The Pew Hispanic Center has a new report on the increasing number and percentage of latino voters, particularly focusing on the 2010 election.
The numbers keep inching up, because immigration-fueled demography is relentless. Still, the enthusiasm for voting remains less than among other groups, e.g. white voters had 48.6 percent turnout in 2010, while 31.2 percent of hispanic voters showed up at the polls.
More than 6.6 million Latinos voted in last year’s election—a record for a midterm—according to an analysis of new Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. Latinos also were a larger share of the electorate in 2010 than in any previous midterm election, representing 6.9% of all voters, up from 5.8% in 2006.
Rapid population growth has helped fuel Latinos’ increasing electoral participation. According to the Census Bureau, 50.5 million Hispanics were counted by the 2010 Census, up from 35.3 million in 2000. Over the same decade, the number of Latino eligible voters—adults who are U.S. citizens—also increased, from 13.2 million in 2000 to 21.3 million in 2010.
However, even though more Latinos than ever are participating in the nation’s elections, their representation among the electorate remains below their representation in the general population. In 2010, 16.3% of the nation’s population was Latino, but only 10.1% of eligible voters and fewer than 7% of voters were Latino.
This gap is driven by two demographic factors—youth and non-citizenship. More than one third of Latinos (34.9%) are younger than the voting age of 18. And an additional 22.4% are of voting age, but are not U.S. citizens. As a result, the share of the Latino population eligible to vote is smaller than it is among any other group. Just 42.7% of the nation’s Latino population is eligible to vote, while more than three-in-four (77.7%) of whites, two-thirds of blacks (67.2%) and more than half of Asians (52.8%) are eligible to vote.
Yet, even among eligible voters, Latino participation rates lag those of other groups. In 2010, 31.2% of Latino eligible voters say they voted, while nearly half (48.6%) of white eligible voters and 44.0% of black eligible voters said the same. Continue reading this article
In the CBN video below examining the mushrooming of mosques, even an Islamic leader says, “Most people associate such places with terrorism and they get angry when we talk about building new mosques.”
In an anti-mosque demonstration, a woman says to an imam, “You are ugly creatures. Go away from here back to your motherland.” The imam responds by accusing Russians of being drunks.
Later a young woman in a fur hat voices her fears: “I am scared. They come into our neighborhood and begin to tell us things we can and cannot do. We like to walk our dogs here and have outdoor barbecues, but the Muslims can say you cannot cook pork or walk your dog around here.”
Between one and two million Muslims reside in Moscow alone, with more having come recently due to the break-up of the old Soviet Union.
All in all, the explosion of Muslim diversity in Moscow does not suggest a peaceful future for the city. When a country allows the immigration of historical enemies, it is pretending that human nature, with all its propensity for tribal violence, has taken a vacation. But it hasn’t.
The California Table, a coalition of more than 40 organizations across the state, will host seven townhall forums this April 26 – 30, 2011 featuring Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a champion of champions on immigration reform in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The forums will highlight how our current immigration laws are impacting U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen families. Testimonies from a variety of Californians will be heard. The California tour is the largest leg of two national campaigns, the Change Takes Courage Campaign by the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM), and the American Families and Children Tour by Congressman Gutierrez.
In the attachment section below, you may print and distribute the Petition.
Below, please see the week’s schedule. All forums are open to the public.
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
[Also of interest: 4/26, – Hearing in Sacramento on the TRUST Act (Ammiano), which would honor the right of local governments to opt out of the troubled “Secure” Communities immigration program; the program has raised serious safety, civil liberties, and transparency concerns. Contact Jon Rodney at 510-207-9520 for details]
**Note: Rep. Gutierrez will be present at all events below.
REDWOOD CITY. Tues. 4/26, 3:00-4:30pm.
What and where: Town hall, St. Peter’s Episcopal Church, 178 Clinton St, Redwood City.
Contact: Silvia Ramirez (650)716-7746
Sponsoring organizations: Committee de Padres Unidos; Episcopal Diocese
SAN JOSE. Tues. 4/26, 6:30-8:00pm
What and where: Town hall at Sacred Heart Church, 325 Willow St. San Jose.
Myrick’s Youtube channel has posted a series of informational videos about the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliations. The most recent outlines the connections between the Brotherhood and the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which claims to be a civil rights organization but is the propaganda arm for the terrorist group Hamas, as revealed in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial.
CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad, stated a basic strategy: “I believe that our problem is that we stopped working underground. . . the media person among us will realize that you send two messages: one to the Americans and one to the Muslims.”
CAIR’s message to the Americans is that anyone who objects to the totalitarian objectives of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood is Islamophobic.
Given all this information about the criminal activity of CAIR, why hasn’t the group been prosecuted? That’s what Homeland Security Chair Peter King would like to know. He discussed that subject in a wide-ranging interview with Fox News on Sunday:
Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Peter King of New York is concerned that nefarious political motives led the Justice Department to abandon the terrorist financing prosecutions of several Muslim groups suspected of funneling money to the terrorist group Hamas.
In 2009, the Obama administration declined to seek indictments of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its co-founder Omar Ahmad, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) for their alleged participation in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist funding conspiracy.
King says that despite the concerns of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas, high ranking administration officials unjustifiably dropped the prosecutions of the Islamic groups.
“We have been contacted by former justice department officials, former assistant U.S. attorneys who were involved and are knowledgeable about the case,” King told The Daily Caller. “They were very concerned and angry because the case was ready for indictment and they believe there would have been indictments and convictions.”
King has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to explain the reasons behind dropping the investigation.
“I believe this is part of the whole approach of Eric Holder. Investigating the CIA interrogators, trying to have the 9/11 trials in NY one just flows from the other,” said King. “I believe Holder has a very appeasement-like attitude when it comes to dealing with radical Islam. Obviously if it is a clear case of terrorism he will go after it.
But if there is any ambiguity in his mind, he doesn’t want to get involved, especially with a group like CAIR, which has emerged, unfortunately, as the main spokesman for the Muslim community.” Continue reading this article
A person might think that the authorities wanted as little media attention as possible of a crime where four little children’s throats were slit by their Somali father. Nobody likes that kind of diversity, although there are certainly numerous unhappy immigrants acting out stresses through violence against their own relatives.
Said Biyad is guilty of murdering his four children and assaulting and raping his wife, a judge ruled Friday.
Circuit Judge James Shake issued the ruling after the conclusion of the trial Friday, which featured lengthy and often rambling testimony from Biyad, who claimed three mysterious men in a blue van came into his home on Oct. 6, 2006, demanded $10 million and then murdered his four children, slitting their throats.
The men prevented Biyad from calling 911 but later handed him the murder weapon, a knife, which he put in a dumpster, and told him they could give him a ride to the police station, Biyad testified during the fourth and final day of his murder trial.
When Biyad arrived at the police station, on a bus, he said he told police about the three men but they instead focused on him, asking if he had killed his children and raped and beaten his wife, Fatuma Amir.
And Biyad said the confession that was played in court on Thursday was “made up,” with someone else answering questions from Louisville Metro Police Detective Chris Middleton in English.
“It was unbelievable when I saw me talking all the English,” he said through a translator. “I think the whole thing is made up. …That wasn’t my voice.” Continue reading this article
The latest affront to the First Amendment was the imprisonment of Rev. Terry Jones for planning speech critical of Islam. He never got to protest in front of the mosque at all but he was jailed for thought crimes against Muslims.
Notice how Muslims’ reputation for intimidation and violence works to exempt them from normal level of criticism we all experience in this society.
Actually, Muslims can be pretty hostile, as the video below shows. A Jones supporter needed police to escort him through a screaming mob, then a Muslim guy says, “Hatred is not allowed in this world.”
A Florida pastor’s planned demonstration outside a Michigan mosque was scuttled Friday after a jury determined the protest would constitute a breach of the peace and he was briefly jailed for refusing to pay what authorities called a “peace bond.”
The Rev. Terry Jones, whose past rhetoric against Muslims has inflamed anti-Western sentiment in Afghanistan, said he refused to pay the $1 bond because to do so would violate his freedom of speech. He later paid it and was released.
Jones had planned a demonstration Friday evening outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, a suburb of Detroit that is home to one of the largest Muslim communities in the nation. An estimated 30,000 people in Dearborn, about a third of the city’s population, trace their roots to the Middle East.
Prosecutors worried the protest would lead to violence and asked Dearborn District Judge Mark Somers to intervene. Somers conducted a one-day jury trial to determine whether Jones would pose a threat to peace. They did, and Somers then ordered Jones and an associate to post the bond to ostensibly cover the costs of police protection.
While largely symbolic, the bond also came with conditions that included a prohibition on Jones from going to the mosque or the adjacent property for three years.
Somers said he spoke to the jury after they reached their verdict and they told him they were concerned with the “time, place and manner and not the content of the speech.”
But Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University, called the entire proceedings unconstitutional. He said the U.S. Supreme Court has found that it’s the job of the police to protect speakers at such events and said it is unconstitutional to require protesters to post a bond for police protection.
“What basis did the state have for arguing that they would breach the peace?” Sedler said. “It’s a matter of First Amendment requirement: The government can’t stop a speaker from speaking because of danger from a hostile crowd.” Continue reading this article
We have already heard rumors that Washington may take some number of the absconding freedom fighters to this country: Does Obama Plan to Welcome Dangerous Libyan Refugees to America? That would be a terrible decision for national security reasons as well as economic (as in, no spare jobs), so let’s hope Obama is too busy campaigning for re-election to welcome any extraneous Muslim refugees.
BRITAIN will not open its borders to migrants fleeing the turmoil in North Africa, the Home Secretary has insisted.
Theresa May told her EU counterparts that the UK was not prepared to take on any “burden sharing”.
Ms May issued her warning at a meeting of Europe’s Home Affairs ministers in response to calls for help from Italy.
She did however offer “practical assistance” to Italy on its own shores.
A Home Office spokesman said: “We were quite robust in stating that we are not planning to open our borders to those coming to Europe from North Africa. We do not agree with ‘burden sharing’ which is what Italy wants.”
More than 25,000, mainly Tunisians, have arrived in Italy since the unrest there and thousands of Libyans, Egyptians and other Africans are expected to make the crossing as border controls in war-torn Libya fail.
On the day chosen to emphasize the thoughtful care of our planetary home, much in the public discourse is misguided or upside down. The major environmental organizations push a global warming agenda which has been shown to be overblown in its presentation, at the minimum.
Meanwhile, vital topics have fallen from view, such as the global population rushing toward seven billion persons, an event that will occur sometime this year. It was only 12 years ago when the global odometer crossed the six-billion threshold in 1999. Growth of this magnitude is environmentally unsustainable, as we humans gobble through natural resources that will replenish themselves if allowed to do so, such as fresh water, fisheries and soil. But human efficiency in resource extraction currently overwhelms the wisdom to use complex natural systems in a way to make them last.
In our own country, excessive population growth, fueled by uncontrolled immigration, is similarly environmentally irresponsible. And the people who squawk the loudest about America’s large carbon footprint are the same ones who favor permissive immigration — liberal Democrats.
Furthermore, the destruction of America’s public lands near the Mexican border by the trampling millions of illegal alien trash spewers has been ignored by environmental groups like the Sierra Club. Today, the best defender of American park lands is Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); see my blog Border Parks Defended against Invader-Friendy Rules.
The video below reveals the devastation of border lands from illegal immigration. Why is this not considered an important environmental issue by the Sierra Club and other lights of the green movement?
Here’s a straight news account from southern Arizona. (In it, a Sierra Club employee mouths the organization’s support for comprehensive immigration reform, otherwise known as mass amnesty.)
It’s well known that the French consider food as an important part of their culture. So when Muslims moved in by the millions and insisted that at least some restaurants cater to their demands, a serious culture clash blew up. The French appreciate alcohol and pork, and the Sons of Allah want those products to disappear. In Paris, local groups sometimes using Facebook have celebrated French culture with wine and sausages in the streets.
As is often the case with Muslims, no compromise is possible. Halal sharia-compliant food means no pork etc. can exist on the same premises. Forget about bacon on your burger if the restaurant is halal. When the Quick fast food chain turned some of its restaurants Islamic, that meant pork-eating French people couldn’t get the chow they wanted. In Lyon last year, a group of French pork-o-philes put on pig masks and protested the affront to traditional values at a Quick restaurant.
It looks like the same bunch is gearing up for a bigger and better action in a few weeks. The porcine provocateurs have produced a jolly video that reviews the pig-in from last year by way of announcing a Pig March May 14 in Lyon on their website Marche des Cochons.
Reflects the Islamisation of our country, the growing share of the halal food system in our concern for all the French who refuse to eat meat slaughtered in the name of Allah, often without their knowledge.
Born following the success of the invasion of Halal Quick Villeurbanne from 70 pigs in May 2010, this idea of big demonstration against the halal taking shape today.
We decided to place our event under the banner of humor and shift around the porcine theme. We consider the second degree is the best way to raise public awareness on the issue of halal and Islamization.
Engaged citizens, consumer associations, butchers and delicatessens, activists lay or cause animal breeders or simple Lyonnais please show your opposition to halal and Islamization in many coming Saturday, May 14, 2011 in Lyon, in this first March of Pigs.
Vive la France and particularly its stalwart defenders. My calendar is marked.
Obama must be hoping that the 14 million unemployed citizens won’t notice that he wants to amnesty 20+ million workers into the legal economy. That’s not a very friendly thing to do in the jobless economic recovery. One indicator was the large turnout when McDonald’s announced it would interview for 50,000 jobs on April 19.
He hosted a gaggle of liberal swells today (including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and criminal coddling former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) at the White House to discuss comprehensive amnesty. But these days, the sovereignty-friendly House of Representatives has more important things to do than reward foreign lawbreakers.
Despite long odds against immigration reform, President Obama on Tuesday urged a wide range of activists and officials to keep pushing the issue. The president told the group, which included Rev. Al Sharpton, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that for Congress to act, they will have to put pressure on Capitol Hill.
“All politicians have to listen to their base,” Sharpton told reporters after the White House meeting.
Sharpton acknowledged that Obama was “very candid” about immigration reform’s bleak hopes for passage.
But Bill Bratton, a former police chief of Los Angeles and New York City, said Obama asked the group of about 70 participants “to commit going forward to keep the debate about this issue alive.”
Obama has come under fire repeatedly by Hispanic and pro-reform groups who have questioned his commitment on the issue.
As the president prepares to travel to Nevada on Wednesday, a state that highlights the growing importance of Hispanic voters, Obama sought to demonstrate that he still considers the issue a priority.
Eric Garcetti, president of the Los Angeles city council, said that Obama “made a very compelling case that he will not let this issue go.”
Ahead of the meeting, the White House said in a release that Obama would talk to the group about “how we can work together to foster a constructive national conversation on this important issue as we work to build a bipartisan consensus in Congress.”
A recent Rasmussen survey indicates that more Americans than ever believe birthright citizenship is a bad policy and should be changed.
As a 2008 CBS report (Illegal Immigrant Births – At Your Expense, see video below) revealed, pregnant illegal aliens deliberately come to give birth in this country so their kid can get all the benefits of US citizenship, which helps the whole family at the welfare office. The policy is definitely a magnet for foreign lawbreakers.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 61% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that a child born in the United States to a woman who is here illegally should not automatically become a U.S. citizen. That’s up slightly from last August but is the highest level of support for a change in the existing law found in five years of Rasmussen Reports surveying.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) disagree and feel that children born to illegal immigrants in this country should automatically become American citizens as is currently the practice. That’s down six points from August. Another 11% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Eighty-four percent (84%) of voters believe that before anyone receives local, state or federal government services, they should be required to prove they are legally allowed to be in the United States. Only nine percent (9%) oppose such a requirement.
Most voters continue to feel that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration, but voters are now almost evenly divided over whether it’s better to let the federal government or individual states enforce immigration laws. At least one state, Arizona, has been considering a law that would deny full citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. [. . .]
While most voters favor stronger enforcement of immigration laws, just over half (55%) of voters nationwide also are at least somewhat concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. Forty-two percent (42%) don’t share that concern. This includes 21% who are Very Concerned and 12% who are Not At All Concerned.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose automatic U.S. citizenship for children born in this country to illegal immigrants. Democrats are evenly divided on the question.
Also, 75% of Democrats are concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal aliens will violate the civil rights of some U.S. citizens, a view shared by just 39% of Republicans. Unaffiliated voters are narrowly divided on the question.
There are sharper differences of opinion as far as the Political Class is concerned. Seventy percent (70%) of those in the Political Class favor automatic citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, but 70% of Mainstream voters are opposed.
Mainstream voters also believe much more emphatically that those seeking government services need to prove they are in this country legally. They also are far less concerned than Political Class voters about violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. 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.