Rasmussen Poll: Voters Oppose Benefits for Illegal Aliens

President Obama may think he can “rekindle excitement among hispanic voters” (in the characterization of the Washington Post) with his administrative amnesty, but American voters as a whole are not impressed with the trend toward erasure of citizenship.

Somewhat surprising is that a majority of voters object to public school for illegal alien kiddies. Apparently “the children” are no longer sacrosanct when taxpayers feel beleaguered by the costs of so many millions, plus the failing standards of schools overwhelmed by diverse kids who don’t speak English.

Most Voters Oppose Public Schooling, Tuition Breaks, Driver’s Licenses For Illegal Immigrants, Rasmussen Reports, August 23, 2011

The Obama administration announced last week that it was slowing the deportation process for “low priority” immigration cases to focus on illegal immigrants with criminal records. Critics complain the move is intended to get around Congress’ refusal to pass the so-called Dream Act aimed at providing a path to citizenship for those who came to the country illegally before age 16.  But a majority of voters remain opposed to giving the children of illegal immigrants the same educational opportunities as those who are here legally.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that only 32% of Likely U.S. Voters believe children of parents in this country illegally should be allowed to attend public school here. Fifty-three percent (53%) do not believe those young illegal immigrants should be allowed to attend public school. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Last September, just 20% said local government should be required to provide a public school education for a child brought into the United States illegally by his or her parents. Sixty-four percent (64%) disagreed and said local governments should not be required to educate them.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters believe parents should be required to prove they are legal residents of the United States when registering their child for public school. Twenty-one percent (21%) oppose such a requirement.

Several states have made illegal immigrants eligible for lower in-state tuition at colleges and universities, but 81% of voters oppose such a move in their state. Just 12% think illegal immigrants should be eligible for these tuition breaks in their home state. Opposition to allowing illegal immigrants to be eligible for in-state tuition is slightly stronger than it was back in October 2007. [. . .]

Some states also have authorized the issuance of driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Just 18% of voters believe illegal immigrants should be allowed to obtain U.S. driver’s licenses. Seventy-four percent (74%) are opposed to driver’s licenses for illegals. These findings also have changed little since November 2007. Most Republicans (70%) and voters not affiliated with either political party (57%) don’t think children of illegal immigrants should be allowed to attend public schools. Half of Democrats (50%) disagree. But sizable majorities of all three groups oppose giving driver’s licenses and in-state tuition breaks to illegal immigrants in their states.

Tea Party voters are more strongly opposed than non-members to any beneficial moves on behalf of illegal immigrants.

Most Political Class voters (52%) support children of illegal immigrants attending public schools in the United States; 64% of Mainstream voters are opposed. Those in the Mainstream are almost twice as likely as the Political Class to oppose in-state tuition and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

Even as the Obama administration moves to slow the pace of deportation for illegal immigrants, voters continue to believe strongly that gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States.

When voters were asked in October 2007 whether children of illegal immigrants who finish two years of college should be “given” citizenship, 59% said no. But last September, when voters were asked if children of illegal immigrants who finish two years of college should be given “a chance” at citizenship, 52% said yes.

Only 32% of voters now believe a child born in this country to an illegal immigrant should automatically become a U.S. citizen, as is the current practice. That’s generally consistent with findings since April 2006.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) think a state should have the right to enforce immigration laws if it believes the federal government is not enforcing them. Most voters also continue to believe that policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration.

Unsafe Streets: Child Killed in California Crosswalk by Illegal Alien

A little four-year-old boy was struck by a car in a Santa Rosa crosswalk Thursday afternoon as he walked to soccer practice with his mom and two sisters, one of whom was his twin. He died the next morning in the hospital.

Christopher “Buddy” Rowe (pictured) was hit by a man driving a Honda Accord who then sped off. Fortunately a local resident, Leroy Flach, heard about the hit-and-run on his police scanner and spotted the car, whose driver switched off into a Volvo driven by a woman. Flach got the license number and the driver was quickly arrested, due to the attention of a concerned citizen.

The driver turned out to be an illegal alien, Marcos Lopez Garcia, who had two prior arrests for driving without a license. The most recent arrest was just five days before the hit-and-run; at that time Garcia was merely told not to drive until his court appearance in October — rather than be deported.

Why should any illegal alien be left in this country to endanger public safety when he has shown himself to have no respect for American law or sovereignty? Why do we even have police if they no longer enforce one law for all? In America today, the illegal alien is a special person who is not required to obey the law as we little citizens must.

You can see more about Buddy at his family’s remembrance website, ChristopherBuddyRowe.

4-year-old hit-run victim in Santa Rosa identified, San Francisco Chronicle, August 22, 2011

Authorities have identified the 4-year-old boy who was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver in Santa Rosa last week while walking to soccer practice with his mother, his twin sister and his 6-year-old sister.

Christopher “Buddy” Rowe was hit at about 6 p.m. Thursday at West Ninth Street and Rockwell Place near Jacobs Park in Santa Rosa. He clung to life at Children’s Hospital Oakland, his family said in a statement today, but “his heart finally gave way” Friday morning.

“Little Buddy will be remembered as an energetic, curious, active young boy who was also kind, compassionate and caring, especially with his twin sister,” the family said. “We will always remember his ever-present smile, beautiful steel blue eyes and peace-loving nature.

“The man who stole Buddy’s life from us will be one day free,” the family said, “but we will always carry the burden of losing him forever.” Continue reading this article

Robert Rector Totes Up Tax Dollars for Poverty Programs

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation is an expert on poverty, welfare and immigration (particularly the cost of low-skilled immigrants to the taxpayer). He appeared on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal program on Saturday morning (August 20).

He has researched the government’s anti-poverty efforts and found over 70 separate federal programs spending over $900 billion this year to supply poor people with food, housing, healthcare and other welfare items. That works out to $20,000 per poor person.

Rector’s recent study about poverty analyzed the kind of lifestyle many designated poor people live by examining the household items owned, from refrigerators to cable TV and X-box games. The point being that the poverty in which some contemporary Americans live is not so bad.

Immigrants were not the point of the interview. However, as Steve Camarota pointed out in recent research, the foreign born use welfare programs at far higher rates than US-born persons (see Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children).

In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

One can assume that it is more than just employment that keeps immigrants and illegal aliens in this country. They come for the jobs, but may stay for the free stuff when the employment disappears.

Central American Illegal Aliens Create Havoc as They Transit Mexico

According to the elite liberal media, the illegal immigration tsunami is over, but all indications point to business as usual in the human flood coming this way.

One little-reported aspect is the aggravation suffered by Mexicans as the moocher mobs move north to rip off America.

In Tultitlan, Mexican townsfolk are angry about the criminal hoards from further south who traipse through in the thousands committing crimes and causing trouble on their way to the United States.

A recent unpleasantry in the town was the death by stoning of a Guatemalan teen who had been arrested a few days earlier for several robberies. It’s not much of a stretch to think do-it-yourself justice if the thieving kid was walking around the streets and not in the slammer. Vigilante behavior tends to occur when there is no functioning state or when people believe that the government won’t protect them. Unfortunately, Mexican mobs tend to get carried away and over-administer punishment.

At any rate, the incident is an example of the anarchy that can occur when illegal aliens are allowed to run amok while citizens are held to the traditional standards of law.

Below, the Mexican view of “they keep coming.” Central Americans by the thousands cause plenty of trouble on their way to the United States.

Also noteworthy is the positive treatment of the local Mexicans’ complaints, something that Americans don’t get from the dinosaur media when they voice similar concerns.

Teen’s stoning death in Mexico stirs controversy, Houston Chronicle, August 21, 2011

TULTITLAN, Mexico – The killing of a Guatemalan teenager has rubbed raw anew Mexicans’ often contentious relations with the thousands of Central Americans illegally traversing the country on their way to the United States.

Julio Cardona, 19, had arrived this month in Tultitlan, a gritty factory and rail hub on Mexico City’s northern edge, where his battered body was found five days later beside the tracks. Hours before, he had been arrested by city police for allegedly robbing several Mexican men.

“They had beaten him to death with stones,” said Ireneo Mojica, a leader of a group of activists pressing for better treatment of the migrants. “There is nothing new in this. How many migrants have been assaulted here?”

Two city policemen have been arrested in relation to the killing.

“He didn’t deserve this,” said Angie Cubas, 21, a Honduran who had befriended Cardona a few days before he was killed on Aug. 7. “We are just passing through. We don’t cause problems for anyone.”

Police and residents of the neighborhood where Cardona died blame the worsening friction caused by the sheer number of migrants pouring through, and the crimes committed by some of them.

Human rights advocates emphasize that the teen’s death merely punctuates Central Americans’ long sequence of suffering – forced labor and kidnapping, robbery and murder – at Mexican hands.

The debate is familiar in many U.S. communities where illegal immigration has been praised as a boon and cursed as a bane for decades – and yet jarring for Mexico, where defending the rights of its citizens living illegally north of the border is a political and social touchstone.

“The problem is that we Mexicans talk against the treatment of our people in the United States, but we are worse toward the migrants,” said Sergio Guevara, a Roman Catholic priest who helps oversee the shelter where Cardona stayed. “We are nationalistic, very bad with the Central Americans.” Continue reading this article

Rasmussen Poll: Voters Prefer Border Enforcement to Amnesty by Two to One

President Obama’s recent administrative amnesty runs contrary to the public will (not to mention the Constitutional limits to Presidential power) as shown by recent polling.

Despite the media’s relentless propaganda about the bogus desirability of illegals, e.g. young aliens in student costumes demanding taxpayer-subsidized college educations, the voting public remains firm in favoring enforcement over rewards for lawbreakers.

Obama’s amnesty with work permits takes place amid the worst unemployment crisis in America since the Great Depression, and will displace citizens from scarce jobs. The amnesty sends the message to the world that even terrible suffering by Americans will not cause Washington to get serious about border and workplace enforcement. Would-be illegal aliens understand that if they make it over the porous border into the interior, they will not be deported under the Obama reign.

Voters Put Border Control Ahead of Amnesty by 2-1 Margin, Rasmussen Reports, August 20, 2011

Even as the Obama administration moves to slow the pace of deportation for illegal immigrants, voters continue to believe strongly that gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows that 61% say gaining control of the border is most important when it comes to immigration reform, while 31% say it’s more important to legalize the status of the illegal immigrants who are already here. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

At the same time, 57% of voters agree that the goal of U.S. immigration policy should be to keep out national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system. Beyond that, all immigrants would be welcome. Twenty-five percent (25%) disagree with this kind of immigration policy. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided.

Results for both questions have remained consistent in surveys going back to 2006.

Voters are showing less concern that anti-immigration efforts also will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens, and most continue to oppose automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrants. [. . .]

Most Republicans (83%) and voters not affiliated with either political party (63%) say border control is the top priority of any immigration reform effort. A majority (54%) of Democrats say legalizing the status of the illegal immigrants already in this country is more important.

Ninety percent (90%) of Tea Party members put border control first, compared to 53% of non-members. Continue reading this article

Multilingual Ballots Opposed

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) says he wants to end the federal bilingual ballot requirement.

Actually, he should oppose multilingual ballots, because here in uber-diverse California, some counties are forced by Washington to produce election materials in several languages. Federal law required Los Angeles County to provide ballots and materials in six languages as of 2005.

Furthermore, language diversity does not come cheap: For the November 2004 general election in LA County, the cost of providing written translations and bilingual poll workers amounted to $2.1 million out of the total cost of $16.3 million.

That’s all very twisted, since voting requires American citizenship, and American citizenship requires the ability to speak and understand English.

Aside from cost and legal prerequisites, polling shows a large majority of the American people continue to believe that immigrants should adopt America’s culture, language and heritage.

Those basic facts make Rep. Coffman’s legislative proposal sound like common sense.

Colorado congressman wants ballots printed only in English, Denver Post, August 18, 2011

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman announced plans Wednesday to introduce legislation that would repeal a section of the 1973 Voting Rights Act that requires jurisdictions with large populations of nonproficient English speakers to print ballots in more than one language.

Coffman, R-Colo., asserts that Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act is an unnecessary and unfunded federal mandate that can be a financial hardship for some jurisdictions because of the increased cost of translating and printing election materials and mailing larger ballots.

“Since proficiency in English is already a requirement for U.S. citizenship, forcing cash-strapped local governments to provide ballots in a language other than English makes no sense at all,” Coffman said.

Applicants for naturalization must demonstrate an ability to read, write, speak and understand a limited amount of basic English. Continue reading this article

Norway Is in Denial about Muslim Misogyny

The excellent CBN report below is curiously misnamed “‪Norway Tackles Muslim Immigration‬.”

But there is precious little “tackling” going on. A handful of Norwegian women are speaking out about the danger to women’s rights and safety from Islamic culture, but they are condemned by the majority liberal society for saying unkind things about Muslims. Meanwhile blonde Norwegian women dye their hair black and travel in groups for safety.

One of the outspoken women interviewed by Dale Hurd is Hege Storhaug, about whom I blogged earlier this summer. She could probably be called a recovering liberal, given her contact with Muslim behavior which unravelled her faith in multiculturalism.

Once again, CBN leads the way among broadcasters for fearlessly telling the truth about Islam and the effects of hostile Muslims in Western societies. This brief piece is far superior to the recent special on honor killing on Fox which completely avoided the subject of Islamic misogyny.

We in America would be wise to observe carefully the failed European experience with Muslim immigration. As Dutch political leader Geert Wilders has said, “Islamism and democracy are incompatible. The more Islam we have, the more freedom we will lose.”

America needs to stop Muslim immigration before it’s too late.

Culture Crisis: Norway Tackles Muslim Immigration, CBN News, By Dale Hurd, August 18, 2011

OSLO, Norway — It’s been almost a month since innocent Norwegians were killed by a lunatic obsessed with the threat of Islam.

But the terrible tragedy has not stopped civil debate in Norway over the impact of Muslim immigration.

Several weeks before the massacre in Norway, CBN News travelled to Oslo to investigate reports that that nation’s experiment with Muslim immigration and multiculturalism had gone terribly wrong, that Muslim radicalism was growing along with violence and intimidation against non-Muslims.

Islamists Target Women
In the wake of the killings, some on Norway’s political left call the fear of Islamization a “conspiracy theory.”

However, there are real victims – and they are mostly Norway’s women. Norway has never faced such problems before.

Even though Norway is a democracy, some Norwegian women do not have full rights. They are denied them by their families, and they live in fear for their lives.

At the Red Cross office in Oslo, Monica Berge-Tukh and Anne Marte Stifjeld take calls from Norwegian girls who face honor violence, forced marriage or genital mutilation.

“We get calls from girls and we really get a bad feeling in our stomach that something is seriously wrong,” Berge-Tukh told CBN News. “Most of the girls tell us ‘I never thought about it’ or ‘I never thought it would happen because I live in Norway.’ ”

They not only live in Norway but were born in Norway and speak Norwegian. Still, their rights are not protected and they are controlled by their families.

“A lot of them have been threatened and beaten,” Berge-Tukh explained. “They tell us about a lot of social control, so when they  become like 10 or 12 years old (their family members) start following her to school just to control that she is not having any contact with boys because ‘good girls don’t do that.’”

An Eye-Opening Encounter
Hege Storhaug was a self-described “naïve left-wing journalist” when an encounter with an immigrant woman changed her life and her career.
”In 1992, as a journalist, I met a young Norwegian born Pakistani woman, only 18 years old. And she had been married at gunpoint in Pakistan to her second cousin,” Storhaug recalled.

“I was so shocked when she said ‘My parents were willing to kill me if I didn’t enter into this marriage, to protect their own honor,’” she said.

Storhaug now works full-time to protect immigrant women and girls from forced marriage, genital mutilation and honor violence.

Women, she says, have been abandoned by the Norwegian government and deprived of their rights as citizens – like four Norwegian girls all sent to Gambia for genital mutilation.

“Their parents just dumped them in Gambia, their country of origin where the girls, ages 3-9, were all genitally mutilated,” Storhaug told CBN News. “They have been stripped of the possibility to become a full member of this society, and we have allowed it, we have allowed it.”

Storhaug, who works on behalf of the rights of women, has been called a “racist” and “Islamophobe” by the some on the left in Norway.

Rape Epidemic
Something else that Muslim immigration appears to have brought to Norway is what some here call “a rape epidemic.”

Recent police statistics showed that in the capital city of Oslo, 100 percent of assault rapes between strangers were committed by immigrant, non-Western males. And nine out of 10 of their victims were native Norwegian women.

To protect themselves, some blonde Norwegian women have reportedly begun dying their hair black, and many travel only in groups. Continue reading this article

Obama Orders Work Permits for Illegal Aliens, Plus Fewer Deportations

As an advocate for the crime victims of illegal aliens, I believe that violent offenders and drunk drivers should be the top priority for arrest and imprisonment followed by deportation.

At the same time, job thieves (i.e. the eight million illegals estimated by Pew Hispanic to unlawfully hold US employment) absolutely should not be ignored. Illegally occupied jobs should be liberated by strategies like workplace raids, e-verify and no-match letters from Social Security informing employers that a worker’s SS number and name don’t agree.

Eject the illegals and open up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans: it is an immediate partial solution for the wrenching crisis that has caused immense suffering.

Illegal aliens come for jobs and the ensuing cash, plus the moochable benefits like free-to-them healthcare and food. They may say they come for a better life for the kiddies with education and similar noble-sounding sentiments, but really, they want more money now. Everything else is either secondary or BS.

As a result of years of demands for amnesty from his La Raza base, the Obama administration has expanded its stealth program of lessened deportations under the Morton memo to now include work permits.

In other words, Obama is giving lawbreaking foreigners their most desired prize — full legal entrance to the American workplace. It is a 90 percent amnesty that omits only citizenship — but illegals don’t care about that. The work authorization is gold.

Interestingly, not all news reports mentioned the work permit aspect, including Politico and Yahoo. In this case, the Associated Press comes out looking good for more thorough reporting.

US undertaking case-by-case review on deportation, Associated Press, Aug 18, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration said Thursday it will indefinitely delay deporting many illegal immigrants who don’t have criminal records and will offer them a chance to apply for a work permit. The government will focus on sending back convicted criminals and those who might be a national security or public safety threat.

The policy change will mean a case-by-case review of approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants facing possible deportation in federal immigration courts, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

Advocates for an immigration overhaul contend the administration has failed to live up to its promise to only deport the “worst of the worst,” as President Barack Obama has said.

“From a law enforcement and public safety perspective, DHS enforcement resources must continue to be focused on our highest priorities,” Napolitano wrote a group of senators involved in supporting immigration legislation. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.

“Doing otherwise hinders our public safety mission – clogging immigration court dockets and diverting DHS enforcement resources away from the individuals who pose a threat to public safety.”

In June, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent a memo to agents outlining when and how they could use discretion in immigration cases. That guidance also covered those potentially subject to a legislative proposal, known as the DREAM Act, intended to give young illegal immigrants who go to college or serve in the military a chance at legal status.

The memo from John Morton also suggested that agents consider how long someone has been in the United State, whether that person’s spouse or children are U.S. citizens and whether or not that person has a criminal record.

A senior administration official said delaying deportation decisions in cases for some noncriminals would allow the quicker deportation of serious criminals. The indefinite stay will not give illegal immigrants a path to legal permanent residency, but will let them apply for a work permit. Continue reading this article

Republicans: Just Say NO to Totalitarian Islamic Sharia

It should be easy for Republican Presidential candidates to declare their total loyalty to the Constitution, period. After all, the oath of office requires they swear to defend it:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Given the Tea Party emphasis on the Constitution, the disavowal of less worthy ideologies like communism and Islamic sharia law should not be much to ask, and many might wonder why it is necessary. But Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch.org makes a good case that the Reeps should state clearly that authoritarian sharia law has no place in America.

Our nation is based on the equality of justice under the law, while Islam decrees that male Muslims are superior to everyone else on earth, with mandated mistreatment of lowly infidels and women to keep them in their oppressed place.

Surprisingly, some highly regarded conservative candidates and Republican leaders have disturbing activities on behalf of Islam.

While Texas Governor Rick Perry was widely reported for praying in public, his generosity toward Islam has gotten less attention. In 2003, the Governor helped pass legislation that arguably puts the Texas state government in the position of enforcing Islamic dietary laws, a part of sharia, by making it a criminal offense to sell Halal and non-Halal meat in the same store and mislabeling the items. (See Rick Perry and Islam in the Sultan Knish blog for details.)

Below, Governor Perry pleased Muslims by signing the Texas Halal Law.

Another conservative favorite is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, admired in particular for his chainsaw cuts in bloated budgets and straight-talk style. However, he does not believe hostile Islam poses a threat to Western civilization, as increasing numbers of Americans do (including candidate Gingrich). Christie ranted in July, “So this Sharia law business is crap. It’s just crazy.”

In 2010, 70 percent of Oklahoma voters approved a no-sharia initiative, so the electorate of one state doesn’t think the threat is “crap.” Apparently they didn’t believe the liberal propaganda that Islamic diversity was worth celebrating.

Daniel Pipes’ blog has the relevant details: Why Chris Christie Will Never Be President of the United States.

As is often the case, Muslim immigrants are seen by pols as a minority group that needs some special pandering to attract their votes. The politicians hope that their embrace of a hostile and alien ideology will go unnoticed by traditional Americans. Fortunately, the internet doesn’t forget.

With that brief introduction to the scope of the problem, here is Robert Spencer’s article:

GOP Candidates Must Declare Opposition to Sharia, Human Events, August 16, 2011

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has set many a heart a-flutter by joining the hunt for the Republican presidential nomination, but not so fast:  Hard-Left advocacy journalist Justin Elliott of Salon hailed Perry as the “pro-Sharia candidate,” and exulted that Perry “is a friend of the the Aga Khan, the religious leader of the Ismailis, a sect of Shia Islam that claims a reported 15 to 20 million adherents worldwide.  Sprouting from that friendship are at least two cooperation agreements between the state of Texas and Ismaili institutions, including a far-reaching program to educate Texas schoolchildren about Islam.”

The Ismailis are a peaceful sect, but such educational efforts are unlikely to be honest about the Islamic texts and teachings that jihad terrorists use to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims.  Nor are they likely to be forthright about Islam’s bloody history of war against and conquest and subjugation of Jews, Christians, Hindus and others.  All that is likely to be whitewashed, especially given Perry’s apparent friendship with Republican power broker Grover Norquist.

David Horowitz wrote years ago that Norquist was working with “prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities.”  Norquist is unrepentant and continues to partner with Islamic supremacists.

Also among the presidential hopefuls, albeit as yet undeclared, is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who this year appointed a Muslim attorney, Sohail Mohammed, to a Superior Court judgeship in Passaic County.  Mohammed was the lawyer for Mohammad Qatanani, a Muslim Brotherhood operative who pleaded guilty to membership in the jihad terror group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Christie knew this, yet called Qatanani “a man of great good will” and “a constructive force,” and fought Department of Homeland Security efforts to deport him.  When challenged, Christie defended his actions and went out of his way to slam opposition to Sharia in the U.S. as “crap.” Continue reading this article

Illegal Aliens Discourage Public Safety

In case there was ever any doubt that the open-borders gang consistently acts in bad faith, consider the issue of Secure Communities. Under that program, local officials fingerprint persons already in jail and check the prints with a Washington database to see whether the prisoner is an illegal alien.

Common sense, right?

No, in the minds of La Raza and similar fifth columnists. They would rather allow dangerous foreign criminals to stay (who often prey upon hispanics) than support public safety for all.

The arguably most egregious photo of an artful collection of propaganda shots included with the AP story was of “Jaquelin Minero, 12″ (shown) — holding a sign and clutching a doll.

How many 12-year-olds carry around dolls? Those schoolgirl braids are suspicious as well — is that even real hair? Normally braids thin out toward the end. In any case, the picture is obviously posed for media effect.

Does the liberal dinosaur press mind being played for a fool by Raza schemers, or is it a willing participant in carrying the agenda of one of its favorite “victim” groups?

Immigrants plead for end to fingerprint sharing, Associated Press, August 17, 2011

Immigrants who say they were hauled into jail for selling ice cream without a permit and for reporting being the victim of domestic violence had one message for a federal government task force assigned to review an information-sharing effort that gives immigration authorities access to the fingerprints of arrestees.

End the program.

More than 200 people, many wearing signs reading “Terminate Secure Communities” and carrying flags from countries including Mexico and Brazil, packed a conference room in Los Angeles Monday night to recount their experiences with a program they say is making immigrants reluctant to report crime to police out of fear of getting deported.

“Every day I live the nightmare of this program,” said Blanca Perez, 38, who said she was arrested in February for street vending without a permit. “Now I am facing deportation for the simple act of selling ice cream in the street.”

The meeting was one of the first public discussions of the so-called Secure Communities program since Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Aug. 5 terminated agreements signed with states to jumpstart the effort and said that state approval isn’t required to share fingerprints.

The program touted by immigration authorities as an information-sharing effort has become a headache for the Obama administration, which has plowed ahead with it despite vocal opposition from Latino and immigrant rights groups the president counts on for support. Continue reading this article

Your Tax Dollars at Work: Free-to-them Healthcare for Illegal Aliens

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) got all kinds of grief for yelling, “You lie” at President Obama when he said that Obamacare would not cover illegal aliens during the 2009 State of the Union speech.

As it turns out, Wilson was right. We are so surprised.

Rep. Wilson Claims He Was Right on Illegal Immigrant Coverage When He Shouted ‘You Lie’, Fox News, August 15, 2011

Nearly two years after he infamously accused President Obama of lying about his health care overhaul, Republican Rep. Joe Wilson claims he was right all along.

The South Carolina congressman was pilloried in 2009 for shouting “You lie!” at the president in the middle of a national address after Obama claimed the health care bill would not cover illegal immigrants.

But Wilson is claiming some vindication after the Health and Human Services Department awarded millions to “migrant and seasonal farm worker” health care — a spokeswoman in the department was cited last week saying patients would not be asked about immigration status and a department official confirmed Monday that the centers receiving the grant money must offer primary care to “all residents” in a given area. Continue reading this article

Alabama Victims of Illegal Alien Crime Support Tough Enforcement

A parent’s pain of losing a child never goes away, and even more so when the death could have been prevented by government doing its basic job of protecting public safety.

In Alabama, Dan Mattle has begun to speak out in favor of his state’s restrictive immigration law, which has been called tougher than Arizona’s. His 19-year-old son Tad was killed by a previously arrested drunk-driving illegal alien who crashed into the Mattle car at a stoplight as the speeding Mexican fled from the police. Tad’s girlfriend Leigh Anna Jimmerson, 16, was also killed in the collision.

(See my article “Diversity Is . . . Drunk Driving” for background showing how hispanic culture celebrates inebriated vehicle operation as a desirably macho behavior. Even NPR agrees that “Latinos are responsible for a disproportionate number of DWI arrests and alcohol-related car accidents.”)

The couple is shown in the photo at right; the inset picture is of Felix Ortega, the habitual criminal who killed them.

Dan Mattle has spoken on talk radio and wrote an opinion piece (below) supporting immigration law enforcement:

Alabama Voices: Alabama’s new immigrant law needed, Montgomery Advertiser, August 6, 2011

As the father of Tad Mattle, killed along with his girlfriend in a horrific accident in Huntsville two years ago caused by the illegal immigrant Felix Ortega, I experienced first-hand results of unrestricted illegal immigration.

The driver was not just seeking a better life in the United States. He was a repeat offender with at least four DUIs, was wanted in at least four other states for both misdemeanors and felonies, had five different aliases, and was supposed to have been deported in 2001.

Because I support Alabama’s HB 56 to enforce laws against illegal immigration, I have been accused of not being Christian. I can no longer maintain silence.

Where in Jesus Christ’s teachings did he advocate flagrant violation of a nation’s laws? How is violating immigration laws and flaunting it in front of those who followed the legal process Christ-like? The willingness of HB 56’s detractors to overlook unfettered illegal immigration is just the sort of mindset that allows hardened criminals into our country.

I ask how Christian is it to allow evil men into our country to rob, maim and/or kill innocent, law-abiding citizens just to demonstrate your pious compassion? Where’s the compassion for innocent victims? (continues)

Dan Mattle’s sensible response to preventable crime was featured recently:

For Huntsville couple still grieving son’s loss, illegal immigration debate is deeply personal, AL.com, by Steve Doyle, Huntsville Times, August 15, 2011

Dan Mattle and his wife, Terri, don’t consider themselves especially political.
But when critics hammered Alabama’s new immigration act as mean-spirited and racist, the south Huntsville couple decided to speak up in support of the Republican-sponsored bill.

In late June, Dan Mattle made his first appearance on talk radio and wrote his first letter to the editor.

GOP legislators are “making up for the fact that the federal government is derelict in its (immigration enforcement) duty,” he said this month. “None of these laws would have passed if they’d been doing their job.”

Immigration became a deeply personal issue for the Mattles just before 9 p.m. on April 17, 2009.

Their oldest son, Tad, was stopped in traffic at the busy intersection of Whitesburg Drive and Airport Road when Felix Dominguez Ortega, an undocumented resident fleeing from Huntsville police, slammed into the back of Tad’s Toyota Supra.

Police estimated Ortega’s pickup truck was traveling nearly 70 miles an hour; no skid marks were found.

Tad, a 19-year-old Eagle Scout who had just earned a full academic scholarship to the University of Alabama in Huntsville, died in the fiery crash along with his girlfriend, Grissom High School sophomore Leigh Anna Jimmerson.

Ortega, with a blood-alcohol content more than three times the legal limit, survived.

“Everyone calls it an accident,” Mattle said. “But that was no accident – it was a murder scene.”

A native of Mexico, Ortega eventually pleaded guilty to reckless murder and is serving a 15-year sentence at Bibb County Correctional Facility.

Municipal court records show that Ortega had three prior drunk-driving arrests in Huntsville under another name, Juan Sanchez. Police say he also used the aliases Adan Herrera and Reynaldo Martinez.

Mattle, 46, said he hopes Alabama’s immigration law will deter criminals like Ortega from sneaking across the border.

“We’ve got enough criminals of our own that are legal citizens,” he said. “We don’t need to let a bunch more in.” Continue reading this article