Swiss elites were disappointed in the voters’ rejection of the EU vision of open borders that has been such a failure in Europe, at least in the minds of many citizens. The vote was hailed by eurosceptics, like UKIP’s Nigel Farage who described the outcome as “wonderful news for national sovereignty and freedom lovers throughout Europe.”
However, the Swiss government was not happy with the results:
Euro-sceptic parties hail a blow for ‘people power’ as Swiss vote to scrap deal allowing EU workers in
Switzerland voted yesterday to reimpose curbs on immigration from the European Union, in a referendum that is likely to cause anger in Brussels.
The nation of eight million voted by a 50.3 majority in favour of a “Stop Mass Immigration” proposal pushed by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP). The decision means the government will have to renegotiate a deal struck with Brussels seven years ago that gave most EU citizens free access to the Swiss labour market.
The SVP had said that the 80,000 EU citizens who were now coming in every year was roughly ten times the initial predictions back in 2007, and that it had overburned the education and health systems. Public transport was also struggling to cope, as was the housing market.
Switzerland’s seven-member multiparty government, the Federal Council, in which the SVP has one cabinet post, had opposed the reintroduction of curbs, saying it could hit the economy and undermine the country’s relationship with the EU.
But under Switzerland’s highly devolved system of rule, where most key decisions are taken by popular referendum, the government has no choice but to respect the result. Continue reading this article
Jeh Johnson, the new guy who replaced Janet Napolitano as head of the Department of Homeland Security, remarked recently about illegal aliens, “Everyone knows we have millions of undocumented immigrants in this country, and they’re not going away; they’re not going to self-deport.” His comments came during a February 7 speaking event at the Woodrow Wilson Center with former Congresswoman Jane Harman, now CEO of the place.
That observation is simply not true. When tough enforcement measures were applied following passage of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law, illegals packed up and left en masse for more permissive locales. Despite their obnoxious lawbreaking, lawbreaking foreigners are rational creatures who come to make lots of American dollars and act according to that goal.
If the nation as a whole enforced borders and the workplace, most of the foreign job thieves would go back to where they came from. Self-deport, in other words.
That’s right. They go to other, less law-abiding states to steal American jobs. All states should emulate Arizona to limit jobs to citizens and legal immigrants, as well as keep their dollars in America and avoid billions being shipped offshore as remittances.
What’s the rush? Have citizens forgotten how loose standards of who gets into America was a major contributor to the 9/11 terror attacks? Why isn’t the protection of the American people the top priority of the government? Open borders for jihadists is a really bad idea these days.
On Fox News Sunday, House Homeland Security Committee Chair Mike McCaul said, “Syria is probably the largest and most significant threat to the homeland security of the United States today.” [Watch.] He was responding to a question about US residents participating in jihad in Syria, but the effect of admitting thousands of permissively screened refugees could be similarly dangerous.
Tucker Carlson broached the policy change on a Fox show, and his mind was obviously spinning with the concept of “limited terror ties” being acceptable to Washington. His guest was retired INS Senior Special Agent Mike Cutler, who analyzed the difficulties, noting, “When someone comes from a country involved with terrorism, it’s almost impossible to adequately vet them quickly.”
The New York Times covered the important national security issue — on page A10:
Republican lawmakers are assailing new exemptions from antiterrorism laws the Obama administration issued this week for war zone refugees seeking to come to the United States, saying the rules are examples of unilateral action by President Obama that weaken immigration security.
The administration, under pressure to respond to the crisis of more than 2.3 million Syrians who have fled the civil war in their country, published two rules on Wednesday that will exempt refugees from provisions banning terrorists. The exemptions apply if the refugees provided only minor material support, such as meals or medical aid, to armed groups that have not been officially designated as terrorist organizations, or if they gave such support under pressure.
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, said the administration was “yet again abusing the powers granted to it” by Congress.
“With today’s national security threats,” Mr. Goodlatte asked, “why would we ever willingly loosen our immigration laws to allow those who have helped terrorists game the system?” [ . . . ]
Officials said the exemptions, which would immediately affect some 3,000 asylum applicants, had been in the works for years. They said the administration was acting under authority it was granted in a bipartisan compromise adopted in 2007 under President George W. Bush. That deal was struck by Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has a keen interest in refugee issues, and John Kyl of Arizona, a Republican senator at the time.
The unilateral action by the administration to make jihadist admittance easier is a dangerous piece of work, even for the current bunch. See White House Orders Relaxed Standards for Refugees for background, including cases of serious bad guys being welcomed.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, commented on the Administration’s latest executive immigration decree which loosens immigration screening standards for those who may pose a threat to national security:
“Kenneth Palinkas, who represents our nation’s immigration officers at USCIS, recently charged that our immigration processing system has become a ‘visa clearinghouse for the world.’ Now, a newly disclosed internal audit of immigration procedures reveals that at least 70% of asylum applications contained warning signs of fraud. We also know that asylum-seekers at the southwest border have exploited a glaring enforcement loophole by simply asserting they face a ‘credible fear’ in their home countries. The frequent result is that those making the assertion, instead of being promptly removed or detained, are instead released into the U.S. pending a determination on their claims that may occur years into the future, and do not show up for the hearings.
In light of these and other facts, it is thus deeply alarming that the Obama Administration would move unilaterally to relax admissions standards for asylum-seekers and potentially numerous other applicants for admission who have possible connections to insurgent or terrorist groups. This includes terror groups not yet designated: Al Qaeda was not designated by the Department of State as a foreign terrorist organization until 1999—long after the first attack on the World Trade Center. The 2011 case of suspected terror operatives from Iraq being admitted to the U.S. only further underscores that our immigration system lacks the safeguards necessary to protect our country. We need to tighten security standards for asylum, not relax them even further. Continue reading this article
The current administration apparently believes that welcoming Muslim refugees is more important than national security. Otherwise it wouldn’t have unilaterally loosened the rules by which persons having terrorist ties are kept out. Now they can get in.
Apparently, the reduction of standards was done to enable more Syrians to enter the US (something that has been in the pipeline for a while):
President Barack Obama’s administration announced on Wednesday that it had eased some immigration rules to allow more of the millions of Syrians forced from their homes during the country’s three-year civil war to come to the United States.
Their suffering is regrettable, but importing more thousands more unfriendlies into America is not the answer. Why don’t majority Muslim nations take them — why is the West supposed to admit likely enemies?
CIS’s Jessica Vaughan pointed out that the executive order removes the burden of proof from the applicant, even though the political asylum program has a 70 percent fraud rate already. One example discussed was the Tsarnaev family who received asylum without a background check, the two sons of whom bombed the Boston Marathon, killing three:
Note to White House: the country needs tighter standards on who is admitted into America, not a loosening during this dangerous time. National security must be the top concern of government, not generosity toward sketchy foreigners.
The Obama administration has unilaterally eased restrictions on asylum seekers with loose or incidental ties to terror and insurgent groups, in a move one senator called “deeply alarming.”
The change, approved by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, was announced Wednesday in the Federal Register. It would allow some individuals who provided “limited material support” to terror groups to be considered for entry into the U.S.
Supporters of the change, including Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., argued that the current ban on anyone who has ever aided terrorists has unfairly blocked thousands of refugees.
“The existing interpretation was so broad as to be unworkable,” Leahy said in a statement. “It resulted in deserving refugees and asylees being barred from the United States for actions so tangential and minimal that no rational person would consider them supporters of terrorist activities.”
But critics say despite the good intentions, the change raises security concerns, particularly after a report published Thursday on asylum fraud.
“In light of these and other facts, it is thus deeply alarming that the Obama administration would move unilaterally to relax admissions standards for asylum seekers and potentially numerous other applicants for admission who have possible connections to insurgent or terrorist groups,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a statement on Thursday. “We need to tighten security standards for asylum, not relax them even further.”
Sessions also complained that the administration was, on its own, altering the Immigration and Nationality Act. “What is the point of Congress passing a law if the administration abuses its ‘discretion’ to say that law simply no longer applies?” he said. Continue reading this article
When the slightest snow flurry or lost puppy occurs in the broadcast center of New York City, the event is broadcast loud and long to the world. But a terrorist attack on a California power substation near San Jose, not so much.
Nope, in the California incident, communication cables to the power substation were cut and snipers fired over 100 shots at the plant, knocking out 17 transformers. No arrests have been made in the April 16 assault.
April Sniper Attack Knocked Out Substation, Raises Concern for Country’s Power Grid
SAN JOSE, Calif.—The attack began just before 1 a.m. on April 16 last year, when someone slipped into an underground vault not far from a busy freeway and cut telephone cables.
Within half an hour, snipers opened fire on a nearby electrical substation. Shooting for 19 minutes, they surgically knocked out 17 giant transformers that funnel power to Silicon Valley. A minute before a police car arrived, the shooters disappeared into the night.
To avoid a blackout, electric-grid officials rerouted power around the site and asked power plants in Silicon Valley to produce more electricity. But it took utility workers 27 days to make repairs and bring the substation back to life.
Nobody has been arrested or charged in the attack at PG&E Corp.’s Metcalf transmission substation. It is an incident of which few Americans are aware. But one former federal regulator is calling it a terrorist act that, if it were widely replicated across the country, could take down the U.S. electric grid and black out much of the country.
The attack was “the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the grid that has ever occurred” in the U.S., said Jon Wellinghoff, who was chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at the time.
The Wall Street Journal assembled a chronology of the Metcalf attack from filings PG&E made to state and federal regulators; from other documents including a video released by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department; and from interviews, including with Mr. Wellinghoff.
The 64-year-old Nevadan, who was appointed to FERC in 2006 by President George W. Bush and stepped down in November, said he gave closed-door, high-level briefings to federal agencies, Congress and the White House last year. As months have passed without arrests, he said, he has grown increasingly concerned that an even larger attack could be in the works. He said he was going public about the incident out of concern that national security is at risk and critical electric-grid sites aren’t adequately protected.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn’t think a terrorist organization caused the Metcalf attack, said a spokesman for the FBI in San Francisco. Investigators are “continuing to sift through the evidence,” he said.
Some people in the utility industry share Mr. Wellinghoff’s concerns, including a former official at PG&E, Metcalf’s owner, who told an industry gathering in November he feared the incident could have been a dress rehearsal for a larger event.
“This wasn’t an incident where Billy-Bob and Joe decided, after a few brewskis, to come in and shoot up a substation,” Mark Johnson, retired vice president of transmission for PG&E, told the utility security conference, according to a video of his presentation. “This was an event that was well thought out, well planned and they targeted certain components.” When reached, Mr. Johnson declined to comment further. Continue reading this article
Young jihadist fellows can learn combat and bombing techniques when they volunteer to kill for Allah on the Syrian front. It’s not a bad thing when hostile Muslims are energetically blasting each other, but the survivors from Europe and the United States will have deadly new skills to employ when they return home.
Has anyone noticed yet that Muslim immigration in the name of total diversity has been a really bad idea? Not every Muslim is a murderous Soldier of Allah, but some are, so why admit any?
Fox News’ Greg Palkot reported on Tuesday that the number of fighters in Syria from America is estimated to be 70, but that’s nothing compared to the nearly 2,000 trained jihad killers who may head back to Europe after Syria is done.
One of the reasons this subject has come up has been intelligence hearings in the House and Senate in recent days. You can watch Tuesday’s House Intelligence Committee hearing Global Threats to the U.S. on C-SPAN that includes the new FBI Director Comey, as well as CIA Director Brennan and DNI Director Clapper.
For the second time in a week, the nation’s top intelligence chiefs Tuesday issued a scathing assessment of the global threats facing the United States, warning that Syria is becoming a base from which extremist, Al Qaeda-linked groups could attack the U.S.
“We are concerned about the use of Syrian territory by the Al Qaeda organization to recruit individuals and develop the capability to be able not just to carry out attacks inside of Syria, but also to use Syria as a launching pad,” said CIA Director John Brennan at a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
“There are camps inside of both Iraq and Syria that are used by Al Qaeda to develop capabilities that are applicable, both in the theater, as well as beyond.”
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper put the threat assessment in stark terms: “Looking back over my more than half a century in intelligence, I have not experienced a time when we’ve been beset by more crises and threats around the globe,” he said. Continue reading this article
As Coulter observes, “Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly’s report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party. ”
Every House Republican should be strongly educated to the fact that the big-government preference of Latin cultures does not go away: hispanics are ready-made Democrats, so don’t import millions more of them. The following Pew graphic gets a full-page redesign by Eagle Forum shown further below.
Eagle’s presentation clarifies the cultural difference over generations:
The Eagle Forum report is a double-barreled blast of accumulated knowledge about the stubbornness of diverse culture. Friends of American sovereignty could use its helpful polling data should they phone House Republicans with their concerns:
At a time when belt-tightening is a necessary strategy for many states, the number bankrolling educations for illegal aliens is increasing: now 15 states are wasting taxpayer funds on foreigners when many citizens could use a hand.
Do these states have too much money? Or perhaps their priorities are all screwed up, in the liberal style.
The Associated Press story was careful not to speak unkindly of the alien scholars, subtly noting at the end that “their future work prospects are limited” — meaning they cannot be legally employed following their expensive-to-taxpayers college educations.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Giancarlo Tello paid $14,000 more than other New Jersey high school graduates to attend Rutgers University, the state’s flagship public college.
Why the difference?
Tello spent much of his childhood in the U.S. without legal permission after his parents moved from Peru when he was 6.
That changes if he re-enrolls this fall, as he plans, thanks to a law recently signed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that provides in-state tuition to immigrants like him.
Supporters of immigrants’ rights are energized because after years of contentious fights, New Jersey and three other states passed statutes last year that will allow such students who came to the U.S. when they were minors to pay in-state tuition.
Fifteen states now have such a statute, said Ann Morse of the National Conference of State Legislatures. In addition, university boards in Hawaii, Michigan and Rhode Island have granted these students in-state tuition. To qualify, high school graduates typically must meet requirements such as living in a state for a set number of years. Continue reading this article
Crane spoke about the current border anarchy, where lawlessness has increased because of Washington’s talk of amnesty:
CRANE: “One thing I would like to tell them, Governor, is that at this moment we have a humanitarian crisis on our southern border. Our southern border is being overrun right now in certain areas by people coming here people seeking the DREAM Act, seeking amnesty, and we’re just talking about it at this point, and most problematic, most troubling and alarming is the number of children coming across our border all by themselves, seeking the DREAM Act, being turned over to members of drug cartels and human traffickers.
Children that are infants — nine months old, 14 months old — again, put in the arms of drug cartel members to carry them across the border, and it’s so out of control, just one office is averaging over 2000 of these unaccompanied children each and every month. We’re anticipating on the southern border this year that we’re going to apprehend approximately 50,000 of these unaccompanied children, and they’re coming across the border by themselves. Everyone up on capitol hill and these special interest groups that say what we’re doing right now is the humane thing to do or the right thing to do or even the Christian thing to do are dead wrong.”
Huckabee then remarked that he hadn’t heard about this aspect of border chaos. Actually, the increasing flood of unaccompanied kids has been reported. A recent Wall Street Journal piece had an even larger number than Crane’s projected for this year — 60,000:
LOS ANGELES—A record number of minors traveling alone are entering the U.S. illegally, presenting a new humanitarian and fiscal challenge as Congress grapples with the fate of 11 million undocumented residents already here.
In a report to be released Thursday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops forecasts that 60,000 unaccompanied minors from Central America will cross the Southwest border into the U.S. this year. That is up from less than 25,000 the year before, and just 5,800 a decade ago. Border-watchers say it highlights violence and unrest in several Central American countries. Minors who cross from Mexico are almost always repatriated.
Since 2011, the U.S. “has seen an unprecedented increase in the number of unaccompanied migrating children” crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, the Washington-based bishops’ group reports, citing a surge in Border Patrol apprehensions. [. . .]
Perhaps Central Americans have heard that even Republicans are soft touches for children, as shown by the Kid Amnesty, sponsored by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. At any rate, the foreigners have responded rationally by shipping thousands of kiddies to El Norte where rich Uncle Sucker will pay for their education and upkeep.
A December article in the Washington Times noted how DHS officers aid the illegal kid smuggling by actually delivering the tykes to illegal alien parents in America.
That’s the new improved America: welfare agency to the lawbreakers of the world, where the citizens’ taxes support crime.
A federal judge in Texas late last week accused the Obama administration of aiding drug cartels, saying that instead of enforcing immigration laws, agents knowingly helped smuggle an illegal immigrant girl into the U.S. to live with her mother, also an illegal immigrant, in Virginia.
In a 10-page order, Judge Andrew S. Hanen said the case was the fourth such case he’s seen over the last month, and in each instance Customs and Border Protection agents have helped to locate and deliver the children to their illegal immigrant parents.
The judge said in each case, the taxpayers footed the bill for flights — including flights to multiple locations in different parts of the U.S. that it took to find one of the children’s parents.
“The DHS is rewarding criminal conduct instead of enforcing the current laws. More troubling, the DHS is encouraging parents to seriously jeopardize the safety of their children,” the judge said, adding that some of the children have been made to swim the Rio Grande River or traverse remote areas as part of the smuggling.
In the case before the judge last week, a 10-year-old girl whose mother, Patricia Elizabeth Salmeron Santos, paid a smuggler to get the daughter from El Salvador across the border and to Virginia.
The agents apprehended the smuggler and the young girl, and prosecuted the smuggler, but delivered the daughter to Ms. Salmeron Santos in Virginia, even though agents were aware she was in the country illegally.
“The DHS, instead of enforcing our border security laws, actually assisted the criminal conspiracy in achieving its illegal goals,” the judge said. “It completed the mission of the conspiracy initiated by Salmeron Santos. In summary, instead of enforcing the laws of the United States, the government took direct steps to help the individuals who violated it. A private citizen would, and should, be prosecuted for this conduct.”
Judge Hanen said that Homeland Security officials regularly testify that the drug cartels control immigrant smuggling operations along the border, and he said the department’s actions in helping finish the smuggling actually end up benefitting the very cartels U.S. officials say they are trying to damage.
“The big economic losers in this scenario are the citizens of the United States who, by virtue of this DHS policy, are helping fund these evil ventures with their tax dollars,” the judge wrote. Continue reading this article
It’s sad to see our fighting forces weakened by a politically correct leadership, who recently loosened rules about uniforms to allow beards, turbans and hijabs. Big mistake. The word “uniform” explains the purpose — to tone down individual egos to form a larger unity of the group. Emblems of specialness, particularly of a historically unfriendly belief like Islam, detract from the purpose.
Following the mass murder of 13 Americans by Muslim Col Nidal Hasan (pictured) at Fort Hood, Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey remarked, “As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”
General Casey must be pleased with the recent turn of events, since diversity ideology has been served, although the defense of the United States has not.
Islamofascism: Caving to pressure from Muslim groups, the Pentagon has relaxed uniform rules to allow Islamic beards, turbans and hijabs. It’s a major win for political correctness and a big loss for military unit cohesion.
Also, the sharia-compliant regulation threatens to expand the jihadi Fifth Column that counterintelligence already is dealing with in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre. The FBI is tracking more than 100 suspected jihadists within the military.
Making special accommodations for Islam will only attract more Muslims into the military at a time when two recent terror cases highlight the ongoing danger of Muslims in uniform.
Earlier this month, a former Army soldier was sentenced to seven years in prison in a terror investigation. Craig Benedict Baxam, a Muslim convert, was said to have trained with al-Qaida’s branch in Somalia. In statements to federal agents, he justified violent jihad and vowed to fight the U.S. to defend Islamic lands.
Also this month, Homeland Security arrested an Iranian-American working for the Defense Department as a contract engineer. Mozaffar Khazaee was busted sending secret documents to Tehran. Continue reading this article
Americans should look around and take stock of all the places where a smart machine is performing a task formerly done by a human: ATMs (Automatic Teller Machines), ticket kiosks in airports and self-checkout in grocery stores. Plus there are other examples that exist out of the public eye, including automated warehouses, robots for harvesting crops and manufacturing.
The latest incursion of smart machines is fast food restaurants like Chilis and Chevys introducing an Ipad-style device on tables for customers to order food.
The increasing use of smart machines everywhere is one reason for the jobless recovery.
More clever automation is yet another reason that doubling legal immigration is a terrible idea. We don’t need to import excess workers when 20 million citizens cannot find work.
American workers are now facing major employment destruction from three fronts: immigration, outsourcing and smart machines. Of the three, immigration is the issue over which citizens have the most influence.
Back to more automated restaurants, which may become more so if employees insist on substantially higher wages: a robotic burger flipper is ready to replace humans.
Minimum wage hikes are accelerating the trend toward automation—and fewer workers—in services.
Ten years ago it might have seemed far-fetched that a customer could order food in a restaurant without speaking to anyone. But it’s a reality now as service employers across the country—including Chili’s, Chevys Fresh Mex and California Pizza Kitchen—introduce tabletop ordering devices. A few clicks on an iPad-like device and the food is on its way.
Technology has made these changes possible, but that’s not what’s driving their implementation. Steady federal and state increases to the minimum wage have forced employers in retail and service industries to rely on technology as the government makes entry-level labor more expensive. Now Democrats are pushing to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 from $7.25 at the behest of President Obama, who argued in his State of the Union address that the increase would “help families.” Lawmakers should consider the technology trend a warning.
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates made the connection in a recent interview on MSNBC. Asked if he supported a higher minimum wage, Mr. Gates urged caution and said the policy would create an incentive for employers to “buy machines and automate things.”
Mr. Gates is right, but the transition toward self-service began long before tabletop computers were a viable option. Self-service soda machines, available at fast-food restaurants since at least the late 1970s, were a labor-saving device. Even coffee carafes left on the table for customers to serve themselves allowed restaurants to reduce the staff needed to fill cups. More recently, major restaurant chains such as Bob Evans and Chili’s have updated their service model to eliminate bus boys, relying on servers to clear tables themselves. 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.