The speed by which an invasion of hostile immigrants can destable a weakened nation is sobering. A few decades ago, in 1940 Britain heroically stood alone in Europe against the Nazi fascists running roughshod over the continent. Now the same nation cowers pathetically in the face of its local Muslim unfriendlies, hoping that a moderate amount of surrender of Western values to Islam will suffice.
Hint: surrender never works. As Winston Churchill presciently observed, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” The appeaser does get gobbled up at some point, because the Islamic crocodile is an eating machine.
These days, Muslims work to conquer one neighborhood at a time, using their increasing numbers as a weapon of intimidation. Areas of London are no-go zones for English people, where jihadist gangs patrol to enforce sharia compliance against unveiled women, recognizable gays and any sign of alcohol consumption. London is no longer majority white because so many English people have fled the city in the face of such extreme immigration.
The negative milestones keep accumulating in Britain, which should indicate to any intelligent observer that Muslim immigration is the worst public policy ever. Continuing weakness on the part of official Britain only feeds and encourages the beast.
Rush Limbaugh read parts of Byron York’s article (below) on Friday about the Gang of Eight amnesty strategy of Senator Marco Rubio (pictured) being the front man to explain away fears among conservative media. Limbaugh ostentatiously cleared his throat when reading how conservatives were “disappointed” with Rubio. Ahem! [Listen.]
In fact, Rush Limbaugh has had a long infatuation with the photogenic Florida Senator, and held out hope for Rubio’s good faith long after his perfidy had become obvious to most. The dream of a genuinely conservative Rubio Presidency was too alluring for him to give up. See my June 12 blog, Bewildered Limbaugh Is Still Defending Rubio.
The bad-faith trend has been constant and predictable, but spine-challenged Senate Republicans would rather coddle hispanics for illusory political gain than defend the borders guaranteed by the Constitution.
In the end, immigration reform really was a done deal in the Senate. Debates come down to numbers on Capitol Hill, and the Gang of Eight reform team had the numbers. Needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, they started with the Senate’s 54 Democrats and then added the four Republican Gang members. With 58 votes in the bag, it wasn’t hard to get to 60. So most of the 14 Republicans who ultimately voted to get the Gang bill past a filibuster were extras, not needed for passage but helpful to allow the reformers to claim a broad mandate.
From the beginning, many Senate Republicans were terrified of immigration reform. They knew a large part of their base opposed any measure that smelled of “amnesty.” But they were also deeply shaken by last November’s election results, in which Mitt Romney won just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. Some GOP strategists, and some Senate colleagues, told them the Republican Party would be finished unless it supported reform.
What to do? First, they tried not to stick their necks out. For several months, if you asked a Republican senator a substantive question about immigration, the answer was, “Let’s see what Marco comes up with.”
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been more than the GOP point man on immigration. From January, when the Gang of Eight announced its intentions, until April, when it unveiled its bill, Rubio was the man Republicans hid behind. “We’re waiting for Marco” became the Senate Republican caucus’ unofficial position on immigration.
After the Gang unveiled its bill, one might have expected GOP lawmakers to take a stand. Instead, many still deferred to Rubio, saying they were waiting to see what kind of improvements he might deliver.
Republicans were able to keep their heads down in part because there wasn’t a lot of pressure coming from the anti-reform conservative base. And that owed a great deal to the Gang’s decision to dispatch Rubio, elected as a Tea Party favorite in 2010 and viewed as a future leader of the Republican Party, on a mission to allay conservative suspicions about the bill.
“Menendez told me that Rubio’s role was to ‘work over the conservative universe, particularly the conservative opinion-maker universe,’ in order to ‘neutralize them’ and, in some cases, ‘proselytize them,'” the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza reported recently, referring to Democratic Gang member Robert Menendez. The leader of the Gang, Democrat Charles Schumer, “was delighted to have a Tea Party conservative who could sell an immigration bill to the right,” Lizza wrote. Continue reading this article
Senator Jeff Sessions is certainly a warrior for sovereignty. He argued against the evil Obama-Rubio amnesty often and convincingly until the final disappointing vote.
Below is a clip of his patiently explaining once again to his corrupt and/or stupid colleagues that welcoming millions of foreign lawbreakers to take American jobs is a fool’s errand, and is moved forward by powerful special interests with their own agenda. The motley puppetmasters guiding the Gang of Eight Senators are named, just so there is no question, from La Raza to the President.
Here’s the text, from Sessions’ press release file:
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered a speech on the Senate floor today regarding the Gang of Eight immigration plan ahead of its final vote. Sessions’ remarks, as prepared, follow:
“The bill before us rides here on a high ideal, but is nowhere close to what it promises. It is fatally flawed. If passed, it will not work.
This flawed bill did not come about because of inadvertence, chance, error, ignorance, or mistake. It came about as a direct result of the fact that the forces that shaped it all had goals that were important to them, but these goals are not coterminous with the interests of the nation as a whole. The real politique Gang seemed fine with that. They openly reported for weeks that these interests were working through the legislation and their differences, and soon the Gang would have a bill that, having been blessed by the powerful interests they had invited to the meetings, would be delivered to the Senate for adoption.
They were so proud of this process that they, the magnificent Eight, would stick together, all for one, one for all, and defeat any amendment that dared to alter this ‘delicate agreement.’ They would consider amendments, of course, but nothing serious. Continue reading this article
During Ann Coulter’s visit to the Hannity zone on Monday, he seemed curious about why she has declared herself to be a single-issue person, namely pro-immigration enforcement and against the hideous amnesty.
Coulter explained, “It will change the America we live in. It will harm low-wage workers the most, the people on the bottom rungs, I think Republicans are the only ones who have ever cared about this. Liberals tell us Republicans don’t care about poor and black people and I never never believed it until I saw Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill. It is the low-wage workers who are suffering horrible unemployment who will suffer the most it will change the country in ways that are damaging. It will change the culture. And why do the Democrats want it, they want it for one reason, because it will be 30 million new voters, 80 percent of whom, as all polls show, are going to vote for the Democrats. . .
“In all of these Pew polls, hispanics are the one group, more than any other, that opposes capitalism.”
“The Gang of Eight and their allies revealed their true tactics tonight. They shut down debate and blocked amendments to a 1,200-page immigration bill that no one has read… This legislation is a crushing blow to the working people of this country, a surrender to illegality, and a capitulation to special interests over the interests of the citizens we pledged to represent.” [. . .]
What we know for absolute certain is that this bill guarantees three things: instantaneous amnesty, permanent lawlessness, and a massive expansion in legal immigration that will reduce wages for working Americans. This legislation is a crushing blow to the working people of this country, a surrender to illegality, and a capitulation to special interests over the interests of the citizens we pledged to represent.”
BACKGROUND ON CORKER-HOEVEN SUBSTITUTE AMNESTY-FIRST IMMIGRATION BILL:
● Immediate amnesty before enforcement
● Guts legal requirement for biometric exit-entry system
● Millions of green cards (permanent residency) before enforcement—debunking another false claim from sponsors
● No border surge. Agents aren’t required until 2021. It will never happen
● No fence requirement. DHS retains discretion in the bill that preempts the call for a fence in ten years. Litigation also provides an escape hatch to never build the fence. The fence won’t happen
● Legalization for gang members and convicted criminals
● Amnesty for future visa overstays (in other words, a prospective amnesty for future illegal immigrants)
● Guaranteed welfare access for illegal immigrants
● Undermines interior enforcement, prompting ICE officers to warn: “There is no doubt that, if passed, public safety will be endangered and massive amounts of future illegal immigration—especially visa overstays—is ensured.”
● Expands non-merit chain migration—less than 10 percent of future flow is merit-based
● Doubles the number of guest workers and triples the number of immigrants granted lawful permanent residency—reducing wages for U.S. workers and driving up unemployment
Senator Jeff Sessions has a long and illustrious history of detecting loopholes in amnesty bills and explaining away the falsehoods which are made to sound so appealing to the gullible press. Republican Senators are supposed to rubber stamp the upbeat talking points and not vote on the text of the bill.
One example of his expertise was on view Sunday during a liberal grilling by Bob Schieffer on CBS’ Face the Nation:
Sessions put out a press release on Friday to reveal the newest loopholes hidden in the new amendment that was supposed to improve security and enforcement. In addition, the Gang of Eight (plus new friends) has reiterated its bad faith by rewriting the entire bill and burying the new amendment throughout, rather than delivering it as a stand-alone item.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement about the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Gang of Eight substitute amendment:
“When the Gang of Eight first introduced their plan, they made a series of promises about their proposal. Each of those was subsequently proven to be false. Today, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven rescue amendment was dropped on the Senate floor. Members and staff have only until Monday afternoon to read through the 1,187 pages of this modified proposal. Already, in a short time, we have identified grave and deep flaws in the modified bill – both in terms of failure to live up to new promises made as well as some shocking changes that actually further weaken the underlying bill. The special interests who wrote these provisions know exactly what they do and designed them not to work – but I fear some of the Senators who sponsored this amendment have no idea they’re even there:
–The Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment doesn’t change the bill’s amnesty first framework. Instead it goes even further and creates an automatic amnesty for future illegal aliens. Section 2302 says if you overstay your visa in the future you can still apply for a green card and become a citizen. It is permanent lawlessness. Joined with existing language that restricts future enforcement, it guarantees unending illegal immigration.
–Contrary to their rhetoric there is no border surge. The Secretary doesn’t even have to start hiring new border patrol agents until 2017, and the amendment only gives her until 2021 to increase the number by 20,000. According to the National Association of Former Border Patrol Agents, this hiring process could take up to 20 years. Much like the 2006 law requiring a 700-mile border fence, it’s never going to be happen.
–To raise money, the amendment increases fees on visas for legal immigrants, but keeps the same low fees and fines for those applying for amnesty – favoring illegal over legal immigrants. Under the 2007 comprehensive immigration bill, amnesty applicants had to pay up to $8,000 – vastly more than the fines in the current plan which total only $2,000 and are subject to numerous waivers. The Gang has repeatedly claimed their bill is completely paid for by fees. However, under the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment, the American taxpayers are on the hook for $38 billion.
These are undoubtedly only some of the new flaws that will be uncovered in the proposal. And the largely unchanged original bill retains its scores of many flaws including: amnesty first, legalization for criminal aliens, decimated interior enforcement, and a massive increase in low-skill legal immigration.
The Gang of Eight’s proposal – modified or not – still guarantees three things: amnesty, lower wages, and higher unemployment.”
Judge Jeanine Pirro is generally pretty sharp on her Fox News show, so it was disappointing to see her interrupt guest Ann Coulter recently as she was making an important point about the worsening snooper state. Coulter was connecting the dots between the need for more surveillance in America and the permissive immigration which has allowed our enemies to live among us. But Judge Jeanine wanted to talk about the little drone gizmo on her desk, so a vital topic was sidelined.
COULTER: The reason we need them [drones], is that the immigration service isn’t doing their job. When we talk about spying on American citizens, it’s always “American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.” Yeah, okay, they are technically American citizens like these Chechnians were American citizens…
JUDGE JEANINE: Yeah but I’m worried about, I’m having a barbecue at my house, do I have to worry about a drone…
Borders exist to keep out enemies as well as define the national territory. But under the liberal multicultural philosophy, we’re all one diverse one-worlder family, and the concept of “enemy” is too old-fashioned for our modern 21st century. Unfortunately the jihadists have a different idea of a utopian future, where we infidels will be forced to surrender to the rule of Allah and submission to the Koran will be the principle of governance. Muslim immigration is turning Europe into Eurabia before our eyes. Why doesn’t America see what happens when historic enemies of liberty are admitted as immigrants by the millions?
Coulter stuck to her guns and got in another lick:
COULTER: I keep going back to the root cause of the problem, which is that we are inviting terrorists to come here and become American citizens … the INS shouldn’t be letting in potential terrorists.
Interestingly, Ann Coulter’s recent column focused on similar arguments:
Well, of course the government is spying on Americans! Look at the havoc caused by American citizens engaging in terrorism.
There’s “American citizen” David Coleman Headley, who conspired with Pakistani military officers to commit the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, that left more than 160 people dead.
Headley’s ancestors served under Gen. George Washington — no, I’m sorry, Headley was born “Daood Sayed Gilani” in Washington, D.C., to a Pakistani father. Like your typical American boy, he enjoyed TV’s “Happy Days” and murdering innocent people in terrorist attacks.
There were the 20 “American” men from the Minneapolis area who joined a terrorist group in Somalia in 2008. I knew the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party would cause trouble one of these days! Continue reading this article
With all the media sob stories about the supposed travails of illegal aliens, it’s refreshing to see a tiny bit of attention focused on legal immigrants. Law-abiding entrants get little respect from Washington elites and campaign consultants, even after the people who came the right way have spent tens of thousands of dollars to pursue immigration.
For example, the formerly Canadian Sweazey family, pictured below, spent $45,000 to become Americans.
So much in the country now seems upside down — but nowhere more so than in the twisted world of immigration politics, where foreign lawbreakers are more privileged than citizens and legal immigrants.
When Lucinda Sweazey’s family immigrated from Canada in 1999, it took seven years and an estimated $45,000 in legal, passport and visa fees for her parents and siblings to secure permanent resident status in the U.S.
“Our lawyer even mentioned to us when we were going through the process legally that it would have been easier if we came in illegally. We would have saved money, and there’s a good chance we would be citizens by now,” Ms. Sweazey said.
Now an undergraduate student at the King’s College in New York City, the British Columbia native said the massive immigration overhaul working its way through the Senate could make a “mockery of legal immigration.”
If lawmakers offer a shortcut to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, she said, “it becomes rather discouraging to someone who came legally.”
Ms. Sweazey and other legal immigrants are voicing concerns that providing amnesty for those who arrived illegally will only encourage more of the same.
“We should not reward people for breaking the rules while we maintain burdensome rules for immigration,” said Liye Zhang, a software engineer in Castro Valley, Calif., who emigrated from China when he was 10.
Mr. Zhang, a strong opponent of amnesty, noted that one of his co-workers plans to obtain a master’s degree in order to get into “a slightly shorter line” for a green card — a process that ultimately will cost more than $300,000 in tuition and loss of salary.
“Giving green cards to illegal immigrants while not giving them to these people seems very much stupid and foolish,” Mr. Zhang said.
Mr. Zhang’s father secured a job in the U.S. in 1999 as a software engineer and obtained visas for his immediate family. Although they pursued citizenship as soon as they could, it took Mr. Zhang seven years to become a citizen.
“The process was long and exhausting,” he said, recalling his visits to immigration offices in San Francisco, many of which required early morning travel and long hours in lines. “It cost a great deal of money even though I am unsure how much precisely it was.” Continue reading this article
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is refusing to fight to prevent the Senate “Gang of Eight” from allowing illegal aliens convicted of drunk driving from being granted legalized status, or amnesty.
When Judicial Watch asked a MADD spokesperson if they would stand up against provisions in the bill that allow illegal aliens convicted of drunk driving to get amnesty, and therefore keep driving on America’s roads, that spokesperson simply responded that MADD “doesn’t get involved in immigration matters.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News that MADD’s refusal to fight against convicted drunk drivers here is ludicrous. “We know already that Obama is releasing criminal illegal aliens onto the streets,” Fitton said in an email. “This new amnesty will further harm the public safety. In many states, a misdemeanor results in a citizen losing the right to vote. Yet under this amnesty bill, a ‘misdemeanor’ won’t stop an illegal alien from getting legal status and citizenship.”
As Watchdogwire’s Marinka Peschmann detailed in an early June article, there are provisions in the Gang of Eight bill that allow drunk driver illegal aliens to get amnesty.
“On page 608 drunk drivers are welcome too if they have only been busted three times before the Gang of Eight’s bill is enacted,” Peschmann wrote, before citing the specific section of the bill text. Continue reading this article
WASHINGTON — Two years into a civil war that shows no signs of ending, the Obama administration is considering resettling refugees who have fled Syria, part of an international effort that could bring thousands of Syrians to American cities and towns. [. . .]
Homeland security officials require careful vetting of refugees, with multiple interviews and background checks before they are allowed to enter the country. Under normal circumstances, the screening process can take a year or longer. [. . .]
A few years ago, thousands of Iraqi refugees had been admitted on a do-gooder whim, with little investigation. After a couple were found to be jihadist enemies of America (later tried and imprisoned), the 58,000 Iraqi refugees residing in the United States had to be rescreened.
Now the government intends to make the same dangerous mistake again with more Muslims who have no reason to accept western values. Many of the Syrian insurgents are Al Qaeda affiliated. How does this policy not imperil the American people?
The Department of Homeland Security on Monday issued new regulations that will allow more Syrian refugees to temporarily settle in the United States.
The department estimates that about 9,000 people will be eligible to come to America under the 18-month extension to March 2015 of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrians. Another 2,600 or so Syrians already here will be able to apply to renew their status. The Obama administration first gave TPS designation to Syrian citizens and residents last year, and the status was set to expire on Sept. 30.
“The extension of the current Syria TPS designation and re-designation is due to the continued disruption of living conditions in the country that are a result of the extraordinary and temporary conditions that led to the initial TPS designation of Syria in 2012,” the Homeland Security Department said. “The extension is based on ongoing armed conflict in that region and the continued deterioration of country conditions.” 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.