President Obama is sending signals that his second term will assault citizenship in even more targeted ways. Not only has he promised to reward millions of lawbreaking illegal alien foreigners with all the privileges of Americans, but now we learn that he wants to loosen requirements for immigrants to purchase firearms. New gun rights for non-citizens follows a vicious Obama campaign promising to reduce gun rights for citizens.
If the government wants to restrict firearm ownership, it should start with immigrants. After all, the period between getting a green card and becoming a citizen is meant to be a try-out period, where if the newbie behaves himself, then he gets to join the club. Why should any non-citizen be permitted to own guns anyway? They should made to wait so they will appreciate the true joy of buying guns as a full-tilt American citizen.
While the shooting at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School has prompted a national gun control debate, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will still push to allow immigrants to purchase firearms more easily.
Normally, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requires legal aliens to live in a state for 90 days before buying a gun. The ATF does this through a rule attached to the Gun Control Act of 1968.
In June, Holder’s DOJ proposed to eliminate that 90-day residency requirement rule.
“This rule would finalize the interim final rule published on June 7, 2012 by removing the 90-day State residency requirement for aliens lawfully present in the United States to purchase or acquire a firearm,” the proposal to eliminate that requirement reads in part. “The Department has determined that the Gun Control Act does not permit ATF to impose a regulatory requirement that aliens lawfully present in the United States are subject to a 90-day State residency requirement when such a requirement is not applicable to U.S. citizens.”
The government suits are doing cartwheels in California for a rather pathetic milestone — the state’s unemployment level has fallen below 10 percent for the first time in over four years. The official unemployment rate is 9.8 percent, second worst in the country, yet economic pundits declare things like, “California’s economy is growing and is recovering.”
[. . .] Meanwhile, stricter air pollution standards mean most of his heavy diesel equipment will be illegal to use in California in coming years. Brown said if he can’t sell the 69-year-old firm started by his father, he’ll close the doors once he can no longer operate his paving and grading equipment.
But for today, the California economy is struggling along with a tiny improvement. The AP report below doesn’t mention that while at least 1.8 million Californians are out of work, Obama promises to amnesty millions of illegal aliens, many of whom will be added to the state’s supply of legal job seekers.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California’s jobless rate dipped below 10 percent last month for the first time since the recession began, the state announced Friday, signaling that the state’s economy may have finally turned the corner.
The 9.8 percent unemployment rate reported by the Employment Development Department is down from 10.1 percent in October.
It marks the first time in nearly four years that the rate dropped into single digits. The last time was in January 2009, when the rate was 9.7 percent.
Leading economists had predicted that California’s unemployment rate would remain in double digits through 2013.
Only Nevada and Rhode Island had jobless rates remaining in double-digits. California still lagged behind the national unemployment rate of 7.7 percent in October. Continue reading this article
Growth enthusiasts are relieved! Even a depression-lite economy of years duration won’t keep immigrants out, according to recent Census numbers. (Maybe the foreigners heard about the current administration’s generosity with free stuff for everybody.)
Whatever the reason, immigrants continue to pile in, even while citizens lower their baby production on account of tight family finances. The population of the United States has nearly reached 315 million, with immigrants continuing to supply a substantial part of the growth.
The United States reached the 300 million mark in 2006, with the enthusiastic approval of the pro-growth and pro-diversity crowds. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez enthused at the time, “We should all feel good about reaching this milestone.” More is better, particularly when it’s diverse.
Immigration jumps, causing the population to grow faster even as the birthrate falls.
WASHINGTON — The pace of the nation’s population growth inched higher this year for the first time since 2006, boosted by a larger number of immigrants amid improving U.S. prospects.
In its annual state population estimates, the Census Bureau said Thursday that there were 313.9 million people in the United States on July 1. That is up 2.3 million from a year earlier, a growth rate of 0.75%.
Although that pace is still very slow by historical standards, it nonetheless marks a tiny increase after several years of declines, in which the growth rate had fallen to a level not seen since the 1930s.
And the increase of immigrants is one more indication that the powerful effects of the Great Recession are ebbing because immigration tends to rise when the U.S. job market improves.
California’s population rose at a slightly higher rate of 0.95%. Even as California lost more residents to other states, it had a net gain of 357,500 people, thanks to immigration and the natural increase — more births than deaths.
With 38 million residents as of July 1, California remains the most populous state in the nation. It had about 12 million more people than No. 2 Texas, which once again saw the biggest numerical increase in population of all states.
This year’s uptick in the U.S. population growth rate came entirely from a jump in immigration.
Even as the number of births in the U.S. continued to edge lower, about 885,800 immigrants settled in the U.S. in the most recent year, which ended July 1. That was about 110,000 more than in the same period a year earlier, according to the census data. Continue reading this article
A recent case of an attempted jihadist terror attack began to be revealed in a New York City courtroom on Tuesday when Raees Alam Qazi, 20, appeared for a bail hearing. Qazi, along with his older brother Sheheryar Alam, 30, were charged with planning to bomb New York City in a crowded area in order to kill lots of Americans.
The brothers were motivated by a desire for revenge because of American drone attacks on their native Pakistan. The younger brother at least attended American schools after the family immigrated to this country, but apparently they remained loyal to their tribe and religion to the point of wanting to murder the people who welcomed them.
Why does Washington continue to admit likely enemies as immigrants? Are the suits not paying attention, or do they think a few terrorist murders are the necessary cost of adding the diversity America needs?
Raees Alam Qazi wanted to blow up a New York City landmark, prosecutors alleged, but he lacked the resources to carry out the plan.
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A Pakistani-born man wanted to avenge the deaths of U.S. drone attacks in Afghanistan by blowing up a New York City landmark but lacked the money and materials to carry out the plan, a federal prosecutor said Tuesday.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Gilbert said at a bail hearing that Raees Alam Qazi, 20, researched bomb-making techniques on Internet sites affiliated with al-Qaida, including one using Christmas tree lights, and the FBI recorded phone calls and conversations linking Qazi to a purported “lone wolf” plot.
“He fully intended to do this, and thankfully he didn’t have enough money,” Gilbert said. Referring to casualties in U.S. drone attacks, she added: “He wants to avenge those deaths and kill people.”
Qazi traveled to New York last month in hopes of getting a job to fund his terrorist plans, Gilbert said, but wound up sleeping in public transportation, a mosque and in restaurants, and riding a bicycle around the city looking for potential targets. He then decided to return home on a Greyhound bus and was arrested after arriving back in South Florida, she said.
Qazi, a naturalized U.S. citizen who attended local Florida public schools, confirmed many elements of the plot in a statement to FBI agents after his arrest in late November, Gilbert said. Investigators also found bomb-making and related components at the Qazi family home in Oakland Park, as well as explosives research evidence on a computer used by Qazi. Continue reading this article
Just when you think diversity extremism has gone as far as it can go, there’s this: a California school has been named after a 19th century Mexican criminal, thought to have killed up to six people, including a police officer. Superintendent John Ramirez of the Alisal Union School District in Salinas thinks Tiburcio Vasquez (pictured) is a fine role model for young Mexicans residing in the US because he was more a revolutionary than a criminal.
A California school district is defending its decision to name a new elementary school after an infamous murderer – by calling him a hero and a role model to children. The decision has infuriated many parents and law enforcement officers.
The Alisal Union School District in Salinas agreed to name the new school in honor of Tiburcio Vasquez – who was eventually hanged for killing at least two people in the nineteenth century.
Superintendent John Ramirez defended the board’s decision telling Fox News that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
“Tiburcio Vasquez, along with others, was an individual who was a revolutionary,” Ramirez said. “He was not okay with the oppression.”
Vasquez “was probably the most notorious bandit California ever saw,” according to the University of Southern California library. He was 14-years-old when he committed his first crime – stabbing a constable.
In 1875 Vasquez was convicted of two murders and subsequently hanged. Other historical records indicate he may have killed as many as six people – including a law enforcement officer.
The horrific mass murders at a Connecticut elementary school has brought the usual shrieks from gun grabbers, while the unaddressed root problem appears to be a mental health issue not adequately treated. It’s not the first time.
Instead, Jared Loughner was left to fend for himself and he went on to shoot Representative Gabrielle Giffords, kill six and wound 12 others at a Tucson shopping center in 2011. Perhaps a mental health intervention might have prevented the tragedy.
After the theater shootings in Aurora, Colorado, last summer, columnist and psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer observed that while government oversight of guns has increased considerably over the years, society’s treatment of potentially dangerous mentally ill persons has become far more permissive.
On Friday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, a board-certified psychiatrist, revisited a discussion from last year around the time Democratic Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head by an allegedly insane Jared Loughner: Is society properly handling the mentally ill?
In the wake of yesterday’s mass shooting at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater, Krauthammer suggested journalists and elected officials should focus on that question instead of playing politics with tragedy.
“I’m sure people like to draw application and look to society and all this stuff,” Krauthammer said. “Remember when we had a shooting in Tucson people began to shoot accusation, to level accusations that people in politics, tea party. We even had a false report this morning on ABC of a connection to the tea party which is not only scandalous, but stupid. Why would you even look in that direction? But I think we are now to the extent it will be a political side to this. People will talk about the gun control. The one thing we never speak about is the way that we treat the mentally ill and dangerous people. It seems to me that the numbers you cited, that’s a pretty large number. That’s more than two a year of these since Columbine. I don’t know if records were kept 50 years ago, but that sounds like a lot.”
The Post columnist noted that, although guns have become more regulated, the occurrence of these incidents is on the rise.
“Over time, over the decades, our gun control laws have gotten more tight and more strict. At the same time how we treat the mentally ill has gotten far more lenient and loose,” Krauthammer said. “Now, for good reason — we don’t want to commit people willy-nilly. We believe in civil liberties. But, on the other hand, there’s always a risk. The threshold for committing people to a psychiatric facility on the basis of dangerousness has risen over the decades. I would commit people myself in the ’70s when I was a psychiatrist at a [Massachusetts] general hospital. But since then, the threshold, how difficult it is, has risen, and you end up with people on the street 100 years ago, 50 years ago would now be in institutions. I’m not leveling blame at anybody, but I’m saying as a society, we made a decision, take the risk of tragedy in order to ensure civil liberties, and it’s a difficult, difficult choice.” Continue reading this article
This week’s edition of CBN’s Stakelbeck on Terror Show was particularly edifying, with an overview of Islam’s mega-mosque strategy to insinuate itself one neighborhood at a time, from Cologne to Brooklyn. Mega mosques are political structures that have little to do with individual worship.
The mosques are our barracks,
The domes our helmets,
The minarets our bayonets,
And the faithful our soldiers.
In a welcome respite from depressing Islamic news, Stakelbeck interviews Gavin Boby, aka the Mosquebuster, to learn about his successful strategies to defeat invasion by architecture.
Finally, WND’s editor Joseph Farah is interviewed about the poll he commissioned in which US-residing Muslims were quizzed with politically incorrect questions regarding free speech, polygamy and American law. For example, nearly one-third would prefer to live under Sharia law, rather than the US Constitution. Any assimilation is on the surface only.
Such is the undesirable diversity Washington has welcomed into our midst through Muslim immigration.
[. . .] Wenzel’s poll said 7.2 percent of the respondents said they “strongly agree” with the idea of execution for those who parody Islam, and another 4.3 percent said they somewhat agree. [. . .]
Four in 10 said Muslims in America should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Islamic Shariah law.
“A much smaller percentage said they think the U.S. should establish an entirely separate court system to adjudicate matters involving Muslims,” Wenzel said.
While the respondents overwhelmingly lean toward the Democratic Party and like the direction Barack Obama, who repeatedly has praised Islam around the world, is leading this nation, they also have a fundamental conflict with American life, expressing objections to the freedom of speech and religion guaranteed in the Constitution.
American Muslims, Wenzel said, “show signs of ambivalence toward the U.S. Constitution generally and the First Amendment specifically.”
“These survey findings show a community in conflict with the foundations of our nation, as many Muslims favor and enjoy the freedoms offered by the U.S. Constitution, including participation in elections here, but at the same time significant percentages want to be treated differently than the average non-Muslim when it comes to legal matters,” he said.
“While 39 percent of Muslims said they believe existing U.S. courts should consult Shariah law when adjudicating cases involving Muslims, a plurality of 45 percent said they do not agree with this idea. Asked if the U.S. should establish separate courts based solely on Shariah law to adjudicate cases involving Muslim, 21 percent said it should. Two-thirds of respondents – 66 percent – said that separate courts are not necessary to adjudicate Muslims.”
While 9 of 10 of the Muslim respondents said they agree with the First Amendment, they are also in conflict with it, Wenzel said, citing evidence in answers to “another question in the survey which found that one-third of Muslims – 32 percent – believe Shariah should be the supreme law of the land in the United States,” Wenzel said. Continue reading this article
Hispanics have put aside polite pleadings for their holy grail, a mass amnesty for tens of millions to gain an even larger load of free stuff. Now they raza gang figures (wrongly) that Obama owes them for his recent re-election, and the vocalizations are sounding like threats. After all, he promised amnesty four years ago and it’s past time for him to pay up — or else.
WASHINGTON — The nation’s largest Latino organizations warned Congress on Wednesday that they will keep a report card during the immigration debate next year, with plans to mobilize their voters against lawmakers who do not support a comprehensive immigration bill.
At a news conference here, seven Latino groups and one labor union were showing their muscle, after the record turnout of Hispanic voters in the November elections played a pivotal role in President Obama’s re-election victory.
Janet Murguía, the president of N.C.L.R., also known as the National Council of La Raza, said the election had been a “game-changer” that conclusively “made the political case for a bipartisan solution” on immigration.
“We have worked to build our power and now we intend to use it,” Ms. Murguía said. “The bottom line,” she said, “is that Latino voters went to the polls with the economy on their minds but with immigration reform in their hearts.”
The leaders made it clear they expect quick action in 2013. They said the president and Congress should take up an immigration bill soon after Mr. Obama’s inauguration in January, with an eye toward completing passage of legislation by August. Continue reading this article
Unfortunately for public safety, the US Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis, 2001, that foreign criminals cannot be held indefinitely after their prison terms are completed if their home nations won’t accept them. (Keep in mind that illegal aliens are frequently given shorter sentences because they will supposedly be deported as another punishment.) Riffraff foreign countries from Cuba to Red China have figured out that there is no cost to them for refusing to take their dirtbag citizens back, so they let Uncle Sucker deal with them.
Over the past four years, immigration officials have largely without notice freed more than 8,500 detainees convicted of murder, rape, and other crimes, according to ICE’s own statistics, mainly because their home countries would not take them back.
Democrat and Republican lawmakers in Congress are calling for federal legislation that would compel the US State Department to play “hardball” and deny diplomatic visas to nations that block deportation of thousands of foreign criminals, many of whom are released to US streets instead.
Representative Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas, said members of both parties are dispatching staff to a meeting Friday to try to advance legislation he filed last year requiring the State Department to sanction more than 20 countries that routinely stall deportations of their citizens.
The Globe reported Sunday that federal immigration officials have released more than 8,500 convicted murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals since 2008, including as many as 10 convicted murderers in New England and 201 nationwide, because their home countries did not take them back.
Current law allows the State Department to deny visas, which allow entry to the United States, to nations that refuse to take back convicted criminals. But since 2001, officials have only used that power against tiny Guyana in South America.
“The State Department doesn’t enforce the law,” Poe said in a speech Wednesday on the House floor that an aide said was inspired by the Globe series, “Justice in the Shadows.” “We need to get these people out of our country . . . and these countries need to take them back, or there ought to be a consequence.”
Federal immigration officials say they have to release the criminals because they cannot deport them without a passport or other travel papers, and the Supreme Court has ruled they cannot hold them longer than six months if deportation is unlikely. But Poe and others say the US government can do more to prod countries to accept their own citizens. Continue reading this article
Certain generous rich persons and institutions of northern California think that illegal aliens attending an elite university deserve financial help. It’s sad to see the prominent Haas family drawn to such an unworthy cause, the promotion of lawbreaking. Their grants have leaned toward diversity do-goodery, although with worthwhile efforts like support of local parks. However, becoming an enabler of foreign lawbreakers is certainly a step beyond.
The number given for illegal alien students at UC Berkeley is estimated at 200 — which means 200 worthy citizen students were displaced. The University of California is financially supported by the tax dollars of state residents for the benefit of our own young people, which explains why in-state tuition is cheaper for residents than it is for auslanders.
Yet lawbreaking foreigners in California get the taxpayer-subsidized in-state tuition while out-of-state Americans do not. Such is the looking-glass universe of the modern USA where it is more advantageous to be a foreign lawbreaker than a citizen.
Assembly Member Tim Donnelly (an opponent of illegal alien pampering) noted on Facebook:
Thanks to the California Dream Act (Part B: AB130), illegal aliens can receive private scholarships to go to taxpayer subsidized colleges and universities. It is amazing to me that those of us who pay more than our fair share of taxes to keep those schools open, whose kids can barely get enough classes to graduate, who have had our students denied CalGrants ($54 million cut to California students who attend private schools) while we set aside $65 million for illegals to take their place are not protesting on the campus of UC Berkeley right now. They just raised our taxes to keep the education complex afloat.
BERKELEY, Calif. (KGO) — A new million dollar scholarship fund established at UC Berkeley will offer financial aid to undocumented students. It’s the first of its kind in the nation and it’s not without controversy.
Uriel Rivera escaped from the violence of his hometown in Mexico when he was only 16. He landed in Los Angeles. A few years later, Rivera graduated with honors and was the only student at his high school to get into UC Berkeley.
“Everyone was happy except me because I was like, ‘Yeah I got in, but how am I going to go,'” he said. “I won’t be able to go. How am I going to pay for it?”
Because he is undocumented, Rivera is not eligible for any federal aid, including Pell grants. He’s had to take on odd jobs to help pay for college. But that hasn’t been enough.
“Many of us decided to drop out, to say we are no longer able to be students,” Rivera said.
Rivera and others reached out to Chancellor Robert Birgeneau. Birgeneau decided to spearhead a scholarship program with the help of The Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, which just donated $1 million. About 200 undocumented students at Cal will receive a portion of the private money.
“It’s an investment in them, their futures and what they will do for this state and this country over time,” fund spokesperson Ira Hirschfield said.
Another $300,000 was recently donated by Elise Haas to help create the Robert D. Haas Dreamers Resource Center, where undocumented students get the support services they need.
“It provides student access to a UC Berkeley education and tells the students and family, ‘If you get into UC Berkeley, we are going to support you,'” program coordinator Meng So said.
In 2011, the California legislature passed a bill giving undocumented students access to state grants starting next fall. AB 131 has always been controversial.
Glynn Custred co-authored Proposition 209, which ended affirmative action preferences in the public sector.
“The state of California turns around and says we will ignore the federal law and the federal government doesn’t seem to do anything about it,” Custred said. Continue reading this article
An immigrants’ advocacy group and others have sued to challenge the constitutionality of a recent voter-approved law requiring people to show proof of citizenship before they obtain certain state government services and benefits.
At issue is Legislative Referendum 121, which Montana voters in November passed by 80 percent to 20 percent. The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, authorizes the state to deny certain state services to “illegal aliens,” or undocumented aliens, if they can’t provide proof of their U.S. citizenship.
Filing the lawsuit Friday were the Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance, joined by the MEA-MFT, the state’s largest union, and Alisha Blair, a 22-year-old Missoula resident born in Canada to a mother who’s a Canadian citizen and a father who is a U.S. citizen.
They asked state District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock of Helena to temporarily prevent Gov. Brian Schweitzer, Attorney General Steve Bullock, the state Board of Regents and Higher Education Commissioner Clayton Christian from enforcing this law until a hearing.
They sought a preliminary injunction during the litigation. The plaintiffs said the new law violates their rights to privacy, due process and equal protection, among other constitutional provisions. Continue reading this article
Accused killer of four Ka Pasasouk (pictured in all his tatooed glory) is a double example of how government no longer protects public safety.
In the first place, Pasasouk has a long rap sheet of crimes including methamphetamine possession, unlawfully taking a vehicle, robbery and assault. Yet this clearly dangerous man had been released early from incarceration under a California law designed to ease crowding in state prisons. Governor Brown promised that the new policy of early release and moving prisoners to local jails would not endanger the public, but results prove otherwise.
Likewise concerning is how Pasasouk was not deported, but was released into American society because his home country, Laos, would not accept him.
The suspected shooter in a Northridge quadruple homicide, Ka Pasasouk, was ordered deported to his native Laos six years ago, but it fell through when needed travel documents could not be obtained, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Pasasouk has a history of felony convictions that date back at least as far as 2006. Since his most recent arrest in Las Vegas on Monday, Pasasouk has waived extradition and will be returned to Los Angeles to face murder charges in connection with four slayings outside a Northridge boarding house on Dec. 2.
In 2006, a federal immigration judge ordered Pasasouk deported “based upon his criminal history,” according to a statement issued by ICE,in response to an inquiry by NBC4. At the time, Pasasouk had been convicted for felony assault and second-degree robbery.
In 2008, after Pasasouk was released from California State Prison, ICE “took Pasasouk into custody, but was unable to obtain travel documents to facilitate his removal,” according to ICE.
A Supreme Court ruling in the case of Zadvydas v. Davis in effect set a time limit of 180 days for deportation orders to be carried out. For Pasasouk, that meant his release. 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.