Add “bilingual” preference on the part of business to the increasing ways that Americans face unfair treatment in our own nation. More and more, citizens are expected to know the language of the invader while Spanish speakers do not need to speak English.
Today’s example of diminishing American rights in our own country comes from a letter to the Odessa American, illustrating that jobless citizens in hispanic areas have yet another obstacle to employment — the requirement to be “bilingual,” more accurately described as “Spanish speaking.”
Bilingual preferred, what does that really mean? As I look in the Odessa American for a job this is all I come across. Does this mean if I’m not bilingual I don’t qualify for the job?
Shouldn’t they already have employees there who can speak English and Spanish?
If I can’t speak Spanish, why does that disqualify me from a job? Can I help that I wasn’t born to speak another language? Should I be penalized or discriminated against because of this? Why should I have to learn another language because there are so many people who don’t know or want to learn English? Is this fair?
They offer free classes at Odessa College to learn English but they charge to learn Spanish or another language. I was born a U.S. citizen in the United States of America where English is our first language. Why should I have to learn another language just to “fit in” when this is the first and only language I know.
I know I have a lot of questions and I need answers, the thing is I don’t know who to ask. I feel “bilingual preferred” is a form of discrimination for the people who can’t speak or read Spanish. Does job performance even count anymore? I guess as long as your “bilingual” you can get the job. What about the rest of the people who don’t? How are we supposed to provide for our family, get a job just because we don’t talk the right language. I thought I was.
It was certainly a pleasure to see a substantial chunk of the Fox News Republican debate devoted to immigration — a far cry from the 2008 election in which the subject was barely mentioned.
The use of interactive technology, including Youtube questions asked by average citizens, livened up the debate format and brought subjects of genuine importance to Americans. Nearly 20,000 questions were submitted by concerned citizens.
Fox posted nifty word cloud graphics on the major topics of debate. Below is the one for immigration:
The debate was doubly pleasing because open-borders creep Rick Perry got a serious smackdown by other candidates after he continued his excuses for extreme permissiveness. He is particularly rabid on the subject of taxpayer subsidies for illegal alien college students. Gov Perry had the nerve to characterize the friends of taxpayers and sovereignty very negatively, saying, “But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart.”
The guy is Mexico City’s dreamboat candidate. But not so much for American citizens. We don’t need another Mexichurian Texas Republican, full of faux compassionate conservatism (aka screwing Americans to help illegal aliens and foreigners), in the White House. Been there, done that.
Back to the college tuition subsidy, I remain mystified why no Republican candidate pointed out that spending nearly $100k (in Texas) to educate illegal aliens is a complete waste of money because those foreigners will not be eligible to work legally after graduation. Plus, the illegal student takes a slot that should go to a citizen who will work and pay taxes upon getting a degree.
I couldn’t find a single video that included all the immigration issues brought up, so here are several, starting with Rep. Bachman:
Former Speaker Gingrich was quizzed on e-verify:
Gov. Perry stuck to his open-borders globalist ideology, while he still claims to be a conservative. Gov. Romney was not afraid to use the phrase “illegal alien” to refer to the perps:
Here is the transcript from Fox of the immigration segment:
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: Congresswoman Bachmann, as you well know, a number of states are trying to crack down on illegal immigration. We got a bunch of questions on immigration like this one from Tim Emerson, this is a text question so you don’t need to look up there. Tim Emerson of California.
He wrote this, “would you support each state enforcing the immigration laws since the federal government is not?”
Congresswoman, could you answer Tim’s question? And if your answer is yes, how do you square that with the constitution which says that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
BACHMANN: Well, the reason why he’s asking this question is because the federal government has failed the American people and has failed the states. It’s reprehensible that President Obama has sued the state of Arizona and the governor of Arizona for trying to protect the people in Arizona. That’s wrong.
BACHMANN: As president of the United States, I would do what my job would demand of me. That’s to uphold the sovereignty of the United States of America.
To do that, I would build a fence on America’s southern border on every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border. I think that’s what we have to do, not only build it, but then also have sufficient border security and enforce the laws that are on the books with the ICE agents, with our border security.
And here’s the other thing I would do. I would not allow taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens or for their children. Continue reading this article
Lampedusa, the southernmost island outpost of Italy has been overwhelmed for months by thousands of North Africans, who are mostly young males who don’t want to fight for freedom in the celebrated Arab Spring. They are using the chaos to pose as refugees in order to enter Europe and avail themselves of its wealth and generous welfare system.
Over the last year, more than 48,000 illegal alien opportunists have at various times deposited themselves on Lampedusa, which covers less than 8 square miles and has the unlucky position of being only 70 miles from Tunisia.
Below, North Africans created a tent city of trash on the island of Lampedusa.
Tensions have accumulated on the island as the faux refugees have demanded better treatment from their unwilling hosts as well as entrance to the full refrigerator that Europe represents. When a recent batch of 1500 Muslim boaters were told that they would be repatriated, they burned down the immigration center and proceeded to riot. Perhaps they were trying to say that Italy’s immigration system is broken, or is insufficiently celebratory of diversity.
A Pew poll from January 2010 showed that Italians had among the highest “anti-immigrant” sentiments on earth, although Pew didn’t bother to specify illegal immigration. Whatever the specifics of public opinion, the images of hostile demanders of entry can’t be going over well in Italy.
The video below describes attacks by the North Africans against local people, and the mayor said he had armed himself with a baseball bat and was prepared to defend himself and the citizens. Too bad the mayor isn’t better equipped for self-defense.
Eleven people have been injured after refugees clashed with riot police on the Italian island of Lampedusa after hundreds of protesters burned the reception centre down.
The devastating fire started on Tuesday night when the Tunisian migrants, protesting against their immediate repatriation, allegedly set fire to their bed mattresses. The blaze reduced much of the controversial centre to a smoking ruin.
On Wednesday violence broke out between riot police and refugees on the island. Three Italian Carabinieri, a policeman and seven Tunisians have been injured.
The fire dealt a heavy blow to Italy’s ability to deal with a continuing flood of refugees from North Africa in the wake of the popular revolts in Tunisia and Egypt and the civil war in Libya.
More than 48,000 have reached the shores of southern Italy since the start of the year.
Many of the 1,200 migrants held in the centre fled when three fires broke out late on Tuesday.
As police stationed on the island rounded them up, the fires blazed out of control and destroyed three buildings in the complex.
The fires were allegedly lit deliberately by Tunisians protesting against their imminent return home, having been ruled to be economic migrants rather than bona fide asylum seekers.
Bernardino De Rubeis, the outspoken mayor of the island, said he had been warning the government in Rome for days that tensions among the migrants were increasing to breaking point.
“In the past few days I raised the alarm more than once. Enough is now enough,” he said, calling for Silvio Berlusconi, the prime minister, to call an emergency cabinet meeting to discuss the crisis.
He said islanders were fed up with having to host so many migrants. “We’re in a war, and the people will react. There are people here who want to go out into the streets armed with clubs.”
The mayor demanded that Italian navy ships be sent to the island “immediately” in order to transfer the migrants to camps in Sicily and the mainland.
He said police and paramilitary Carabinieri officers should have responded to the arson much more forcefully.
“We can’t understand why police and Carabinieri go in hard against fans in football fans – their own compatriots – while on Lampedusa it’s completely different. We need a strong hand on the island too. People are tired of all this, they want to get back to living in peace.” Continue reading this article
When Rep. Peter King held his three investigative hearings about hostile Islam, the squawking from the usual fifth-column suspects was loud and long. As Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, King’s inquiries pursued the threats that diverse Islamic unfriendlies pose for the nation now. But protecting national security didn’t sound like a good reason to enemies such as CAIR, which supports the terrorist Hamas group.
There’s bad news for the friends of jihad though: a recent poll showed that American citizens approve of King’s hearings. Bogus accusations of racism and/or Islamophobia from professional Islo-squawkers just aren’t working any more, looks like.
While New York Republican Rep. Peter King’s recent hearings on radicalization have sparked controversy among interest groups and in the media, a recent poll shows that a majority of Americans are supportive of his efforts.
According to a national poll of 1,000 likely voters conducted last month by Democratic pollster Pat Caddell and Republican pollster John McLaughlin for Secure America Now, 63 percent of Americans support the King hearings and believe “they need to continue because they are providing information which is valuable and important to stop terrorism in the United States.”
Twenty percent said the hearings should be discontinued because “they are offensive to Muslims and a waste of tax payer dollars.” Seventeen percent did not know, or refused to answer.
Rep. King welcomed the results, saying that they show his effort has broad support.
“The results of this poll demonstrate broad public support for the series of hearings that I convened in March to examine the ongoing and real threat of terrorist radicalization within the Muslim-American community,” King said, adding that the campaign to demonize him has not worked. Continue reading this article
At the end of WWII, Europe thought it would be a good idea to import some Arab temp workers for the big rebuilding project, who would then return to their backward homelands in a few years. But how you gonna keep ‘em down on the farm after they’ve seen Paree? Or something.
Praying in the streets of Paris is against the law starting Friday, after the interior minister warned that police will use force if Muslims, and those of any other faith, disobey the new rule to keep the French capital’s public spaces secular. [. . .]
But the public worship, the blocked streets, and the private security were already illegal, according to a 2010 report from CBN, the video from which is below.
The whole aim of the Muslims’ weekly pray-ins has been to intimidate Paris by showing their ability to overpower the streets whenever they please. The behavior is a reminder that annoying blockages could quickly spiral into civil unrest, like rioting for days or even weeks, as happened in 2005 all over France following the accidental electrocution of a couple of Muslim teens. When a gaggle of Muslims gets miffed, bad things can happen.
No surprise, the Muslims ignored the current proclamation. Perhaps the French authorities will organize some sort of enforcement next week to cope with their Muslim diversity.
PARIS — Hundreds of Muslims defied a French ban on outdoor prayer — which came into force Friday –and took to the streets and sidewalks of Paris to pray.
The French government announced Thursday it was banning praying outside, with officials pledging to enforce the ban from Friday.
But 200 Muslims ignored the ban and prayed on the streets in the neighborhood of La Goutte d’Or, Le Parisien newspaper reported.
French interior minister Claude Gueant said he had nothing against Islam but wanted it out of the public eye because France was a secular state.
He added, “Street prayers must stop because they hurt the feelings of many of our compatriots who are shocked by the occupation of the public space for a religious practice.”
Although officials would persuade people to pray in mosques, Muslims who continued to pray in the street would be arrested, Gueant warned.
The ban angered French Muslim leaders who said Muslims only prayed outdoors because of a lack of space in mosques in France.
The outdoor prayer ban is the latest move by the French government to remove Islam from the public sphere. Laws prohibiting students wearing headscarves in schools and banning women from wearing the full Muslim veil — the niqab –in public came into force in April.
Senator Scott Brown, who won a 2010 special election to fill the seat vacated by Ted Kennedy’s death, spoke up this week to support Secure Communities to better administer the government function of policing foreign criminals.
Under Secure Communities, the fingerprints of a person who has been arrested are sent to be analyzed for immigration status as well as to check for criminal background. Common sense, most Americans would agree — not “controversial” as many dinosaur media reports portray.
Senator Brown sent a letter (see below) recommending the adoption of the program to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who refuses allow his state to take part in it because participation might lead to “profiling.”
Interestingly, Senator Brown might be running against consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren in the 2012 election, who says that she opposes Secure Communities.
U.S. Sen. Scott Brown asked the governor today to back a controversial measure that would allow law enforcement to track illegal aliens, playing to his Republican base on the same day a tough new challenger joined the race for his job.
In his letter, Brown writes to Gov. Deval Patrick urging for “full and immediate Massachusetts participation” in the Secure Communities program.
“During a Senate Homeland Security committee hearing yesterday, President Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano described Secure Communities as ‘a key tool in our immigration enforcement efforts to identify those in the country illegally who are also committing other crimes, are fugitives from existing warrants, are multiple illegal entrants or security concerns,’ ” Brown writes. “I agree with Secretary Napolitano, and believe that Secure Communities plays an important role in keeping America safe.”
Brown’s letter comes as former Obama administration official and Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren enters the Democratic primary for Brown’s Senate seat. She backed the governor’s stance on Secure Communities during a campaign stop in Framingham today.
“I think there’s a real question about whether or not this bill really makes communities more secure,” Warren said. “If people feel like they can’t go to the police … that doesn’t make us more secure. I think we really have to think much harder about the ways to make American communities more secure.” Continue reading this article
A recent poll in Canada indicates that the propaganda project to portray Islam as consistent with Western values is not going over very well. Many people recognize the historical nature of the conflict between Islam and everyone else, calling the culture clash “irreconcilable.”
A majority of Canadians believes conflict between Western nations and the Muslim world is “irreconcilable,” according to a new national survey that revealed a strong strain of pessimism in the country leading up to Sunday’s 10th anniversary commemorations of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.
The survey of 1,500 Canadians, conducted over three days last week for the Montreal-based Association for Canadian Studies, showed 56% of respondents see Western and Muslim societies locked in an unending ideological struggle, while about 33% — just one-third of the population — held out hope that the conflict will eventually be overcome. Continue reading this article
Do these candidate creatures ever think about what they are saying? Even self-identified conservatives prattle on with the most ridiculous jabber about the revered institution of immigration: Rick Santorum says that immigration is the “lifeblood of this country” like the American nation is a junkie in need of a diversity fix.
He went on to recite reverent tripe about how his father and grandfather were legal immigrants, like he could do it in his sleep.
Wanna-be political leaders should instead talk about what immigration is going to do to their grandchildren when they live in an overcrowded diverse country of half a billion before mid-century.
Such was the level of immigration discourse when Wolf Blitzer MC’ed Monday’s Republican debate with a few questions supplied by Tea Party members. Although having the issue in the Presidential debates at all is a big improvement over previous campaigns.
But the one-time Pennsylvania Senator was positively bright in comparison with the Texas frontrunner.
Gov. Rick Perry seemed miffed about being booed over his taxpayer-subsidized in-state tuition for illegal aliens. He insisted that it was a states’ rights issue for him to take college slots from young citizens to give to aliens, while taxing unwilling Americans to underwrite the foreigners.
Nobody was smart enough to argue back that college graduate illegal aliens still cannot work legally in this country.
Perry had the nerve to suggest that it was somehow anti-Mexican or racist to enforce immigration laws, saying twice about the tuition break, “regardless of what the sound of their last name is.”
He also noted the special relationship of his state with its southern neighbor: “the state of Texas where Mexico has a clear and a long relationship with this state.”
Mitt Romney had the best overall answer to the whole worry about how Republicans can appeal to hispanics, saying that they come to work rather than collect welfare, so the rule-of-law party should be appealing to them.
BLITZER: Welcome back to the CNN Tea Party Republican presidential debate. We’re here in Tampa. But we’re taking questions from across the country. Let’s go to Cincinnati. Please identify yourself and ask the question.
QUESTION: Yes, what — what would you do — what would you do to remove the illegal immigrants from our country?
Most Washington Republicans have been curiously silent about immigration enforcement since returning from their August recess, during which the President enacted his executive amnesty.
Not so with dependable sovereignty defender, Rep. Steve King (R-IA). He wants a Congressional hearing to question Obama’s drunk-driving illegal alien Uncle Omar. Rep. King also thinks the House must oppose the President’s usurpation of Congressional authority to amnesty foreign lawbreakers which ignored years of rejected legislation.
As another of President Obama’s illegal alien relatives gets preferential treatment, King renews call for Congressional hearings
Washington, D.C.- Congressman Steve King (R-IA) today released the following statement renewing his calls for Congressional hearings into President Obama’s recently announced program that grants Executive Amnesty to illegal aliens. King’s statement is issued in the wake of media reports that President Obama’s drunken, illegal alien uncle, Omar Onyango Obama, has been released from the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Prior to his release, “Uncle Omar” Obama was being held subject to a 1992 deportation order, which was uncovered following “Uncle Omar’s” recent arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence, driving to endanger, and failing to use a turn signal. According to the Boston Globe, Federal immigration officials are only willing to confirm that Obama is “not in custody”, and they will not reveal whether he was released on bond, whether they are aware of his whereabouts, or whether they are still seeking his deportation.
“President Obama’s Uncle, Uncle Omar, has been picked up for drunken driving with almost twice the blood alcohol level that is allowable by law in Massachusetts. It’ll be the third time that he’s been interdicted with regard to being an illegal immigrant. He’s twice before been adjudicated for deportation, this time Immigrations and Customs Enforcement just released him, after they had him in custody, as if he’s not going to be a danger to our society.”
“The special privileges for the president’s family who are illegal immigrants, this is the second one. His Aunt Zeituni was also picked up as an illegal immigrant and finally granted an asylum by ICE, by the Department of Homeland Security. We need to have Congressional hearings into favorite treatment of the White House. This executive amnesty that the President has ordered, that they’re not going to enforce immigration law, and who pops up first? Drunken Uncle Omar. I want to subpoena drunken Uncle Omar to come into the House Judiciary Committee along with his attorney, who’s the same attorney that President Obama’s Aunt Zeituni had that got her asylum.”
“We must enforce our immigration laws and we must enforce those immigration laws equally across all society. Justice has got to be blind, it can’t play favorites, and I want to have hearings in the House Judiciary Committee over drunken Uncle Omar.”
On August 29, Congressman King suggested that drunken “Uncle Omar” Obama could be the first beneficiary of the President’s new Executive Amnesty for Illegal Aliens program. With today’s revelations, it appears that Congressman King’s suspicions were correct, and that the Obama administration may have used the new rules to grant amnesty to the President’s uncle.
It is also worth noting that this is not the first time an illegal alien relative of President Obama has appeared to benefit from preferential treatment. Last year, President Obama’s illegal alien aunt, Zeituni Onyango, had a deportation order overturned despite the fact that her previous request for asylum, made prior to her nephew becoming President, had already been rejected.
Note to Tea Party patriots: Perry looks good when he is shooting up targets at the range, but he is way too friendly with Mexican interests. He is all sombrero and no cattle when it comes to the border.
In addition, Perry supports the worst kind of diversity, signing a bill that put Texas in the position of policing Islamic dietary laws (see Republicans: Just Say NO to Islamic Sharia Law). Whatever happened to the separation of church, er mosque and state?
Commentary on the Rick Perry-Mitt Romney showdown at the GOP debate has focused on Perry’s “Ponzi scheme” critique of Social Security. It’s an important issue, and Perry will have to rethink the way he talks about Social Security in coming days. But not enough attention has been paid to Perry’s performance on an issue that could be his undoing in the GOP race: immigration.
The bottom line of Wednesday’s debate is that Perry, governor of a border state for more than a decade, didn’t have much to say about immigration. When asked how he would secure the U.S.-Mexican border, his answer was “boots on the ground” — Border Patrol agents — and more unmanned drone aircraft. That was about all Perry had to say, beyond criticizing President Obama. “For the president of the United States to go to El Paso, Texas, and say that the border is safer than it’s ever been, either he has some of the poorest intel of a president in the history of this country, or he was an abject liar to the American people,” Perry said. “It is not safe on that border.”
But what to do about it? Romney was more prepared for the question. First, he called for a fence along the border. Then, he called for more U.S. agents to secure the fence. And then he called for measures to turn off what he called the “magnet” drawing illegal immigrants to the United States. “Sanctuary cities, giving tuition breaks to the kids of illegal aliens, employers that knowingly hire people who are here illegally — those things also have to be stopped,” Romney said. Continue reading this article
Oh, look. The President’s drunk-driving illegal alien uncle, Oyango Obama, has been released from jail, with no forwarding address for the public. What a surprise. Out of sight, out of mind, the suits must think.
White House press secretary Jay Carney promised the mysterious relative’s situation would be “handled like any other immigration case” so Oyongo-gate may be just another marker of Obama administration non-enforcement.
At least Uncle Omar didn’t kill anyone, as so many other foreigners have in our country.
Another item of interest is that Uncle Omar came as a college student, because Washington elites think education is a cheap way to teach foreigners to like America (e.g. 690,923 studied during the 2009/10 academic year). The problem is how frequently the auslanders like America too much and never leave.
US officials refused to disclose any other information about Onyango Obama, who remained in the United States undetected until Framingham police arrested him Aug. 24 on drunken driving and other charges.
Yesterday, federal immigration officials refused to say whether the 67-year-old Framingham resident posted bond, whether they are keeping track of his whereabouts, or even whether they are still seeking his deportation, raising questions about public accountability in the case.
The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement website confirmed Obama’s release by listing him as “not in custody.”
Although the website confirmed it, Brian P. Hale, an agency spokesman, said he would not comment on the case because privacy laws and the agency’s policies prohibit it. He said the database is accurate, however.
As a result of the immigration agency’s refusal to discuss the case, it is unclear what happened to Obama after he left the Plymouth County House of Correction – or whether he could be returned to jail.
An official at the Plymouth County House of Correction who would not give his name said yesterday afternoon that Obama was no longer in custody. He had been taken to Burlington, where US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has offices, he said.
In Framingham, the people who shared a modest frame house with Obama on a residential street said they did not know where he was. A co-worker at Conti Liquors, where Obama worked, said they had not heard of his release.
His Cleveland lawyers, Margaret Wong and Scott Bratton, were unavailable for comment, and an assistant said they had not been notified that he was released.
Onyango Obama was the half-brother of the president’s late father. At the time of his arrest, Obama allegedly told Framingham police, “I think I will call the White House” to arrange bail.
But last week the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said the president did not expect his uncle to receive special treatment.
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors tougher limits on immigration, said the immigration agency should be more transparent, especially in a case involving a relative of the president. She said the public deserves to know the circumstances of Obama’s release, since he violated a deportation order and is accused of drunken driving. In a criminal court, she said, that would be public information.
Obama pleaded not guilty in Framingham District Court to charges of drunken driving, negligent operation, and failing to yield.
“This whole nonsense about privacy is a policy,” Vaughan said. “It’s not the law. It’s a choice that [the immigration agency] is making. I think it’s very cowardly on [the agency's] part, to be honest. Their behavior shows that they don’t want to be accountable to anybody.” 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.