Here in chronically broke California, Sacramento is gearing up to pass taxpayer-funded grants for illegal alien students, so that lawbreaking foreigners can get free educations while citizen young people are pushed aside.
The evil Gil Cedillo broke his Mexifornia version of the ironically named DREAM Act into two parts, hoping to squeeze it through in stages. The first legislation enabled illegal aliens to receive college funding from private sources, and that bill was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown.
The next step in Assembly Bill 131 — providing taxpayer money for illegal alien students — is somewhat more challenging even for spendaholic open-borders Democrats.
As the controversial Dream Act advances, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly is urging citizens to voice support for Gov. Jerry Brown to veto the bill that would allow students who entered the country illegally to receive statefunded financial aid at California’s public colleges. Donnelly in a statement called Assembly Bill 131 — which passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Thursday — a “nightmare for citizens.”
“Students are already struggling to pay increased tuition and many cannot even get into the classes they need,” he said, “but the Legislature continues to pretend we can afford this entitlement. The simple truth is, everyone including the governor knows we can’t.”
Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, authored the California Dream Act’s twin bills as a way to expand opportunities for deserving students who were brought to the U.S. illegally through no choice of their own.
Brown signed the first bill, AB 1081, in June, agreeing to allow undocumented students to receive private financial aid. That bill is currently eligible to be heard on the Senate floor.
Now that the Senate committee approved AB 131, Cedillo said he expects the bill to pass the Senate and Assembly this week and land on Brown’s desk soon after.
“The fiscal impact of granting illegal alien students access to the statefunded Cal Grant on top of the in-state tuition rate already afforded them is staggering,” Donnelly’s statement continued. “Analysts estimate the cost to be in the tens of millions annually and say it is likely to increase over time as the promise of inexpensive, high quality education draws more illegal immigration to the state.”
It didn’t take long for Obama’s executive amnesty for illegal aliens to be followed by a major opinion piece in the New York Times complaining about voters being required to show identification at the polling place. How convenient for illegal aliens who want to vote to Obama!
Timed to coincide with the dedication of the made-in-Red-China statue of Martin Luther King Jr., the op-ed by civil rights figure Rep. John Lewis, currently a Congressman from Georgia, compared voter ID with the hated poll tax which historically kept black Americans from exercising the franchise.
At least he didn’t compare the requirement for voter identification with attack dogs and fire hoses.
However, an editorial in Sunday’s Times (The Nation’s Cruelest Immigration Law) opined that the recent Alabama enforcement legislation “brings to mind the Fugitive Slave Act.” So the queen of crazy liberal media now compares basic immigration law enforcement to the practice of slavery, a crude escalation of rhetoric that hints at the 2012 Democrat campaign.
As word gets around in Mexico and beyond that Obama has repealed deportation, the floodgates will reopen and millions of job thieves will head north for American employment and freebies — meaning more D-voters for 2012. The Mexican flood has supposedly “sputtered to a trickle” in the phrase of the New York Times, which is overstated IMO. The word “amnesty” is like a dinner bell to Mexicans — they’ll be back.
AS we celebrate the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial, we reflect on the life and legacy of this great man. But recent legislation on voting reminds us that there is still work to do. Since January, a majority of state legislatures have passed or considered election-law changes that, taken together, constitute the most concerted effort to restrict the right to vote since before the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Growing up as the son of an Alabama sharecropper, I experienced Jim Crow firsthand. It was enforced by the slander of “separate but equal,” willful blindness to acts of racially motivated violence and the threat of economic retaliation. The pernicious effect of those strategies was to institutionalize second-class citizenship and restrict political participation to the majority alone.
We have come a long way since the 1960s. When the Voting Rights Act was passed, there were only 300 elected African-American officials in the United States; today there are more than 9,000, including 43 members of Congress. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act — also known as the Motor Voter Act — made it easier to register to vote, while the 2002 Help America Vote Act responded to the irregularities of the 2000 presidential race with improved election standards.
Despite decades of progress, this year’s Republican-backed wave of voting restrictions has demonstrated that the fundamental right to vote is still subject to partisan manipulation. The most common new requirement, that citizens obtain and display unexpired government-issued photo identification before entering the voting booth, was advanced in 35 states and passed by Republican legislatures in Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri and nine other states — despite the fact that as many as 25 percent of African-Americans lack acceptable identification.
Having fought for voting rights as a student, I am especially troubled that these laws disproportionately affect young voters. Students at state universities in Wisconsin cannot vote using their current IDs (because the new law requires the cards to have signatures, which those do not). South Carolina prohibits the use of student IDs altogether. Texas also rejects student IDs, but allows voting by those who have a license to carry a concealed handgun. These schemes are clearly crafted to affect not just how we vote, but who votes.
Conservative proponents have argued for photo ID mandates by claiming that widespread voter impersonation exists in America, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. While defending its photo ID law before the Supreme Court, Indiana was unable to cite a single instance of actual voter impersonation at any point in its history. Likewise, in Kansas, there were far more reports of U.F.O. sightings than allegations of voter fraud in the past decade. These theories of systematic fraud are really unfounded fears being exploited to threaten the franchise. Continue reading this article
The man in question, Uncle Omar, is Aunt Zeituni’s brother.
The President has lots of relatives. (See the now-incomplete graphic from an exposition in New York magazine, The Obama Diaspora.) The math works out that way in polygamous African families. Daddy Obama had four wives, some at the same time. Add kiddies, and the cast of characters gets confusing for us simple monogamists.
The situation could work out well for Uncle Omar, since he may well be covered by his nephew’s executive amnesty. After all, Uncle Omar has lived here for decades (albeit illegally) and is not a known axe murderer. He could get a work permit, or perhaps go straight to the welfare office, since he is no longer young.
Naturally you have to go to the foreign press to get good coverage:
BARACK Obama’s long-lost “Uncle Omar” has been arrested for alleged drink-driving outside Boston and detained as an illegal immigrant, The Times can reveal.
The arrest ends a mystery over the fate of a relative that the US President wrote in his memoir had moved to America from Kenya in the 1960s, although the circumstances of his discovery may now prove to be an embarrassment for the White House.
Official records say Onyango Obama, 67, was picked up outside the Chicken Bone Saloon in Framingham, Massachusetts, at 7.10pm on August 24. Police say he nearly crashed his Mitsubishi 4×4 into a patrol car, and then insisted that the officer should have given way to him. A report filed with the Framingham District Court said that a breathalyser at the police station registered his blood alcohol at 0.14mg/100ml of blood, above the state limit of 0.08mg.
According to a local newspaper, Mr Obama was charged with driving under the influence and driving to endanger, as well as failing to use a turn signal. He was detained as an illegal immigrant because the US Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has an outstanding warrant for him because he was previously ordered to be deported to Kenya.
The Times has established from his birthdate that Mr Obama is the Uncle Omar mentioned in President Obama’s best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father. In the 1995 book, President Obama writes of “the uncle who had left for America 25 years ago and had never come back”. Continue reading this article
Plus, who counts to make sure all the Mexicans leave when the operation is over?
And who keeps the violent cartel criminals out of the United States? They already enter at will and control large areas of southern Arizona to run their drug shipments. Will Obama send additional Border Patrol agents to protect Mexican police when he has not acted similarly to defend Americans?
Below, Mexican police are the men wearing masks in this drug lord arrest photo. Mexico is so lawless that being a cop is indeed dangerous — but that’s not America’s problem.
Mexican police (or criminals dressed like police) have already made hundreds of incursions into this country. They shouldn’t be made to feel even more relaxed about American sovereignty than the average Mexican already does. Training foreign policemen to violate our border as a normal procedure does not send the message that Americans still value the perimeter that denotes our nation.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has expanded its role in Mexico’s fight against organized crime by allowing the Mexican police to stage cross-border drug raids from inside the United States, according to senior administration and military officials.
Mexican commandos have discreetly traveled to the United States, assembled at designated areas and dispatched helicopter missions back across the border aimed at suspected drug traffickers. The Drug Enforcement Administration provides logistical support on the American side of the border, officials said, arranging staging areas and sharing intelligence that helps guide Mexico’s decisions about targets and tactics.
Officials said these so-called boomerang operations were intended to evade the surveillance — and corrupting influences — of the criminal organizations that closely monitor the movements of security forces inside Mexico. And they said the efforts were meant to provide settings with tight security for American and Mexican law enforcement officers to collaborate in their pursuit of criminals who operate on both sides of the border. Continue reading this article
It’s a crime what many universities do to impressionable young minds. Freshmen students go in expecting an advanced education with intellectual stimulation arising from the debate of great ideas. Instead they undergo liberal reprogramming that would make Pol Pot proud.
For some reason, cultural Marxists are crazy for white guilt. Apparently worship of the great god Diversity cannot be accomplished without debasing whites, and particularly white males. Perhaps the low self-esteem of professors translates into a psychological need to see students appropriately groveling at their Marxist analysis of seeing oppression everywhere.
Other oppressions du jour include sexism, racism and Islamophobia. All the better to identify approved victims.
One curious expression of the brainwashing that substitutes for education is the Tunnel of Oppression at DePauw University, a sort of interactive event that was analyzed recently in the New York Post (see below).
Parents sending children off to college for the first time, beware: Their “freshman orientation” is all too likely to include being herded through a “tunnel of oppression” to learn about the evils of “white privilege,” being lectured about how they’re part of a “rape culture” or being forced to discuss their sexual identities with complete strangers — before they even meet their first professor.
That’s right: For all we hear about faculty ideological or political bias, campus administrators are often worse when it comes to brainwashing students.
Consider the shocking account from a student trained to be a dorm supervisor — a resident adviser, or RA — at DePauw University in Indiana. One of her first duties last fall was to lead her new students through a house decorated as a “Tunnel of Oppression,” where supposedly “realistic” demonstrations in each room taught lessons such as how religious parents hate their gay children, Muslims would find no friends on a predominantly non-Muslim campus and overweight women suffer from eating disorders.
Indeed, in her training to become an RA, “We were told that ‘human’ was not a suitable identity, but that instead we were first ‘black,’ ‘white,’ or ‘Asian’; ‘male’ or ‘female’; … ‘heterosexual’ or ‘queer.’ We were forced to act like bigots and spout off stereotypes while being told that that was what we were really thinking deep down.” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. must be spinning in his grave.
Unsurprisingly, she turned down the school’s offer to be an RA this year — she’d rather find another job.
DePauw is no rare case. At least 96 colleges across the country have run similar “tunnel of oppression” programs in the last few years. Continue reading this article
A federal judge in Birmingham is poised to hear arguments from the Obama administration and others Wednesday over whether a new Alabama immigration law constitutes an unfair assault on civil liberties or is a long-overdue effort to protect American jobs and borders.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn scheduled a hearing starting at 9 a.m. Wednesday on motions seeking to temporarily block a new state law that’s been described by supporters and opponents as the toughest crackdown on illegal immigration in the country. Attorneys said they don’t know when Blackburn will rule, but pointed out that she doesn’t have much time because the immigration law is set to take effect Sept. 1.
The measure allows police officers, in conducting routine traffic stops, to arrest those they suspect of being illegal immigrants. The law’s broad provisions also make it a crime to transport or provide shelter to an illegal immigrant. It also requires schools to report the immigration status of students, a provision opponents say will make many parents afraid to send their children to school.
The lawsuits challenging the law — filed by the Obama administration, a coalition of civil rights groups and church leaders — have all been consolidated before the chief federal judge from Alabama’s northern district. Continue reading this article
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.