On the surface, it looks like Rep. Peter King has folded like a cheap lawn chair on his March hearing about the danger of so-called home-grown terrorists lurking among Muslim communities. He has gotten a barrage of furious attacks from CAIR and the left, and King has appeared to shrink back from his original intent.
Supporters of hostile Islam realize that every day brings news of more deaths at the hands of jihadis around the world as the Religion of Peace works to establish a universal caliphate. The brutal facts on the ground make the job of Islo-propagandists increasingly more difficult. An elected representative of the United States Congress criticizing hostile Islam would add to the governmental voices (including David Cameron of the UK and Angela Merkel of Germany) who no longer support the multicultural fantasy of peace through weakness.
My priority for the hearing would be a discussion of Muslim immigration — why have it at all? It constitutes a national security threat and has nothing positive to offer the American people. Most citizens don’t feel culturally enriched by honor killing or attempted terror attacks. Yet Muslim immigrants continue to accumulate as if there were no problem with welcoming potential enemies.
WASHINGTON — The new chairman of the House Homeland Secur
ity Committee said Monday that he planned to call mostly Muslim and Arab witnesses to testify in hearings next month on the threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism.
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said he would rely on Muslims to make his case that American Muslim leaders have failed to cooperate with law enforcement officials in the effort to disrupt terrorist plots — a claim that was rebutted in recent reports by counterterrorism experts and in a forum on Capitol Hill on Monday.
“I believe it will have more of an impact on the American people if they see people who are of the Muslim faith and Arab descent testifying,” Mr. King said.
The hearings, which Mr. King said would start the week of March 7, have provoked an uproar from both the left and the right. The left has accused Mr. King of embarking on a witch hunt. The right has accused him of capitulation for calling Muslims like Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, to testify while denying a platform to popular critics of Islamic extremism like Steven Emerson, Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer. [. . .]
Mr. King said he had changed his mind about summoning as a witness Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born feminist critic of Islam who became a member of Parliament in the Netherlands and then fled because of threats on her life.
The visible symptoms look like creeping weakness, but Rep. King came out swinging today, by declaring that PC would not sway him from the truth.
The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Tuesday he would “not allow political correctness” to prevent him from holding a hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) began receiving criticism from the American-Muslim community and some colleagues after announcing plans last month to look into al Qaeda’s efforts to radicalize Muslims in the U.S. King also wants to examine the role American Muslims play in assisting law enforcement and counter-terrorism experts in fighting terrorism.
The ranking Democrat on the panel, Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), wrote to King last week asking that he broaden the scope of the hearings to examine extremist groups such as neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups.
But King on Tuesday wrote Thompson to say “the committee will continue to examine the threat of Islamic radicalization, and I will not allow political correctness to obscure a real and dangerous threat to the safety and security of the citizens of the United States.”
Here is the Feb. 8 letter to Rep. Thompson, the ranking member of the committee:
I am writing in reference to your letter of February 1, 2011 wherein you state that the upcoming hearing on radicalization within the Muslim-American community should be expanded to include “a broad-based examination of domestic extremist groups regardless of their ideological underpinnings.” I strongly disagree.
While there have been extremist groups and random acts of political violence throughout our history, the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 and the ongoing threat to our nation from Islamic jihad were uniquely diabolical and threatening to America’s security, both overseas and in our homeland.
The sui generis nature of this threat was demonstrated by, among other things, (a) Congress authorizing the President to use military force against al Qaeda, (b) enactment of the PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act of 2004, (c) the largest government reorganization since 1947 in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and (d) the creation of the Homeland Security Committee.
Because of these and other measures taken after 9/11, al Qaeda has realized the difficulty it faces in launching attacks against our homeland from overseas. Thus it has adjusted its tactics and is now attempting to radicalize and recruit from within our country. In the last two years alone more than 50 Americans have been charged with terror related crimes. Continue reading this article
Jurors clearly didn’t buy Muzzammil Hassan’s “battered husband” defense for the decapitation murder of his wife Aasiya. In fact, they came to a verdict in a little over an hour, which is pretty fast for a murder case.
An insanity plea might have worked better than trying to portray himself as a victim, because normal Islamic diversity can appear crazy to Americans. Women have no right to individuality under Islam, and a husband can do what he likes to a disobedient wife. It’s a cultural chasm, one of many that separates the West from Islamic society and makes many Muslims unsuitable immigrants. My sense is that Muzzammil is far too arrogant to claim insanity, even if it might have helped him in court. That last bit is just speculation, of course.
In addition, the accused fired his attorney midway through the proceedings, and Hassan acted as his own counsel for the remainder of the trial, as permitted by the Judge Thomas Franczyk. From time to time the judge had to tell Hassan to speed it up, and a slow presentation cannot have helped his appeal to the jury on top of everything else. Hassan’s comparing himself to Nelson Mandela and Gandhi during his summation probably didn’t score positive points either.
BUFFALO, NY – The jury in the Muzzammil Hassan trial has reached a verdict. Muzzammil Hassan is guilty of 2nd degree murder in the death of his wife, Aasiya Hassan.
The jury deliberated for a little over an hour before reaching their verdict.
The judge has scheduled Hassan’s sentencing for March 9, 2011, where he faces a sentence of up to 25-years-to life behind bars.
Hassan was led away in handcuffs.
Erie County District Attorney Frank Sedita, Jr. called Hassan a “vicious murderer” during a press conference after the verdict.
The jury declined to speak to the media about the trial or their decision.
Earlier, Hassan delivered his closing arguments, followed by the prosecution.
“Ladies and gentlemen this is not a divorce case, this is a murder case,” said Colleen Curtin Gable, prosecutor.
Jurors were told that Aasiya Hassan may have been conscious when the defendant started to behead her on February 12, 2009.
Curtin Gable started off strong telling the jury that Hassan wants them to believe that what he did was in self defense, “not a chance, not even close.”
“There is absolutely no doubt that the defendant killed his wife intentionally,” said the prosecutor. “He was carefully and deliberately planning to kill her.”
The prosecutor told jurors Hassan was efficient and deliberate in killing his wife in just “thirty-seven seconds.” While describing the murder, Curtin Gable described how Aasiya was stabbed in the head and from the mouth to her ear. “How is that self defense, stabbing an unarmed woman from behind,” she asked jurors. Continue reading this article
They’re ba-a-a-a-ck!. The Open-Borders Republicans, led by Senator Lindsey Graham, are being courted by the usual Democrat suspects (Chuck Schumer in particular) for a retry at amnesty for illegal aliens. And Senator McCain appears about to revert to his pro-amnesty self now that he’s been reelected.
The long-lasting jobs depression (which may well last for years into the future) does not concern globalista Senators who plan to plop additional millions of excess workers into the labor pool. As it happens, I just caught the tail end of a live Brookings panel discussing how to increase high-tech immigration. Why would any young American major in computer science or similar fields when the system is so skewed in favor of foreign workers? The message is sent every day that citizens have very few friends in the capitol city.
Realistically, though, how likely is any foreign-lawbreaker-rewarding amnesty to get through the current House of Representatives? Slim to none. A certain amount of politics is theater to convince interest groups that pols are busy with their issue. One understands that tendency with Democrats, who Hispander at every opportunity. However, Lindsey Graham seems to be running for the position of King of All the RINOs — curious.
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have rekindled their alliance on immigration reform, taking some early steps to test the political will for addressing the contentious issue this year.
Their call list hasn’t focused so much on House and Senate members who’ve been reliable pro-immigration votes in the past. Instead, they’re looking to a strange-bedfellows mix of conservative and liberal constituencies that can provide a “safety net” of support, as Graham put it, once the issue heats up.
“It’s in the infant stage,” Graham told POLITICO. “I don’t know what the political appetite is to do something.”
For all the groups getting a call from the pair, it is the presence of Graham himself who elevates the odds — however bleak — that the Senate could move on a comprehensive, bipartisan overhaul bill. Graham abruptly departed the talks last spring and took with him any hope of getting a bill in the past Congress.
Now, conservative evangelicals, the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union, business organizations and immigrant advocacy groups say they have gotten word from Schumer’s office that a renewed effort is under way. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce confirmed that it is back in the mix, after a hasty exit last year when Schumer proposed a legislative framework with a temporary worker program that favored labor unions.
And Schumer and his staff have quietly begun reaching out to some unlikely players in the Senate, including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has professed a newfound freedom since winning reelection last year without the Republican Party’s help.
“What we’re doing is beginning these preliminary talks, particularly with outside groups, to try and regain the consensus that was pretty nicely formed last year,” Schumer said in a phone interview. “And who knows, we might surprise everyone and get something done. We realize it is a tough thing to do, but it is very important, and it’s worth a shot. We’ve been getting interesting, positive responses — from places you wouldn’t expect it.”
The task won’t be easy. For starters, Republicans control the House, and they can’t say it often enough: A pathway to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants won’t fly on their watch.
The most popular immigration proposal in recent years, the DREAM Act, fell five votes short of passage in the Senate last year, in part because of Democratic defections. Now picture how a bill with a sweeping legalization program would fare in a chamber where Democrats control fewer seats and the Republican majority is more conservative.
Still, advocates of comprehensive reform see some reason for optimism.
Democrats believe the November elections put a bit of a scare into Republicans, who failed to capture the Senate in part because of strong Latino turnout in California, Nevada, Colorado and Washington. If the GOP hopes to win the White House in 2012, it will need to reverse that trend.
President Barack Obama made a more forceful pitch for action in this year’s State of the Union address than he did in last year’s, when he devoted a single, tepid line to it.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ranked immigration reform as his third priority for the new Congress, after cutting government spending and taxes.
House Republican leaders blocked Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a foe of illegal immigration with a penchant for harsh rhetoric, from taking over the immigration subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee — signaling that they are sensitive to the political pitfalls of alienating Latinos. Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has also shied away, at least for now, from pursuing the most divisive proposals, such as revoking birthright citizenship.
And in one closely watched comment, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) let it slip recently that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “seems to think that there’s a shot at this.” It led to a round of speculation that the McCain of the past, the senator who ushered a comprehensive bill through the chamber in 2006, might be ready to come back. Continue reading this article
British Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent speech criticizing multiculturalism’s fawning to hostile Islam is a promising sign. In doing so, he has joined his fellow leaders Angel Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy in noting the regrettable failure of Islamic immigration, although the “i” word is still used infrequently by top elites.
Like many well-meaning infidels, Cameron took pains to explain to Muslims and everyone else that true Islam is actually kind and gentle: “Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority.” All that ka-boomy diversity is overblown, he thinks.
Naturally, the remarks were newsworthy on both sides of the Atlantic. The New York Times started out well enough, but found it necessary midway through to mischaracterize Enoch Powell’s famous 1968 speech as a racist statement which all British politicians must now avoid. (NB: Islam is a religion open to all races, from Jihad Jane to you or me.)
LONDON — Faced with growing alarm about Islamic militants who have made Britain one of Europe’s most active bases for terrorist plots, Prime Minister David Cameron has mounted an attack on the country’s decades-old policy of “multiculturalism,” saying it has encouraged “segregated communities” where Islamic extremism can thrive.
Speaking at a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Mr. Cameron condemned what he called the “hands-off tolerance” in Britain and other European nations that had encouraged Muslims and other immigrant groups “to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.”
He said that the policy had allowed Islamic militants leeway to radicalize young Muslims, some of whom went on to “the next level” by becoming terrorists, and that Europe could not defeat terrorism “simply by the actions we take outside our borders,” with military actions like the war in Afghanistan.
“Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries,” he said. “We have to get to the root of the problem.”
In what aides described as one of the most important speeches in the nine months since he became prime minister, Mr. Cameron said the multiculturalism policy — one espoused by British governments since the 1960s, based on the principle of the right of all groups in Britain to live by their traditional values — had failed to promote a sense of common identity centered on values of human rights, democracy, social integration and equality before the law.
Similar warnings about multiculturalism have been sounded by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. But, if anything, Mr. Cameron went further. He called on European governments to practice “a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism,” and said Britain would no longer give official patronage to Muslim groups that had been “showered with public money despite doing little to combat terrorism.” [. . .]
British leaders, particularly from the Conservative Party, which Mr. Cameron leads, have mostly been careful to avoid arguments that might expose them to charges of holding racially tinged views since a notorious speech in 1968 in which Enoch Powell, a leading Conservative, warned of “rivers of blood” if nothing was done to curb Caribbean immigration to Britain.
Of course, Powell never used the words “rivers of blood” but quoted the Aeneid when he remarked, “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood.” It’s dangerous to be better read in the classics than journalists.
Another notable point is Cameron’s call for a return to “muscular liberalism” which the Times quoted. Tough liberals — politicians realistic about America’s enemies — were once fairly common in this country, like Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. These days, however, the loony pacifism of the far left is the dominant ideology, even though it is often not followed in fact, as shown by pols like Obama who swear to immediately abandon conflicts in progress but don’t.
Cameron’s speech naturally got a lot of attention in Britain.
Entering the debate on national identity and religious tolerance, the Prime Minister declared an end to “passive tolerance” of divided communities, and say that members of all faiths must integrate into wider society and accept core values.
To be British is to believe in freedom of speech and religion, democracy and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality, he will say. Proclaiming a doctrine of “muscular liberalism”, he said that everyone, from ministers to ordinary voters, should actively confront those who hold extremist views.
He warned that groups that fail to promote British values will no longer receive public money or be able to engage with the state.
His speech, to an international security conference in Munich, comes after The Daily Telegraph disclosed the extent to which the British intelligence community fears the “unique threat” of terrorist attacks by radicalised British Muslims.
Here’s a relevant video clip:
The Vlad Tepes blog helpfully created a reminder video that contrasts an earlier, more dhimmified Cameron with his recent Munich remarks.
The Arizona honor killing trial has been moving along. Iraqi immigrant Faleh Almaleki is accused of killing his 20-year-old daughter Noor for becoming too westernized by mowing her down with his Jeep Cherokee.
Note to immigrants from Islamic and other misogynous cultures: don’t think your daughters will remain enslaved when they see women living as free individuals around them. If keeping the chains on the females is important, then stay home and keep your Islamic diversity to yourselves.
Fox presented an overall update, noting that “honor killing” is not a defense in the United States. The accused says the death was an accident, but the case against him is strong.
Another woman was injured in Almaleki’s murderous rampage, Amal Khalaf, who survived and testified on Thursday. She is the mother of Noor’s boyfriend, and both families have known each other for years, so there is an element of families in conflict as well. Khalaf was shown on video with her face blurred because she fears retaliation in Iraq.
Amal Khalaf was walking across a Peoria parking lot when she saw a Jeep headed straight toward her.
Faleh Hassan Al-Maleki was in the driver’s seat, Khalaf told a Maricopa County Superior Court jury Thursday.
Khalaf raised her hands and screamed, urging the Glendale man to stop. She was thrown into the air when his SUV slammed into her.
Then, Khalaf said, Al-Maleki turned his Jeep toward his daughter, Noor, who had been living with her family for months.
Defense attorneys have said Al-Maleki was trying to spit on Khalaf. He swerved, the attorneys said, but could not avoid the two women.
Noor died about two weeks later. Khalaf, who had a broken hip and thigh, spent about two months in the hospital.
In interviews after his 2009 arrest, Peoria police asked Al-Maleki, 50, if the hit and run was an attempted honor killing, in which a woman is slain for not adhering to traditional cultural values, bringing shame to her family.
Al-Maleki repeatedly said it was an accident, but nodded when a detective asked if he intended to hit his daughter, according to police reports.
Al-Maleki has been charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious-injury accident.
If the jury decides Al-Maleki plotted his daughter’s death, he will be found guilty of first-degree murder and face life in prison. If the jury believes the defense, he could be found guilty of a lesser offense, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter. Continue reading this article
When the Pentagon prepared its own written report about the 2009 Fort Hood mass murders by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, it was a total whitewash, that the Army ignored plenty of warning signs that Hasan had hostile Islamic views. One reason is that his superiors were entranced by the diversity twofer of having a Muslim psychiatrist.
Shortly after the Fort Hood attack, General George Casey stated, “And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
The remark by the Army’s top officer was an indication of how far down the trail of diversity nuttiness the military has gone. Thirteen people were killed (shown below) and 32 wounded in Hasan’s jihadist attack, but to General Casey, the highest good is not defending the nation or the Army’s taking care of its own but diversity uber alles.
The title tells a lot. It’s a good thing when responsible persons in the government recognize the principle of preventable violence. As British MP and visionary Enoch Powell wisely observed in 1968, “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”
And Islam is a preventable evil in America. We can stop its intrusion via immigration if we have the strength. Major Hasan was the son of Palestinian Muslims and he lives by an alien code that is fundamentally opposed to our Western values.
A Senate report on the Fort Hood shooting is sharply critical of the FBI’s failure to recognize warning signs that an Army psychiatrist had become an Islamist extremist and amounted to a “ticking time bomb.”
The report concluded that both the Defense Department and the FBI had sufficient information to detect that Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had been radicalized to violent extremism, but they failed to understand and act on it. It said the FBI’s top leaders must exercise more control over local field offices and put to better use the intelligence analysts who should have been able to connect the dots.
Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the November 2009 shooting rampage on the Texas military post.
“Our report’s painful conclusion is that the Fort Hood massacre could have, and should have, been prevented,” said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., calling it a heartbreaking tragedy of errors.
Many of the report’s criticisms have been aired over the past year in other investigations of shooting. The Senate report stresses that the FBI’s move to become more intelligence-driven has been hampered by internal conflicts that must be addressed. Continue reading this article
While Secretary of DHS Janet Napolitano continues to spread the Big Lie that the border is fine, no problem, a group of serious House Republicans, including Ed Royce, Steve King and Phil Gingrey, visited the area recently and heard from residents.
Rep. Ed Royce was interviewed February 1 about the trip on the John and Ken radio show, and it is an informative and timely report, more honest than anything on TV. The interview segment is about 15 minutes in length, and is well worth your attention.
Rep. Royce does not mince any words and explains his assessment of the bigger picture, one item of which is how open-borders extremists have done an effective job of recruiting credulous environmentalists to their side. ”The open borders lobby is approaching every ally they’ve got, trying to work them up on one argument or another,” he observed.
Of course, illegal aliens and drug smugglers do tremendous damage to the border land with trash and millions of feet tromping through. But leftist environmentalists have convinced Washington that allowing Border Patrol agents into protected public land constitutes a bigger threat than hoards of violent Mexican drug smugglers (see Border Parks Defended against Invader-Friendly Rules).
When a group of ranchers was asked about Napolitano’s assessment of improved border security, they responded there was “more vandalism, more threats, it was worse,” as Royce described. The government’s current strategy appears to be better policing in the cities (hinted at in Napolitano’s speech with a close reading) which shunts the bad guys off into the countryside where their unlawful behavior is less likely to show up in crime stats.
Royce related several jaw-drop horror stories he heard. The 12-year-old daughter of a local businessman’s foreman was kidnapped for $80K ransom, but the case was never reported to police because the family feared they were in cahoots with the Mexicans. So the ransom was paid. In another situation, the cartels set up a high-tech communications relay station atop a local mountain, next to a rancher’s property, which was later removed by the Border Patrol.
Large swaths of territory 40 miles this side of the border are under the control of Mexican cartels for use as a staging area for their smuggling activities. Royce said straight out, that the violence from the Mexican side is “now spilling over the border on to US soil.” Now, not some vague time in the future.
The Congressman observed that Washington has “made a choice to tie the hands of law enforcement that could be a force multiplier on this, and they’ve made the choice to wind down Operation Jump Start which according to the Border Patrol, they swear by the effectiveness of that.” (Operation Jump Start refers to stationing the National Guard on the border, and investigative reporter Sara Carter has reported that those troops will be largely removed sometime in February.)
Referring to a new bill he is authoring, Royce aims to “establish operational control of the border and to do that, we’re going to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from interfering with the Border Patrol enforcement activities on federal lands.”
Rep. Ed Royce, California Republican, is planning to introduce a national-level version of contentious Arizona state Senate Bill 1070, The Daily Caller has learned. Royce, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee’s Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade subcommittee, told TheDC his legislation would give state-level cops and local law enforcement nationwide the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
Royce is planning to introduce the new legislation soon and said, in addition to giving state and local law enforcement more authority, it “establishes operational control of the border” by sending more fencing to the border and keeping the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture from over-regulating how Border Patrol officials put together fences and work on federal lands.
“All the Border Patrol agents are swearing by it [building a fence and keeping the regulatory powers of the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture at a minimum],” Royce said. “So, that’s part of establishing operational control.”
The third major part of Royce’s legislation would require Homeland Security to review all visas from certain “high-risk” consulate posts. He said the bill would require DHS to “sit down face-to-face” with every visa-holder from these high-risk posts and re-interview them to make sure they’re in compliance.
“What we want to do is set up a system where we are able to make certain that, when people come into the country on a visa, we know when they’re leaving and we know if they’ve left,” Royce said. He also said the bill would allow DHS to “target” individuals from countries with a history of aiding or abetting terrorists. Continue reading this article
It’s disappointing, though not surprising, that the state Appeals Court has decided that San Francisco authorities cannot be held responsible for the deaths of a father and two sons at the hands of an illegal alien gangster whom the city had protected from deportation. The decision affirms an earlier ruling of one year ago from the Superior Court.
Salvadoran Edwin Ramos had a record of arrests for violent crimes in San Francisco, but the city’s illegal alien sanctuary policy protected him from hard time or deportation, leaving free to shoot and kill Anthony, Matthew and Michael Bologna (pictured below) June 22, 2008, as they neared the family home in their car after attending a barbecue with other relatives. It has been theorized that Ramos, an MS-13 thug, thought they were members of a rival gang.
San Francisco cannot be held responsible for the deaths of a father and two sons allegedly gunned down in 2008 by a man city officials refused to report to immigration authorities, the state Court of Appeals decided Monday.
The ruling upholds a February 2010 Superior Court decision.
Tony Bologna, 48, and his two sons, Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, were shot to death in a car near their Excelsior district home in June 2008. A third son in the car was not injured.
Relatives sued the city, claiming San Francisco’s sanctuary policy protecting illegal immigrants kept the alleged gunman, Edwin Ramos, in the country and played a major role in the slayings.
Yet both the lower court and the appellate court agreed that the city isn’t legally to blame for any crimes Ramos committed following his earlier arrests as a juvenile for assault and attempted purse-snatching.
The family of the victims argued that the city violated federal law in not reporting Ramos, who was 21 at the time of the killings, to immigration officials and therefore failed to prevent the crime. Laws protecting cities from such liability prevailed in the case.
“We’ve always known that the law was stacked in the city’s favor,” said plaintiff’s attorney Matthew Davis. “Certainly the family is going to be disappointed.”
Davis said he would review the ruling before deciding whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
The case was a flash point in the debate over the city’s policy to protect illegal immigrants.
Former Mayor Gavin Newsom restricted the use of the sanctuary policy in July 2008, requiring city employees to report suspected illegal immigrant youths to federal authorities in the case of felony arrests.
Pew Hispanic has a new study out, and the gist is that not much has changed vis-a-vis the numbers of illegals in the country in the last couple years.
I’m not sure how much I believe that, given all the reports of Arizona border chaos of illegals continuing to cross in great numbers. Maybe some actually are leaving and the number even out.
But why isn’t Washington doing more to chase out the job thieves during the worst employment depression since the 1930s? Obama promised he would go after employers, but the numbers don’t reflect any worksite enforcement at all.
As the report notes on page 17:
There were 8 million unauthorized immigrants in the workforce in March 2010, down slightly from 2007, when there were 8.4 million. They represent 5.2% of the workforce, similar to their proportion for the past half-decade, when they represented 5% to 5.5% of workers.
After a dropoff during the recession, illegal immigrants seeking to sneak across the U.S. border may be ready to move again.
A new study released Tuesday finds the number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. last year was roughly 11.2 million, a number virtually unchanged from 2009. In that year, the level of illegal immigration declined for the first time in two decades, dropping 8 percent from 2007, as a sour economy and stepped-up border enforcement made it harder or less desirable for undocumented workers to enter from Mexico. [. . .]
Steve A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that advocates tighter immigration policies, said it wasn’t surprising that illegal immigration had stopped declining. He predicted the numbers will soon pick up, citing some improvement in the U.S. economy as well as the Obama administration’s “promise of legalization to undocumented workers.”
“There’s no reason for these numbers to go down,” Camarota said. “Our legal policy remains very permissive, and we’re not enforcing the law.”
Other Pew findings:
_Mexicans make up the majority of the illegal immigrant population at 58 percent, or 6.5 million. They are followed by people from other Latin American countries at 23 percent, or 2.6 million; Asia at 11 percent or 1.3 million; Europe and Canada at 4 percent or 500,000; and African countries and other nations at 3 percent, or 400,000.
_The states with the highest percentage of illegal immigrants were Nevada (7.2 percent), California (6.8 percent), Texas (6.7 percent) and New Jersey (6.2 percent).
_About 350,000 newborns last year had at least one illegal immigrant parent, representing 8 percent of all births. That share is largely unchanged from 2009.
Notice how if you add the 58 percent of illegals who are Mexican with the 23 percent who are otherwise Latin American, the total is 81 percent of illegal aliens who are hispanic. Keep that in mind the next time you hear complaints about “profiling.”
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says U.S. communities on the border with Mexico are safer than most Americans believe.
Napolitano on Monday also warned Mexican drug cartels to keep violence on their side of the border.
She says those who don’t, “will be met with an overwhelming response.”
Napolitano was at the University of Texas at El Paso, across the Rio Grande from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.
She says that U.S. apprehensions of illegal immigrants fell 30 percent in the last two years, while deportations exceeded 779,000.
Napolitano is scheduled to be in Dallas later Monday to discuss security for Super Bowl week.
Has she forgetten the December death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in a gun battle with Mexican narco-criminals within Arizona? She spoke at his funeral just a few weeks ago.
Perhaps Napolitano can overlook the occupation of US territory by foreign gangsters (as now occurs in border-area parks), but the people who live in southern Arizona cannot ignore the danger they face every day.
One indication of the worsening situation was the group of border ranchers who pleaded with Arizona officials last week to do more to protect them from worsening anarchy.
Rancher Dan Bell has come face to face with drug smugglers on his southeastern Arizona cattle ranch, he has found the bodies of illegal immigrants who died of exposure on his property, and a Border Patrol agent was killed in December about 5 miles from his home.
The 42-year-old has had about enough.
He and a group of other southern Arizona ranchers visited the state Legislature in Phoenix on Thursday to explain to lawmakers how dire the situation is on their properties and to ask that something be done.
In response, a Senate committee voted 6-1 to pass a bill supporting the ranchers’ plan to “restore our border,” also known as ROB’s plan. It was named for rancher Robert Krentz, whom authorities believe was killed by an illegal immigrant on his land last year.
“We need help down here,” Bell told The Associated Press after he spoke to the committee. “The place has just gotten out of hand.”
You notice the ranchers didn’t go to Washington to plead for better border security.
Here in the Bay Area, November’s election brought two Asian mayors to major cities. The voters picked Jean Quan to be Oakland’s leader, and the election of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to be Lieutenant Governor left unexpired time on his term. Ed Lee was chosen by the Board of Supervisors to become the interim mayor.
So the local Chinese et al are thrilled, right? Not exactly. They partied hearty at Lee’s inauguration, but recent analysis from Asian pundits was more carping than celebration, at least in Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle. The paper often showcases differing views on a topic, but in this case two Asian writers groused in unison that the ascension of two Asian mayors was too little, too late because of xenophobia and racism.
Helen Zia concentrated on complaints from more than a century ago:
It’s not only about time, it’s way past time to have Asian American mayors in San Francisco and Oakland, considering how long these cities have boasted substantial Asian American populations. What took Asian Americans so long to get this far?
The answer lies in the darker side of California’s history. On the streets of San Francisco, Oakland and throughout California, vigilante lynch mobs stoked a xenophobic movement in the late 1800s with the stated goal of driving every “Asiatic” out of America. Federal laws turned all Asians into “persons ineligible for citizenship.” The disenfranchisement was so comprehensive that Asian Americans who were naturalized had their citizenships revoked; white American women who married Asian men were stripped of their citizenships; U.S.-born citizens of Asian descent were assumed to be illegal if they left the country and were subject to detention, interrogation and deportation upon returning. Immigration from Asia was limited to a trickle.
Such racist laws were slowly peeled back in the mid-1900s, but the damage was done: For generations, there were no voters leagues, no candidates forums, no election pipelines or other signs of electoral involvement among people forbidden to become citizens. Since those not-so-distant days, it’s been a marathon to catch up, and it’s no accident that both Ed Lee and Jean Quan have been part of the long effort to empower these communities.
Asian Americans might be singing “At Last!” but these mayoralties are only the beginning of what these dynamic peoples can bring to our democracy.
There’s much to celebrate about Ed Lee and Jean Quan, the Bay Area’s new power couple, the first Asian Americans to become the mayors of San Francisco and Oakland. They’ve cracked through a political glass ceiling that has bedeviled Asian American communities for decades. In the Year of the Rabbit, this is big news.
It’s not just because they are Chinese. Lee earned his street cred three decades ago at the Asian Law Caucus, defending poor immigrants. The street-smart Quan learned the power of grassroots organizing through her community work and campaigns for the Oakland school board and City Council.
Yet I fear this might not be enough to completely shatter the glass ceiling. Why? Because that would require the unequivocal support of people outside the Asian American communities – the voters, power brokers, corporate titans and social elites who have yet to embrace the need to share power at all levels. They will view Lee as a “caretaker mayor” and beneficiary of a backroom deal. They will view Quan as a winner by a technicality, courtesy of the ranked-choice voting system.
Full acceptance for Asian Americans and other groups will require continuing social and political reform.
Yes, great strides have been made, but it’s taken an astonishingly long time. San Francisco and Oakland were incorporated during the Gold Rush, when the first Chinese journeyed here in search of the American dream, only to face persecution and lynchings. To close the last mile, we will need to see more Lees and Quans capturing these top posts with outright election victories, broadly won, unmarred by ifs, ands or buts.
There’s nothing like success to send professional race hucksters into a tizzy: they are terrified that the public will no longer accept their race- and victimhood-obsessed view of reality. A post-racial society is the last thing they want.
So we read emotional grievances that the tribe in question is still being kept down, which is quite a trick considering Asians’ successes, e.g. the highest household income in the US and the highest level of education (49% have at least a BA degree).
The employment outlook for most Americans looks pretty bad, but for those over 50 it is downright grim. Businesses just don’t like to hire older workers, even though they are just as capable as anyone else, and often more so.
The one thing about Obamacare (with the eventual endgame of single-payer) that I thought might be beneficial was removing healthcare costs from the employer. That would disincentivize laying off older workers who cost more for health coverage and might make them more employable.
Anyway, it’s clear that age discrimination laws don’t work, because employers can always make up some excuse. As long as a business doesn’t fire everyone over 50 on the same day, there’s no case to be made. There is not much that can be done, except the overall reduction of excess workers: the best way to improve the prospects of older workers would be for Washington to shut down the firehose of legal immigration (1.5 million workers annually) and apply enforcement to illegal immigration.
Before mass immigration, American workers could easily pick up a part-time blue-collar job during hard times and get by until the economy improved. But both the percentage and absolute numbers of foreign workers has been going up since 1970, as shown in the chart below. There is a glut of potential employees generally, and one of the groups most affected by a flooded labor market has been older workers.
Sadly, there’s not much attention given at all to the bleak job prospects older workers face, much less the immigration connection.
Kathleen Harwell can’t imagine what life on the streets would be like for a 59-year-old woman with diabetes and high blood pressure, but she’s afraid she’ll soon find out.
After nearly two years without work and no luck finding a new job, the Laurel resident is on the brink of homelessness. She has run out of savings and unemployment benefits. She’s too young for Social Security. And she’s not the only one in this frightening fix.
A burgeoning group of older, jobless people — here and nationwide — have found everything they worked for over the decades snatched away by the sharp downturn and slow recovery. Laid-off workers in their 50s, 60s and older are facing grim prospects of finding a new job, the worst for any age group in at least five recessions, at a time when hardly anyone is finding re-employment easy or quick.
That has left these residents in a precarious state.
Baltimore’s homeless-services agencies saw a 15 percent jump last year in the number of clients ages 50 and up. Calls for help to the United Way of Central Maryland’s 211 line rose almost 9 percent among those older than 45 last year, compared with a 1 percent increase among all ages. And food pantries served by the Maryland Food Bank have noticed an influx of baby boomers, including some who were donors before job loss struck. 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.