Sometimes it happens that youthful rebellion takes a nasty turn, particularly among immigrant kids when their home culture has a ready-made hostile ideology to oppose American authority.
Something like that may have been in the mix of high school drop-out Betim Kuziu (pictured) who decided that jihad was a swell career choice. His plan was to train abroad to develop his skill set with similarly minded Sons of Allah, then kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.
His parents were immigrants from Macedonia, which is supposedly a society with the moderate Islam we hear about. As a young man, Kaziu became attracted to radical Islam, an interest he shared with a friend he knew from the seventh grade, Sulejmah Hadzovic. The boys went from playing video games in middle school to studying jihad online in later years. They travelled to the Middle East to pursue their dream of killing infidels, where Hadzovic thought better of the scheme and testified against Kaziu at the two-week trial in Brooklyn.
Of course, the case is a another example that Muslim immigration is a terrible idea and should end before more Americans die as a result.
Brooklyn high school dropout was convicted Thursday of conspiring to join a foreign terrorist group so he could kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Betim Kaziu faces life in prison for the jihadi adventure that took him to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and finally Kosovo – where he was arrested in 2009.
The jury deliberated less than four hours before reaching a verdict in the two-week trial in Brooklyn Federal Court.
Kaziu smiled and waved to his parents, who emigrated from Macedonia.
“I need my son home,” Kaziu’s father said outside court.
Kaziu, 23, wanted to become a member of the Taliban or the Somali-based Al Shabbab so he could die a Muslim martyr on a battlefield in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine or Africa.
“The defendant desired to wage jihad,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Ali Kazemi said in his closing argument.
“He never intended to return to the United States. He hoped to die a martyr. ”
Flush with cash from a court settlement for a playground accident, Kaziu traveled overseas with a buddy from Mill Basin who chickened out of the scheme and returned to Brooklyn to eventually became a government cooperator. Continue reading this article
Another family has been devastated by a drunk-driving illegal alien. Mother and hospice nurse Diane Bronson and her 11-year-old daughter Anna of Belton, Missouri, were killed on July 4 in a head-on crash. The deadly SUV was driven by 18-year-old Felix Solano Gallardo whose blood alcohol was measured two hours after the wreck at .185, double the legal limit in Missouri. He had driven 14 miles the wrong way on the interstate before smashing into the Bronson’s car.
Diane and her daughter were on their way to a Fourth of July celebration in Sugar Creek where her husband Buddy was set to ride an antique scooter in the parade. They never made it.
Diane K. Bronson was eight months pregnant when a state paint-striping truck rear-ended her vehicle in 1999.
Firefighters had to cut her out of the wreckage, and Bronson suffered a serious head injury. But she survived, as did her prematurely born baby, whom she named Anna.
On Monday — more than 11 years later — Bronson and Anna, of Belton, were again involved in a highway crash. But this time, neither survived.
Police blamed the 8:30 a.m. wreck on Interstate 435 near 63rd Street in Kansas City on a drunken driver going the wrong way.
Jackson County prosecutors charged Felix Solano-Gallardo, 18, of Kansas City, Kan., on Monday with two counts of involuntary manslaughter. His blood alcohol content was 0.185, more than double the legal limit of 0.08, more than two hours after the wreck, according to court records.
Police were still working Tuesday to confirm the man’s identity. According to court records, Gallardo gave his name as Felix Gallardo, but he had two Mexican identification cards on him with a different name, and both cards had different photos. Prosecutors think he is an illegal immigrant.
Police said they think Gallardo had been driving the wrong way for at least 14 miles because they think he ran a driver off of Interstate 70 into a concrete median near Harrison Street earlier. The victim told police the driver drove at him from one side of the highway to the other and appeared to be trying to hit him, police said. Continue reading this article
According to the New York Times, illegal immigration from Mexico has “sputtered to a trickle,” so we little citizens needn’t worry our heads about it any more. Yep, life is much improved in dear Mexico (except for the drug war in which 40,000 have been killed); therefore breaking in to the USA just doesn’t have the same charm it once did — or so says the queen bee of mainstream media.
However in the racist society of Mexico, the white elites don’t mind when millions of Indians and mestizos leave for the United States. Uncle Sucker’s unwilling taxpayers fund the invaders’ healthcare and education, so why should wealthy Mexicans bother? It’s a system that works well for Mexico’s ruling class.
Back to the Times article: it is an interesting piece of fiction that relies on pleasant-sounding anecdotes, like young men who say they want to stay home. But a few sweet stories and carefully chosen statistics do not prove the end of a decades-long history of illegal border crossings that have been a rite of passage for Mexican males and an economic system based on remittances for millions.
It would be terrific news if Mexico really were getting its act together, but the Times‘ arguments simply aren’t credible. Another hint is how much of the information is given in percentages rather than raw numbers of people leaving or not.
AGUA NEGRA, Mexico — The extraordinary Mexican migration that delivered millions of illegal immigrants to the United States over the past 30 years has sputtered to a trickle, and research points to a surprising cause: unheralded changes in Mexico that have made staying home more attractive.
A growing body of evidence suggests that a mix of developments — expanding economic and educational opportunities, rising border crime and shrinking families — are suppressing illegal traffic as much as economic slowdowns or immigrant crackdowns in the United States.
Here in the red-earth highlands of Jalisco, one of Mexico’s top three states for emigration over the past century, a new dynamic has emerged. For a typical rural family like the Orozcos, heading to El Norte without papers is no longer an inevitable rite of passage. Instead, their homes are filling up with returning relatives; older brothers who once crossed illegally are awaiting visas; and the youngest Orozcos are staying put.
“I’m not going to go to the States because I’m more concerned with my studies,” said Angel Orozco, 18. Indeed, at the new technological institute where he is earning a degree in industrial engineering, all the students in a recent class said they were better educated than their parents — and that they planned to stay in Mexico rather than go to the United States.
Douglas S. Massey, co-director of the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton, an extensive, long-term survey in Mexican emigration hubs, said his research showed that interest in heading to the United States for the first time had fallen to its lowest level since at least the 1950s. “No one wants to hear it, but the flow has already stopped,” Mr. Massey said, referring to illegal traffic. “For the first time in 60 years, the net traffic has gone to zero and is probably a little bit negative.”
The decline in illegal immigration, from a country responsible for roughly 6 of every 10 illegal immigrants in the United States, is stark. The Mexican census recently discovered four million more people in Mexico than had been projected, which officials attributed to a sharp decline in emigration.
American census figures analyzed by the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center also show that the illegal Mexican population in the United States has shrunk and that fewer than 100,000 illegal border-crossers and visa-violators from Mexico settled in the United States in 2010, down from about 525,000 annually from 2000 to 2004. Although some advocates for more limited immigration argue that the Pew studies offer estimates that do not include short-term migrants, most experts agree that far fewer illegal immigrants have been arriving in recent years.
The question is why. Experts and American politicians from both parties have generally looked inward, arguing about the success or failure of the buildup of border enforcement and tougher laws limiting illegal immigrants’ rights — like those recently passed in Alabama and Arizona. Deportations have reached record highs as total border apprehensions and apprehensions of Mexicans have fallen by more than 70 percent since 2000. Continue reading this article
A couple weeks ago, the mainstream press reported that the acting head of ATF, Kenneth Melson (pictured), was about to resign, given the worsening Gunrunner scandal in which his agency purposely allowd thousands of guns to be sent to Mexican organized crime in order to track them.
Now it turns out that Melson was not willing to take the fall, and has been speaking with Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley, the two leaders pursuing the case. Rep. Issa had previous called for Melson’s resignation, but he has reversed that position since Melson has become more cooperative to the investigation.
Sen. Grassley sent a letter dated July 5 to Attorney General Eric Holder which detailed the meeting in understandable, non-lawyer language (Read here.)
Another news item in the case is that the FBI was involved in the so-called “sting” operation, unbeknownst to the ATF. Acting Director Melman alleged (according to the Grassley letter) that the Justice Department had kept the ATF in the dark regarding the activities of other agencies, which was both inefficient and confusing.
As Grassley wrote, “Specifically, we have very real indications from several sources that some of the gun trafficking “higher-ups” that the ATF sought to identify were already known to other agencies and may even have been paid as informants.”
That’s no way to run a law enforcement department, and it speaks poorly of the improved inter-agency communication the nation was promised after the 9/11 terror attacks.
The Justice Department is obstructing the congressional investigation of a U.S. law enforcement operation intended to crack down on major weapons traffickers on the Southwest border, according to the embattled leader of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Ken Melson, the acting director of the ATF, lobbed the accusation when he sneaked in for an interview with congressional investigators on July 4, two days ahead of his scheduled interview with the inspector general about the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” Fox News has learned.
“If his account is accurate, then ATF leadership appears to have been effectively muzzled while the DOJ sent over false denials and buried its head in the sand,” Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a letter Tuesday to Attorney General Eric Holder. “That approach distorted the truth and obstructed our investigation.”
The Justice Department is reportedly looking to oust Melson, who has been acting ATF director since April 2009, as the agency deals with its biggest scandal in nearly two decades. Andrew Traver, who was tapped in November by President Obama to become the permanent ATF director, could be named as acting director until the Senate acts on his nomination, sources have said.
In a separate development, congressional sources have learned that not only was U.S. taxpayer money being used to buy guns that were later sent to Mexico, but the main target of the investigation was actually a FBI informant and former drug dealer who had been deported years ago.
“Fast and Furious” has been at the center of an investigation by Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. The operation began in the fall of 2009 as an effort to trace and stop the trafficking of illegal guns on the Southwest border, but instead allowed thousands of guns to get into the hands of Mexican cartel members.
The two say they learned about the program after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in December 2010. At the crime scene were two guns linked to the “Fast and Furious” operation.
At an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing last month, three federal firearms investigators testified that they wanted to “intervene and interdict” loads of guns, but were repeatedly ordered to step aside to allow suspected smugglers to carry the weapons over the border. Continue reading this article
Finally, we see some reporting in the American press about the reaction in Mexico to the shocking Gunrunner scandal, in which the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agency allowed thousands of firearms to be bought in US gun stores by straw buyers to be funneled to Mexican organized crime, supposedly so the guns could be “traced” — but no ATF officers followed anything south of the border.
Naturally the Mexican government suits are upset, and who can blame them? The Mexes have way more trouble than they can handle already without the US government piling on. However the Mexicans are insisting that those responsible should be extradited and tried in Mexico, which will never happen. (Incidentally, the official complainting about his country’s sovereignty being violated would not be well received in the US, given Mexico’s systematic decades-long assault on American autonomy.)
However, one can imagine Presidente Calderon putting the bite on Obama for some extra billions in foreign aid or maybe a nice big amnesty focused on Mexicans. Not that BHO needs much pushing in that direction, given his recent directives of non-deportation for nearly everyone outside of axe murderers.
Interestingly, the credulous Mexican street believes that Washington is conspiring to control the country through arming the cartels. Or something. The Mexicans are too self-involved to understand it’s more likely that gun-control liberals wanted the Mexican drug carnage to be blamed on US Second Amendment (even though only a small percentage of confiscated weapons can be traced back to the US).
While the investigation continues into the U.S. operation that helped send thousands of guns south of the border, Mexican lawmakers say they’ll press for extradition and prosecution in Mexico of American officials who authorized and ran the operation.
“I obviously feel violated. I feel my country’s sovereignty was violated,” Mexico Sen. Rene Arce Islas told Fox News. “They should be tried in the United States and the Mexican government should also demand that they also be tried in Mexico since the incidents took place here. There should be trials in both places.”
Arce is chairman of Mexico’s Commission for National Security, a congressional panel similar to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.
His point of view is shared by many Mexican politicians, including Sen. Santiago Creel, a former Interior Minister and the likely presidential nominee next year of the National Action Party to succeed Felipe Calderone, also of PAN.
“I think we should at least try to prove that what happened in Mexico must be sanctioned by Mexican laws and under our sovereignty,” Creel told us. “What can’t happen is that this now ends on an administrative sanction, or a resignation. No, no, no. Human lives were lost here. A decision was made to carry out an operation that brought very high risk to human lives.”
Mexico doesn’t completely understand Operation Fast and Furious, the American plan to help send assault rifles and revolvers to Mexico as a means of exposing the gun trafficking rings that operate along the border. The project lasted 18 months and allowed some 2,500 guns to be illegally sold to suspects the U.S. government knew to be front men for the cartels.
Rather than follow the guns and arrest the brokers and middle men who helped move the guns south, agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped back and ignored the transfer and transport of the weapons to Mexico. Continue reading this article
Europe has been a leader in implementing bad ideas, and for that we can thank them for illustrating bad examples. Europe’s welcome of tens of millions of Muslim immigrants has shown everyone who can see that not all cultures are willing to assimilate to Western values, particularly when they are historic enemies.
We also saw how poorly a borderless continent really functioned — a big hint to many that an expanded NAFTA with Mexico (aka the North American Union) would be even worse. (See Can Washington Learn from the EU Boondoggle?) Sovereign states lost their position of representing the people’s voice as power shifted from national capitals to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
Now Denmark has reinstituted border controls to protect its people from the predations of illegal immigration and criminal drug smugglers. It is an act that has shaken the Schengen agreement, which moved the EU from a trade zone to a borderless superstate, and brought into question the future of a border-free Europe.
Denmark on Tuesday started a controversial plan to boost customs checks on its borders, deploying 50 additional customs officers at crossings with Germany and Sweden.
Germany has led the opposition to the Danish initiative, warning that it violates the spirit, if not the principles, of Europe’s visa-free Schengen agreement, which allows for the free movement of people and goods inside some 25 European nations.
Denmark says the new customs plan, approved by Parliament last week, is needed to fight border-hopping criminals and illegal immigrants inside the Schengen zone.
“We now get more staff and that enables us to make more random controls,” Danish Tax and Customs Administration director Erling Andersen said.
The first car to be pulled over Tuesday by the eight customs officers sent to the Danish-German crossing at Froeslev, 167 miles (270 kilometers) southwest of Copenhagen, was driven by a Dutch woman.
Denmark’s TV2 showed live footage of customs officers searching the car — surrounded by dozens of reporters. They found no drugs or weapons, just dog biscuits, potato chips and bread, and allowed the woman to enter Denmark. Continue reading this article
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (and author of numerous immigration enforcement laws) discussed the two pieces of E-verify legislation in Washington, the Smith bill versus the Grassley Senate version. (E-verify is the federal program by which businesses can quickly check online whether a prospective employee is a legal worker.) The talk was held at a meeting of the Missouri Eagle Forum, where Jessica Vaughan of CIS also commented on E-verify, speaking favorably of the Smith proposal; Watch here.
Many agree with Tom Tancredo who warned, “States should not be barred from employment-related enforcement.”
Kobach went on to voice distrust of legislation where the Chamber of Commerce apparently had the final say, after the organization has been one of the most dogged enemies of border and workplace enforcement.
Immigration is the easy way to invasion in the 21st century, thanks to the political correctness that is deeply entrenched in elected officials and the willing idiots in the liberal media. Elites have learned nothing from the experience of Europe, where multicultural immigration (aka Muslims) is now admitted to have been a failure there by top political leaders. Elites in this country naively hope that the Islam-connected violence which Europe has experienced won’t happen here.
BROOKLYN, N.Y. – The proposed mosque at Ground Zero has sparked a heated national debate in recent months. But just a few miles away in Brooklyn, another mega-mosque controversy is brewing.
Sheepshead Bay is “old school” New York. It’s the kind of place where generations of Italians, Irish, Russians and Jews have settled, drawn by the quiet charm and waterfront view of the working class, south Brooklyn neighborhood.
Voorhies Avenue — with its tidy, well-kept row houses– is typical of Sheepshead Bay, except for one major difference: a gaping hole where a very expensive mosque is planned to be built.
Many of the residents of Voorhies Avenue were born and raised on the block. They brought up their families and planned to retire there.
But now they say that’s all up in the air, thanks to the proposed mosque construction, smack dab in the middle of their residential street.
The Bay People
“We’re basically fighting for our quality of life. People invested in their houses, in their life here,” resident Victor Benari told CBN News.
Benari is a member of Bay People Inc., a local group opposed to the building of the three-story mosque on tiny Voorhies Avenue. Continue reading this article
The states continue to lead the way in defending America from the assault of multicultural immigration. The good news today is from Tennessee, where it is now the law that towns be informed when a passel of refugees are about to be dumped, er resettled by mooch agencies like Catholic Charities. The law also allows local communities to put out the unwelcome mat when they believe they cannot absorb refugees given their economies and infrastructure.
In addition to the straight news item posted below, Act for America has information about its local members who assisted with the authorship of the legislation. The group, started by Brigitte Gabriel, focuses on the national security threat posed by hostile Muslims.
Up to this point, communities have had no tools to use against unwanted refugee dumping from Washington. It will be interesting to see how well this approach works out.
Naturally the Refugee Industrial Complex is making loud complaints that Tennessee is no longer welcoming, while the diversity cultists have made a specific assault on the Bible belt. In fact, the traditional citizens behind this law merely want to protect American culture from Islam. Immigration was never supposed to destroy the nation’s values.
A bill that originated from the desk of State Sen. Jim Tracy has been signed into law that would make sure that local communities would be able to absorb refugees.
But a state immigrant rights group has blasted the new measure, calling it an “unprecedented attack on refugees.”
Called the Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, the new law, signed by Gov. Bill Haslam on May 27, will require Catholic Charities, the state’s refugee program agency, to meet four times a year with local governments to plan and coordinate “the appropriate placement of refugees in advance of the refugees’ arrival …”
A number of refugees from a variety of countries, such as Somali, Burma and Egypt, have moved to Shelbyville in recent years to be closer to jobs at the Tyson Foods facility.
Tracy told the T-G in February that there has been “a lot of discussion across the state about this, particularly in Bedford County … but other counties also.” He explained at the time that the law would require resettlement agencies to let local governments know when a large number of refugees are coming “because it puts a burden on the local community.”
“Absorptive capacity” refers to a community’s ability to meet the existing needs of its current residents, the availability of affordable or low-cost housing, including existing waiting lists, and “the capacity of the local school district to meet the needs of the existing or anticipated refugee student population.”
The law also refers to “the ability of the local economy to absorb new workers without causing competition with local residents for job opportunities, displacing existing local workers, or adversely affecting the wages or working conditions of the local workforce.”
It also states that a local government can request a moratorium on new resettlement activities, by documenting that the community lacks the absorptive capacity and that further resettlement would result in an adverse impact to existing residents.
The bill passed the state house by a vote of 86-10 with passage in the Senate side by a vote of 22-9-1.
The new law has drawn the ire of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Right Coalition, which has labeled the measure the “Refugees Not Welcome Act.”
According to a statement on TIRRC’s website, “we are concerned that it will encourage local governments to pass symbolic resolutions to discourage further refugee resettlement.” Continue reading this article
The Fourth of July has gotten a lot of bashing this year from the dinosaur media. US News & World Report warned its liberal readers that taking your children to an Independence Day celebration could turn them into (gasp!) Republicans (Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing). Plus, traditional yummy foods are both unhealthy and damaging to the planet, or so we are told.
On top of that, HBO has chosen the 4th of July to roll out their “patriotic” documentary filmed by former Speaker Pelosi’s daughter Alexandra which traveled around the country to film naturalization ceremonies. Nice, huh? The immigrants came the right way, and now they are getting their just reward.
I appreciate foreigners who immigrate legally and actually like the freedoms this country offers. That’s a relief after the endless demands of millions of foreign grifters.
However, America is full, environmentally speaking, and the period of massive legal immigration needs to end just as the frontier did in 1890. Otherwise the quality of life for all will suffer. The proper number now is ZERO. The people now waiting in the legal pipeline should be welcomed with open arms but then no more.
In addition, Pelosi Jr. seemed to have a strong diversity component in her film, at least from what has been shown in advance. She said that immigrants were moving out from the big cities into the countryside and were making America a “melting pot,” so eventually there will be no escape from diversity anywhere. Pelosi asked newbie citizens what they liked best about America and an Afghan guy answered, “Girls.” A Filipino said she loved 911 on the phone: “You dial and they come right away and rescue you.” Underwhelming.
Nobody was so tasteless as to say they loved the extensive welfare system and free food for the kiddies at school. Ms Pelosi also did not ask whether the new citizens were merely grateful to be out of the third world sewer where they were unluckily born.
America has been binging on immigration for decades and it’s long past time for a national diet. Citizens are tired of being the world’s flophouse where the doors never close. Enough already.
Finally, if one is going to make a film celebrating America, then viewers might expect that Americans would be the subject. It seems that Pelosi Democrats only like foreign-born Americans, not the home-grown traditional variety, who self-identify as conservative by two to one.
HBO’s new documentary “Citizen U.S.A.: A 50 State Road Trip” is such an unabashed love letter to the country that you almost expect fireworks to burst through the TV screen at the end.
Yet the Alexandra Pelosi project also comes with so many layers of political baggage — her background as the daughter of former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the charged issue of illegal immigration and a discomfort with patriotism — that it will be hard for people to take it at face value.
Alexandra Pelosi, maker of a series of documentaries starting with the 2000 presidential campaign narrative “Journeys With George,” traveled across the country to film ceremonies where immigrants were sworn in as new U.S. citizens. New citizens explain why they took the oath and what they like about their new country in the film, which debuts at 9 p.m. EDT on July 4.
“The purpose of this journey was to show people all of the things that people in America take for granted,” Pelosi said in an interview.
It was born of personal experience. Pelosi’s husband, Michiel Vos, moved from Holland to New York when they married. The realization that he could be thrown out of the country without his wife and two children at any time prompted him to pursue citizenship. Pelosi brought her camera to film Vos’ naturalization ceremony, and followed him to other states when he had speaking engagements at similar occasions.
The film opens with Vos reciting the “Pledge of Allegiance” together with President Barack Obama. (Although Obama appeared in the film, the administration nixed one promotional idea. Pelosi appeared on Comedy Central’s “Colbert Report” last week, where host Stephen Colbert revealed that the show wanted to air a live ceremony of new citizens being sworn in. The White House said no because it didn’t think a comedy show was the right place for such an important event in the lives of new citizens.) Continue reading this article
Supervisor Jeff Stone is disgusted by liberal leaders’ crazed spending in Sacramexico and irresponsibility regarding immigration enforcement, among other things.
His new state (map shown) would include most of southern California, but with the hopeless Los Angeles County snipped off. (Nobody wants LA, particularly northern Californians who are sick of decades of water grabs.)
RIVERSIDE (CBS) — Is the state of California about to go “South”?
Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone apparently thinks so, after proposing that the county lead a campaign for as many as 13 Southern California counties to secede from the state.
Stone said in a statement late Thursday that Riverside, Imperial, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, Kings, Kern, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa and Mono counties should form the new state of South California.
The creation of the new state would allow officials to focus on securing borders, balancing budgets, improving schools and creating a vibrant economy, he said.
“Our taxes are too high, our schools don’t educate our children well enough, unions and other special interests have more clout in the Legislature than the general public,” Stone said in his statement.
He unveiled his proposal on the day Gov. Jerry Brown signed budget legislation that will divert about $14 million in 2011-12 vehicle license fee revenue from four new Riverside County cities. Continue reading this article
Senator Sessions has been a long-time leader in defending American sovereignty in the Senate, a place where patriots are in short supply.
In earlier memos of analysis, he has used the list format, which is a helpful way for readers to grasp the critical details of complex legislation. The Senator excoriated the 2007 Senate amnesty bill with a list of 20 loopholes. He issued a memo last fall blasting the lame duck amnesty legislation titled Ten Things You Need to Know about S.3287, the DREAM Act.
Senator Sessions is back with another explanatory list, this time to elucidate the most recent DREAM Act, which he characterizes as worse than the previous version, which was pretty bad.
The bill is a Christmas tree of goodies for millions, including dangerous criminals, gangsters and drunk drivers (see #5). The open-borders gang in Washington is perfectly happy to endanger public safety to reward foreign lawbreakers whom the Senators dishonestly portray as innocent young people.
The DREAM Act is not going anywhere in this Congress, but the deep corruption of the legislation reveals what evil of the open-borders bunch is trying to palm off as acceptable public policy.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has issued a statement highlighing 10 things Americans need to know about the newly introduced DREAM Act. On Tuesday, the Senate Immigration Subcommittee held its first ever hearing on the DREAM Act, but few Senators were in attendance because of conflicts with other committee meetings and votes on the Senate floor.
In the release, Sen. Sessions said that the bill “would offer amnesty to over 2 million illegal aliens” and according to the Congressional Budget Office would add “more than $5 billion to the federal deficit”.
Sen. Sessions 10 points include:
1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “children.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.952 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many could be much older before petitioning for status—hardly the “children” the Act’s advocates talk about. The bill’s 35- year-old age cap on “children” applies only to the date of enactment, and the registration window will remain open indefinitely regardless of future age.
2. The DREAM Act Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard-Working, Law-Abiding Americans Proponents of the DREAM Act still have failed to acknowledge previous CBO estimates that its enactment would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion. But the number is likely to be dramatically higher, as CBO estimates failed to account for a number of major cost factors with the DREAM Act, including increased unemployment of U.S. citizens, public education costs, chain migration, litigation and fraud. Nor did the CBO account for what history has proven: passing amnesty will incentivize even more illegality and lawlessness at the border. In addition, the CBO assumed a large portion of those who receive amnesty will obtain jobs, but there is no surplus of job opportunities. According to a June 2011 Report by the Center for Immigration Studies, the employment situation for U.S.-born workers and citizens who are young and less-educated – those most likely to compete with illegal aliens – is already bleak, with unemployment rates for those who have not completed high school at 34.6 percent. Furthermore, previous scores failed to account for those who cannot get jobs because of this competition and will claim unemployment benefits.
In addition, DHS/USCIS will have to process DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) though S.952 accounts for no fees to handle processing. This increased burden would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the costs of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and would force taxpayers to pay for amnesty.
Though the DREAM Act does not mention fees, the CBO previously assumed all illegal aliens will pay a $700 fee to submit an application. USCIS, however, recently implemented a formal process whereby fees can be waived for hardship. It is likely that most of those petitioning for status under this bill will fall within a hardship exception and not pay any fees at all. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants, and states would be on the hook for in-state tuition for illegal aliens.
3. The DREAM Act Provides a Safe Harbor for Any Alien, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly S.952 protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional nonimmigrant status”—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for millions. Though the bill requires a modest “prima facie” showing of eligibility, this is the lowest standard of legal proof and could likely be satisfied by the alien’s signature. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent an illegal alien’s removal from the United States. Such delays will increase the number of those released on bail and will increase the number of absconders. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.
4. Certain Inadmissible Aliens and ALL Deportable Aliens, Including Those From High-Risk Regions, Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act Certain categories of criminal aliens who are inadmissible to the United States will be eligible for DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members. The DREAM Act allows the following illegal aliens to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in document fraud, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, and aliens who have been unlawfully present in the United States, even after being previously removed.
The exemption for fraud is particularly troubling because it creates a potential loophole for unknown terrorists who have defrauded immigration authorities—as was the case with the 9/11 hijackers. At the same time, limited federal resources that are better utilized tracking down such fraud will have to be directed towards reviewing potentially fraudulent claims on millions of DREAM applications. Making matters worse, the DREAM Act allows all aliens subject to deportation, including criminals and terrorists, to be eligible for amnesty.
5. Certain Criminal Aliens—Including Drunk Drivers—Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act Certain categories of criminal aliens can qualify for status under the DREAM Act. The bill includes a 1 felony/3-misdemeanor rule, similar to the 1986 amnesty rule. As a result, criminal aliens who have less than 3 misdemeanor convictions will remain eligible for legal, permanent status through the DREAM Act. Some misdemeanors can be extremely serious, such as driving under the influence, certain drug offenses, gang activity, some charges of sexual abuse of a minor, assault and battery, and even prostitution. 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.