Now she is back with the same propaganda, despite the border region suffering from “more vandalism, more threats, it was worse,” according to Rep. Ed Royce during a February fact-finding trip. He also noted that the violence from the Mexican side is “now spilling over the border on to US soil,” and swaths of territory 40 miles this side of the border are under the control of Mexican cartels for their smuggling operations.
Someone should ask Napolitano whether it is now safe for citizens to enjoy their border-area parks, where signs warn of the danger:
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said Thursday that security on the southern U.S. border “is better now than it ever has been” and that violence from neighboring Mexico hasn’t spilled over in a serious way.
Napolitano spoke at the Bridge of The Americas border crossing, after a meeting with the mayors of the border towns of El Paso, Nogales, Ariz., and Yuma, Ariz. Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Francisco Sanchez and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin also were present.
Napolitano said the Department of Homeland Security will deploy 250 more border agents and expects to have 300 more under their next budget if it’s approved. She stated that Homeland Security is investing “millions of dollars in the side of commerce and trade” to improve infrastructure and technology along the border.
However, she added that there is a need to correct wrong impressions about the border region. Napolitano said border towns are safe for travel, trade and commerce. She noted that the total value of imports crossing the Southwest border was up 22 percent in fiscal year 2010, she said.
“There is a perception that the border is worse now than it ever has been. That is wrong. The border is better now than it ever has been,” she said.
The perception that the violence in Mexico has spilled over to bordering U.S. cities is “wrong again,” Napolitano said. Violent crime rates have remained flat or decreased in border communities in the Southwest, she said. However, she recognized that “there is much to do with (their) colleagues in Mexico in respect to the drug cartels” that are largely responsible for the unprecedented wave of violence in that country.
It may be true that crime statistics in border cities have not risen, but the smuggling is occurring out in the countryside, where Rep. Royce described the situation as “worse.”
Furthermore, border cities have a strong reason to understate crime stats: they don’t want to scare off business. There’s nothing like a street firefight between cartel gangs to make companies pack up and leave. Continue reading this article
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ, with a D+ recent voting grade) has been a long-time friend of illegal alien amnesty for millions, aka “comprehensive reform” in the Orwellian newspeak that is now the norm in Washington.
However, he is “repositioning” himself on border enforcement now that he envisions himself as Arizona’s next Senator, with the retirement of Jon Kyl in 2012. Flake hopes to emulate the successful campaign strategy of flip-flopper extraordinaire John McCain, who convinced voters that he actually wanted to “build the dang fence” and enforce the border after being Ted Kennedy’s best friend on amnesty for years. (For a refresher, see The Ongoing John McCain Sage: How the Worm Turns.)
Now that he is safely re-elected, McCain openly admits that border enforcement is a mere precursor before his important issue of rewarding millions of foreign lawbreakers with US citizenship. He reiterated that position during a March 21 interview with Greta Van Susteren.
MCCAIN: JON KYL and I have a plan which we know, if it’s implemented, would get our borders secured. And then we must move on to the next pressing issue, which is comprehensive immigration reform. We can do it, Greta. We can secure our border with sufficient personnel, fences and surveillance capability.
Of all the multitude of problems now facing this nation, McCain believes mass amnesty is “pressing.”
Politicians don’t even pretend they are not engaging in a political flip-flop, and count on amnesia among voters who should know better.
Flake’s convenient conversion was too blatant to be missed, even among beltway denizens at The Hill.
After years of supporting immigration reform, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has started emphasizing a border-security-first approach as he makes a run for Senate.
Flake’s views on a guest-worker program and other immigration issues were considered his main vulnerability in a GOP Senate primary. But after watching Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) successfully tack to the right during his primary fight last year, Flake is now following that playbook.
“I’ve been down that road, and it is a dead end. The political realities in Washington are such that a comprehensive solution is not possible, or even desirable given the current leadership. Border security must be addressed before other reforms are tackled.”
The congressman made similar remarks to The Ballot Box when asked about the immigration issue.
“You’ve got to have some mechanism that deals with those who are here illegally,” he said in February.
“We dealt with it before with a provision that required them to go home and register. But everything like that is on hold until we have better border security.”
Flake could face former Rep. J.D. Hayworth or Rep. Trent Franks in the GOP primary, both of whom would look for space on the lawmaker’s right flank. During McCain’s primary against Hayworth last year, the senator parried attacks on his past support for immigration reform by repositioning himself as a border hawk.
The senator even released a widely mocked TV ad wherein he walked along a border fence. In McCain’s “danged fence” ad, as it became known, he called for the completion of a border barrier that he had previously criticized.
The recent Libyan adventure/war unleashed by the President is a fine indicator of Obama values. Even establishing a mere no-fly zone over a camel-filled country is not exactly peanuts, but once BHO had made up his mind, he sent an array of planes and bombs into the fray, in which the “rebels” America is defending appear to be just another gang of hostile jihadists.
Let’s compare another, more immediate security concern. The Mexico border remains sieve-like and is clearly not a top priority in Washington, despite the worsening descent of the hispanic nation into chaos.
By comparison, the Libya intervention or war, or whatever it should be called, is mounting up costs at the speed of debt. Fox reported March 20, “Each Tomahawk missile costs $600,000, according to the official, bringing the initial costs of the strikes to approximately $71 million.”
Back-of-the-envelope calculations don’t look any better.
WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) — With the tab already running into the hundreds of millions of dollars, the U.S. military intervention in Libya has sparked a debate over funding.
To date, the United States has spent some $225 million firing Tomahawk missiles, according to CNN estimates based on U.S. Navy figures.
The cost could reach up to $800 million to fully establish the no-fly zone and another $100 million a week to maintain it going forward, said Zack Cooper, a senior analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Even with spending out of favor in Washington, defense costs remain among the most controversial in the debate over how to reduce deficits.
Defense spending, in inflation adjusted terms, is higher than at any time since the end of World War II, and the United States now spends six times as much as China, the country with the next biggest budget.
To pay part of the tab for intervention in Libya, the United States is hoping to lean on other nations, especially oil rich Persian Gulf countries that have indicated financial support, according to a top State Department official who testified before Congress last week.
The costs are mounting. The price tag to replace the fighter jet that went down Tuesday with a top model could run between $100 million and $150 million, Cooper said. And fuel prices for each jet runs $10,000 an hour.
Right, there’s nothing like passing the hat after the fact. That’ll work.
Rep. Ted Poe is known for his punchy one-minute speeches on the floor of Congress, ending with “And that’s the way it is.” He was incensed that Terry and the other agents were reportedly required to use the non-lethal ammo in a lethal situation where their opponents carried AK-47s — supplied by the ATF.
Rep. Poe wants a serious investigation to get to the bottom of ATF’s suspicious gunrunning that delivered thousands of firearms into the hands of Mexican gangsters.
The United States/Mexico border is a lawless warzone controlled by violent drug cartels. More than 34,000 people have been murdered in Mexico since the narco-terrorists began their reign of terror in 2006. Drugs and people are smuggled north into the United States and guns and money are flowing south, enabling the drug cartels to continue to wage their violent war.
Weapons from the United States reach the outlaws in Mexico, mostly because Mexico does not protect its own border any better than we do. Recent whistleblower allegations claim that tactics of the United States government, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), may be contributing to the problem of delivering weapons to the criminals in Mexico, rather than trying to fix it. I am deeply concerned about this.
Part of ATF’s mission is to protect American communities from “the illegal use and trafficking of firearms.” Put simply, part of ATF’s duty is to make sure guns don’t end up in the hands of the bad guys. Through the program “Project Gunrunner,” ATF uses electronic tags to trace gun movements on both sides of the border. What has been alleged, however, is that while the program has been successful in apprehending weapons and criminals, too many guns have been intentionally let go into the hands of Mexican drug lords when it is almost guaranteed that the guns will be used in violent crimes.
We know about these allegations through a whistleblower, an ATF agent who recently came forward with troubling allegations that he was ordered by his superiors not to intercept weapons that were sold to “suspicious characters,” including well-known gun suppliers for Mexican drug cartels. And that’s not all — the whistleblower alleges that ATF’s Phoenix Field office knowingly allowed and facilitated the sale of over 2,500 firearms in ‘straw man purchases’ destined for Mexico. According to these allegations, one well-known trafficker, Jaime Avila, was allowed to purchase 3 assault weapons in Glendale, Arizona on January 16, 2010. It is also alleged that at least one of the gun dealers tried to stop selling to Avila; however, ATF asked him to continue selling guns to this criminal.
What happened next is deeply troubling. Avila went back to Mexico with the guns he had purchased and sold them to the drug cartels. The weapons travelled freely through the streets of Mexico for nearly a year. During that time, Avila continued to purchase more weapons, sending them from the United States into Mexico. We have since learned that 2 of the 3 weapons purchased by Avila were recovered at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Apparently ATF let 2 guns get sent down into Mexico, and as a result an American citizen and federal government employee was murdered. Continue reading this article
Across the pond in Great Britain, attention is being paid to the growing popularity of the U Visa, which rewards alleged victims of crime in the United States. Britain is famous for its generous welfare (like enormous mansions!) parceled out to often underserving foreigners, so they may have extra simpatico on the subject.
Illegal aliens who claim they were mugged or otherwise harmed can get the keys to the kingdom, an open door for them and their entire families.
Naturally, such an attractive goodie is a major magnet for fraud, and the category includes many who might be eligible. What alien hasn’t been ripped off or injured by one of their reprobate associates? One hundred percent of that group has already broken the law by their illegal entrance, so what’ s little thievery among friends?
And even if the crime experience is genuine, how is that a reason for American citizenship? A black eye should not be more valuable than a college degree. Patch the person up and politely deport after they have testified in court.
On the other side, citizen victims of illegal alien criminals get nothing from the government and are often ignored by the press.
More than 18,000 illegal immigrants, plus 14,000 of their relatives, have gained U.S. visas under a new law since 2009 because they were victims of crime.
While many immigrants may still be unaware of the U visa, word is spreading fast in some communities.
The controversial rules state that if you are a victim of crime and you cooperate, or are ‘helpful’ with authorities, then you stand a good chance of getting a U visa.
Since 2009, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) has issued 18,654 and rejected 5,639 U visas — a 77 per cent approval rate.
Congress has put a ceiling on the number available annually at 10,000 and this year the USCIS looks on course easily to reach that figure, having received 3,331 applications in the first quarter.
Supporters of the visa says it helps in fighting crime. All too often crimes ranging from robbery and domestic violence to rape and murder have gone unreported because the victims were in the U.S. illegally.
The visa rewards people who may have worked hard, they say, and it helps keep families united because relatives of the crime victim can also get the papers saying they can stay in America.
Critics of the visa say it has created a legal minefield that is being increasingly played out in courtrooms across the country.
They also argue that it is wrong to be writing out so many visas at a time when so many Americans cannot get a job.
Both sides would agree on the curious irony that what could be the worst thing to happen to you, being a crime victim in a land where you are trying to stay under the radar, could actually turn out to be the best thing that could happen to you. Continue reading this article
On the other hand, the crime is little investigated, and it’s likely that more thorough scrutiny would show its commission is more frequent than thought. Only seven states required photo-ID at the polls (as of January) — alien-infested California certainly doesn’t.
Recent news items illustrate that voter fraud is alive and well.
Near Chicago (!), a citizen of the Philippines claiming to be an American voted unlawfully numerous times starting in 2003, and is finally being prosecuted. Hopefully she will get a nice long sentence in the Big House,
A Filipino woman living in Grayslake was arrested and charged with 17 felony counts related to voter fraud Thursday after being accused of falsely pretending to be a U.S. citizen and voting nine times in elections dating back to 2003, federal officials announced.
Maria Azada, 53, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, which worked with an investigator for the Lake County State’s Attorney’s office.
Azada faces charges of perjury, mutilation of election materials, and tampering with voting machines in connection with illegal voting by a non-U.S. citizen, according to an ICE news release.
Azada allegedly admitted that she had voted in an election in February 2009 while attending an immigration benefit. It is illegal for foreign nationals to vote in national or state elections in the United States.
“A subsequent investigation revealed that Azada allegedly voted nine times in primary, general and consolidated elections between 2003 and 2009,” according to the news release.
According to the arrest warrant, Azada allegedly falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen on two Illinois voter registration applications.
If convicted, Azada faces up to five years in state prison on each of the two perjury counts. She also faces up to three years on each of the six counts of tampering with voting machines, and each of the nine counts of mutilation of election materials.
She is also subject to deportation, according to ICE spokeswoman Gail Montenegro.
Years in state prison? My fingers are crossed for maximum justice!
Deported, too? Sweet.
Meanwhile in New Mexico, “dozens” of foreigners were found to be voting illegally. Perhaps they were confused about being in “New” Mexico.
Dozens of foreign nationals fraudulently voted in New Mexico elections, the state’s top elections official said after reviewing the state’s voter registration rolls and a list of the thousands of foreign nationals who have been issued driver’s licenses under a controversial state law.
Secretary of State Dianna Duran issued a statement Tuesday evening that provided details of her office’s findings after two days of cross-checking the databases.
The office matched 117 voter registrations to names and dates of birth in the database of foreign national license holders. All 117 have Social Security numbers on their voter registrations that do not match their names, and at least 37 of those individuals have voted in New Mexico elections.
Duran, a former state senator and county clerk, said New Mexico has had close elections in which some officials have won or lost by a handful of votes.
Mueller eventually stated in the hearing, “We have no formal relationship with CAIR because of concerns with regard to the national leadership.” That’s a polite way of saying the current leaders are just as dirty as the old bunch, several of whom were imprisoned on terror charges.
Now we hear that the force will be removed June 30. The troops were supposed to serve for a year, but that ends up being only on paper. They are several months short: maybe the problem is Obama’s famously creative accounting methods in combination with the President’s total disinterest in border security.
Rep. Candice Miller thought removal of the troops from the border would be a mistake and further suggested, “If we had an Army Stryker brigade there, I think the drug cartels would think twice about coming across the border.”
Below, armed troops assisting the Border Patrol look very helpful indeed.
WASHINGTON — National Guard troops that have helped beef up security along the southwestern border since last summer will leave as planned by the second week of June, the commander of the Arizona Guard told a House panel Tuesday.
Maj. Gen. Hugo Salazar, adjutant general of the Guard in the state, said that the mission has gone well and that his troops have helped the Department of Homeland Security monitor the border and gather intelligence against the transnational crime cartels that smuggle drugs, weapons and cash across the border.
Matt Chandler, a spokesman for Homeland Security, said Tuesday that soldiers have helped seize over 14,000 pounds of drugs and apprehend 7,000 illegal immigrants. He said the southwestern border today has more enforcement manpower and technology than ever, much of which has been added while the National Guard has been assigned there.
President Obama’s administration announced last summer that it was sending 1,200 Guard troops to the border, including 560 to Arizona, to help beef up security for about a year.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who called for the National Guard deployment last summer and has sued the federal government for not enforcing immigration laws, said Tuesday that she was disappointed that the deployment was ending on schedule.
“It’s inexcusable and inexplicable to consider withdrawal of National Guard troops from our southern border at a time when cartel violence continues and the security of the border region remains under threat from drug and human smugglers,” she said. “Unfortunately, this appears to be further evidence that the White House is not fully committed to devoting the manpower and resources necessary to secure the border. Rather than withdrawing National Guard troops, the president ought to consider using them as a long-term tool to augment the nation’s border-security strategy.”
Chandler did not respond directly to questions about whether the Guard deployment has been a success and, if so, whether Homeland Security will seek to extend it. Continue reading this article
A billion dollars was spent on the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), but DHS chief Janet Napolitano canceled the program in January. Designed and built by Boeing, the SBInet system was envisioned as a virtual fence, consisting of a single, integrated surveillance system that combined information from multiple sensors on a single display.
Very spiffy from a tech viewpoint, but how a virtual fence was supposed to keep out millions of determined foreigners was never made clear.
Technology to replace a now defunct virtual fence project at the Mexican border likely won’t be fully in place for at least another decade, maybe longer, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Richard Stana, director of homeland security and justice issues at the GAO, said Tuesday that the mix of cameras, radar and other sophisticated technology will first be deployed to the border in Arizona over the next two years. The technology mix is expected to be fully deployed in that state by 2015 or 2016.
Stana, who testified Tuesday before a House subcommittee on border and maritime security, said the security project would next expand to California, New Mexico and Texas but isn’t likely to be fully in place until at least 2021, and possibly not until 2026.
The new technology plan replaces a virtual fence project that cost nearly $1 billion before the Obama administration scrapped it earlier this year after repeated delays and glitches. It will be added to stationary cameras, underground sensors and other security infrastructure already in place.
Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas, balked at the idea that the high tech gear, which he said is already available to the military, would take more than a decade to be deployed.
“You are talking 10 to 15 years. It took us a decade to put a man on the moon,” McCaul said. “I don’t understand why it takes so long. You have a crisis going on down there. Everyone knows it. We know how dangerous it is in Mexico, we know how dangerous it is on the border. Why can’t we ramp up this process?” Continue reading this article
What a surprise: the Census projected hispanic growth at less than it turned out, as has often been the case of the Census dealing with immigration effects in general.
When the 2000 Census was released, the actual population (281,421,906) was around six million more than the Bureau had guessed for its domestic counter. (Which today puts the number at over 310 million residents of the United States, with one net immigrant added every 45 seconds.) Demographers were “stunned” by the rapid population growth over the 1990s.
The 2010 state hispanic comparison is not yet complete, with 33 states analyzed up to this point. But most states had more hispanics than the Census thought.
Below, details continue to be released from the official 2010 count, which at 308,745,538 was an increase of 27,323,632 from the 2000 population.
As usual, American citizens are able to see through the tiresome Islamo-propaganda which has been furiously pumped out in the last few weeks against the Homeland Security Committee hearing considering jihadist recruitment in this country.
The anti-American narrative from the well funded fifth column seeks to convince the public that Muslims residing here are victims of mean-spirited xenophobic citizens.
Most voters don’t believe their fellow citizens are unfair to Muslim Americans. They also think Muslims in this country should be louder in their criticism of potential domestic terrorist attacks.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 17% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that most Muslims in America are treated unfairly because of their religion and ethnicity. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say they are not treated unfairly while 20% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
A plurality (49%) of liberal voters, however, says there is bias against Muslim Americans. Eighty-one percent (81%) of conservatives and 57% of moderates disagree.
But only 10% of all voters think American Muslims are speaking out enough against potential terrorist attacks in the United States. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disagree and say they are not speaking out enough. One-in-three voters (34%) are not sure.
Those figures are similar to those found in a survey of all adults in September 2009. At that time, 15% believed that Muslims in this country were speaking out and 46% said they were not.
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.