 29% who believe it’s Not At All Secure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Fifty-one percent (51%) of Democrats say the border is secure. Eighty-six percent (86%) of Republicans and 65% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties disagree.
Even voters in the president’s own party are evenly divided when asked if the border is now secure enough to allow the immigration debate to focus on the illegal immigrants already in the country. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Republicans and the plurality (48%) of unaffiliated voters say the border is not yet that secure.
Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters say the U.S. military should be used along the border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration. That’s down 14 points from 67% last May. Twenty-nine percent (29%) now oppose the use of the military, while 18% are undecided.
Seventy-eight percent (78%) of voters say they have followed news reports about the issue of illegal immigration at least somewhat closely, with 41% who have followed Very Closely.
Most Political Class voters believes the border with Mexico is secure, while 76% of those in the Mainstream disagree.
ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, calling it “a rather historic moment,” on Friday signed a bill that cracks down on illegal immigration in the state by increasing some enforcement powers and requiring many employers to check the immigration status of new hires.
“While I believe immigration is an issue that can ideally be identified and addressed — and should be addressed— at the federal level, this legislation I believe is a responsible step forward in the absence of federal action,” Deal told reporters who crowded elbow-to-elbow into his office for the signing.
The new law — the subject of heated debate in the Legislature — shares some similarities to a controversial law enacted last year in Arizona and another enacted this year in Utah. Part or all of those two laws have been blocked by federal judges, and opponents have said they’ll sue to try to block Georgia’s law.
It authorizes law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of certain suspects and to detain them if they are in the country illegally. It penalizes people who knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants and makes it a felony to present false documents or information when applying for a job.
A group of about 20 protesters, their arms linked to form a human chain, stood outside the governor’s office after the signing chanting “Shame on you” and “We won’t leave” before moving outside to join another several dozen on the sidewalk outside the Capitol for an impromptu rally. They are planning a town hall meeting Friday evening and are also pulling together plans for a summer of action, including a work stoppage on July 1, the day most parts of the law are set to take effect, and a march in Atlanta the following day.
“HB 87 was signed today, but our work continues,” Lisa Adler of Amnesty International told the crowd gathered outside the Capitol.
A requirement for private employers to use a federal database called E-Verify to check the immigration status of new hires is set to be phased in, with all employers with more than 10 employees required to comply by July 2013. Continue reading this article
That hopey-changey thing offered by candidate Obama has not worked out so well in actual practice for black Americans. The President feels sure of their loyalty to him no matter what, so he confidently continues to work for a mass amnesty of illegal aliens which would enormously increase an already flooded pool of legal workers.
When the economy was booming and business said it needed more foreign worker bees, Congress complied with additional visas of various categories. But now, with over 20 million Americans underemployed or out of work entirely, there is no parallel response in Washington. In fact, the President’s amnesty scheme would worsen the pain of unemployed citizens by increasing the number of workers competing for each available job.
Amnesty boosters live in a different universe where actual facts do not matter and political tom-foolery is spun up out of fables like America’s need for workers in some dim future. Mainstream economic prognosticators say some of the long-term unemployed may never work again. Even so, amnesty cheerleaders think America should stock up on millions of spare immigrants just in case.
America doesn’t need millions more excess workers, either from legal immigration or a massive amnesty for foreign lawbreakers.
If the election of America’s first African-American president was expected to give blacks an economic boost, it hasn’t emerged yet. Indeed, the percentage of African-American men with a job has dropped to its lowest level since records began in 1972, according to the government’s monthly jobs report released last week.
Even as the economy added a better-than-expected 244,000 jobs, the percentage of black males over 20 who are currently employed dropped slightly to 56.9, the Labor Department’s April report shows. For whites, the equivalent figure is 68.1 percent.
Before this recession, the percentage of black adult men with a job had never dropped below 60 percent, according to Labor Department statistics.
And among blacks, it’s not just men who are suffering. Just 51.5 percent of African-Americans across the board–compared to 59.5 percent of whites–have a job, the numbers show. That’s the lowest level for blacks since 1984. (That group includes 16- to 19-year-olds, who are employed at a far lower rate than their elders.)
These employment rates are calculated differently from the top-line unemployment rate, which includes only those actively looking for work, and inched back up last month to 9 percent.
Heather Boushey, an economist with the liberal Center for American Progress, told The Lookout it’s not just African-Americans who have been hit particularly hard. It’s also other traditionally struggling groups, such as ex-offenders and those without a college degree.
“Anyone who would be last on an employer’s list to get a job is really in bad shape” in the current downturn, Boushey said.
And employers’ hiring practices may be making the problem worse. As we’ve reported, online job listings telling the unemployed not to apply have proliferated in recent years. The federal government is currently probing whether such listings illegally discriminate against African Americans, who are disproportionately likely to be among the jobless.
Nonetheless, much of the media has focused on the travails of educated white men–still a comparatively flourishing group–during the downturn.
San Francisco no longer will report to immigration authorities juveniles suspected of being in the United States illegally when they are arrested on a felony charge if they can show they have family ties to the Bay Area, are enrolled in school and are not repeat offenders, Mayor Ed Lee said Tuesday.
The edict creates a middle ground between the hard-line position of Lee’s predecessor, Gavin Newsom, who directed city law enforcement officers to report all arrested juveniles to federal authorities for possible deportation, and the Board of Supervisors, which backed a more liberal policy.
Supervisors passed a law in 2009 intended to prevent the city from automatically cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement unless the juvenile had been convicted of a felony – not just arrested. Newsom vetoed the law and the board overrode the veto, but he refused to enforce it.
“I’ve had to take care in balancing the issue of public safety and also due process,” Lee said.
He said his policy, revealed during his “question time” before the Board of Supervisors, reflects the spirit and values of San Francisco’s 22-year-old city sanctuary policy, which aims to create a safe refuge for immigrants, whether documented or not.
Bittersweet moment Lee’s policy, which will be carried out by the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department, was met with a combination of appreciation and disappointment by immigrant rights advocates and supervisors who back the more liberal policy adopted by the board but blocked by Newsom.
“It’s a bittersweet moment,” said Angela Chan, staff attorney for the Asian Law Caucus, for which the mayor once worked. “We appreciate Mayor Lee for taking a great first step, but it doesn’t go far enough.”
The man traveling from Chicago to San Francisco carried no luggage, bought a one-way ticket and was a citizen of Yemen (a place known as a hotbed of jihad activity), yet he apparently rang no bells for TSA employees. They must have been busy groping toddlers.
One lesson is that we taxpayers and ticket-buyers are financing a multi-billion-dollar TSA system that is politically correct window dressing, incapable of spotting an obviously suspicious character. Not that the fact is news, but this case is pretty egregious.
A Yemeni immigrant who allegedly tried to break into the locked cockpit of an American Airlines flight bound for San Francisco carried no luggage with him, prosecutors said today as a judge ordered him held without bail on the grounds that he was a threat to the community.
Rageh Ahmed Mohammed Al-Murisi, 28, who lived briefly in Vallejo before moving to New York, carried only $47 in cash, a variety of valid and expired documents from New York and California and two postdated checks, Assistant U.S. Attorney Elise Becker told U.S. Magistrate James Larson in San Francisco.
He has relatives in Vallejo, Becker said, but they did not know he was en route to the Bay Area.
Al-Murisi repeatedly yelled, “Allah Akbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” when he strode toward the cockpit of the Boeing 737 and tried to force open the door as the plane approached San Francisco International Airport on Sunday night, Becker said.
The federal prosecutor noted that the Arabic phrase has been used by Islamic individuals in other high-profile crimes, including al Qaeda operatives during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the American-born Muslim who opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009, killing 13 U.S. soldiers.
“The defendant poses a significant threat,” Becker said. “He attempted to enter the cockpit right before a critical part of the flight.”
Larson agreed, rejecting arguments by Al-Murisi’s attorney, Assistant Federal Public Defender Elizabeth Falk, that the government had not shown that her client was a danger to the public.
Al-Murisi, who appeared in court with an Arabic interpreter, is charged with interfering with a flight crew. He was ordered to return to court Friday for a detention hearing.
Outside court, Ahmed Almoraissi, 25, of Vallejo, said his cousin was not a terrorist and has worked as a math teacher in Yemen, where his wife and children live. Almoraissi said he was at a loss to explain Al-Murisi’s behavior.
“He’s a very normal guy,” Almoraissi said. “He has no intent of hurting nobody. I don’t know what happened on the plane. It doesn’t make sense. When I first heard about it, I couldn’t believe it.”
Authorities have not outlined a possible motive in the incident. Becker, however, said there were enough suspicious circumstances to justify keeping Al-Murisi in custody.
He did not tell his cousins in Vallejo that he was coming from New York, and none of his belongings were at his relatives’ home, the prosecutor said.
Relatives say Al-Murisi once lived on Sonoma Boulevard in Vallejo – next to the Islamic Center of Vallejo – but moved to New York about a year ago in hopes of finding a job to support his family.
Al-Murisi arrived in the United States on an immigrant visa in January 2010 and has a permanent residency card, Becker said. He obtained driver’s licenses in both New York and California and has two learner’s permits in New York, the prosecutor said without elaborating.
Al-Murisi carried two postdated checks, one dated May 15 for $5,000 and the other dated June 20 for $8,000, Becker said. Besides that, he had only $47 and an Apple charger on him, and had no luggage, keys or cell phone, she said.
The incident began about 8:50 p.m. Sunday when American Airlines Flight 1561, carrying 156 passengers and six crew members from O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, was about a half hour from landing at San Francisco.
Al-Murisi walked quickly to the front of the plane, tried the door of the cockpit door handle and then rammed the door with his shoulder, prompting flight attendants, two retired-law enforcement officials and an off-duty American Airlines pilot to jump from their seats to help subdue him. Al-Murisi suffered minor abrasions.
Before boarding the San Francisco-bound plane, Al-Murisi flew into Chicago on a separate American Airlines flight from LaGuardia Airport in New York, airline officials said.
There was a disturbing terrorist-lite attack on an airliner that landed in San Francisco Sunday night, although not all news reports included the important Islamo-details. The KGO written report below doesn’t mention the fact that the agitated Arab was yelling “Allahu Akbar” as he tried to smash the cockpit door, even though the video version showed a passenger who described that vital item.
Perhaps the station left out the Islam part to avoid inciting anti-Muslim sentiments — treating Islam with kid gloves seems to be Job #1 lately among the social engineers in editorial offices.
The perp, Rageh Al-Murisi, carried a Yemeni passport although he also has a California ID and lives in Vallejo. Perhaps he felt disappointed that Osama got whacked and decided to express his feelings in a traditional jihad sort of way. Did he intend a revenge attack to defend Islam?
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — There are new details emerging about the unruly passenger restrained who began pounding on the cockpit door during a San Francisco-bound flight Sunday night. The FBI says 28-year-old Rageh Al-Murisi is from Vallejo and was carrying a passport from Yemen.
Andrew Wai was on board American Airlines Flight 1561. He got a better look at 28-year-old Al-Murisi than most and says the man had been acting a little strange, even before accounts of him storming the cockpit door.
“Seemed to me this passenger in the back row was just a little bit fidgety, didn’t look like he was sure what he was doing, that kind of thing,” Wai said.
A police spokesperson says shortly before landing at San Francisco International Airport, Al-Murisi rushed the cockpit.
“The flight attendant asked the passenger to return to his seat, when he refused, the flight attendant put his hands on him and physically pulled him away from the door,” Sgt. Michael Rodriguez said.
Police say it took two flight attendants and two passengers to subdue Al-Murisi and place him in plastic handcuffs.
“There were abrasions caused during the scuffle with the passenger; he was taken to San Mateo County Hospital for treatment of abrasions to his chin and elbow,” Rodriguez said.
Wai says Al-Murisi’s outburst panicked many passengers.
“Passengers all around me were crying, the flight attendants were trying to calm certain passengers, we were looking at our lives flashing before our eyes,” Wai said. Continue reading this article
November 2012 may be a year and a half away, but pre-election hispandering keeps clicking up in intensity. The President naturally had a big celebration for Cinco de Mayo (as did GW Bush), with happy talk about amnesty, with Obama mentioning the DREAM Act specifically.
But another item, flying largely beneath the radar, is the proposal for a Latino Museum to be constructed on the National Mall. The President may not have the votes for a mass amnesty to create millions of future Democrats, but he can certainly marshall tax dollars for pander projects, like a museum to glorify hispanic immigrants and illegal aliens.
The list of persons to be honored is short, so one might think that a smallish inexpensive building would suffice, but no, $600 million is the price tag, half of which is to be taken from the unwilling American taxpayer. You would think we have plenty of spare cash to blow on ethnic fluff instead of being $14 trillion in the hole. The 2010 election was certainly an expression of the voters that Washington curtail spending on non-essentials, but the administration has a different idea.
The Latino Museum has its own website of course, with a YouTube stating that “America is not just a nation, it is a rich tapestry of diverse cultures.” It further propagandizes that the US has been niggardly in recognizing the many (unnamed) contributions of hispanics. Millions of illegals driving down the wages of citizens is somehow seen in a positive light by proponents, along with hispanics’ famously high dropout rates, crime and other social dysfunction.
Giving over a portion of our special national space for an expensive building to celebrate diversity and illegal immigration does not honor our heroes who fought to preserve our sovereignty from foreign foes.
Below, the World War II Monument on the National Mall in Washington, DC.
Reporting from Washington— A federal commission has recommended construction of a museum on the National Mall honoring the history of American Latinos.
The commission submitted a report to Congress and the White House on Thursday outlining the details of the proposed $600-million National Museum of the American Latino, which has been endorsed by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
It would be part of the Smithsonian Institution, which already has a museum dedicated to American Indians and is planning another focusing on African Americans.
“Part of America’s story that has not been told completely — that has deep missing gaps — has been the story of the Latino contribution to this country,” Salazar said in an interview.
Under the proposal, half of the $600 million for the American Latino museum would come from private fundraising, and the rest would be provided by Congress.
The museum would highlight contributions of Spanish-speaking people to more than 500 years of American history. The report points out that the Spanish were the first Europeans to interact with Native Americans and that they founded St. Augustine, Fla., 42 years before Jamestown was established. Latinos explored the American West before Lewis and Clark and founded many U.S. cities.
Its collections would also acknowledge the presence of Latinos in the military in addition to featuring Latino contributions to art, culture and society. Labor activist Cesar Chavez, Baseball Hall of Fame member Roberto Clemente and former Coca-Cola Chief Executive Roberto Goizueta would likely be featured.
The most recent census data shows that Latinos, at 15.8% of the population, are the largest minority group in America.
In 1994, a report to the Smithsonian titled “Willful Neglect” criticized the institution for failing to represent Latinos in museum collections and in hiring practices.
One possible reason for the underrepresentation is a stereotypical view of Latinos as foreigners, said Allert Brown-Gort, associate director of the Institute for Latino Studies at the University of Notre Dame.
“Even though Latinos are one of the oldest population groups in the United States, because of immigration in the last couple of decades, they’re seen as being all newcomers,” Brown-Gort said. “This country has had a long history of Latinos — otherwise we wouldn’t have places called Los Angeles.”
But not everyone is happy about the proposed site of the museum, at Pennsylvania Avenue near the Reflecting Pool and the Capitol.
Judy Scott Feldman, president of the National Coalition to Save Our Mall, a group that advocates for the protection of the National Mall, says that she is in favor of efforts to better tell the story of American history, but that adding more buildings to the mall isn’t always a positive move.
“The concept of the mall is rooted in the founding of the nation and the Constitution,” Feldman said. “You’ve got the Capitol and the White House, and what’s in the middle? The public promenade. The mall was the great public space, the expression of the power of the people in American democracy. But what’s happening is we’re building all over it.”
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.