The open-borders President apparently believes it would be a swell idea to unilaterally grant an amnesty to millions of lawbreakers and thereby speed the Mexifornication of the country. His political heart must palpitate with delight when contemplating millions of grateful proto-Democrats in the pipeline a few years hence when naturalized.
Mark Krikorian blogged that those amnestied by fiat wouldn’t be eligible for real citizenship. Perhaps, but it’s hard to imagine that the Democrat brain trust isn’t drooling at the thought of all those permanent D-voters and working some plot to get them the full monty down the line. He also thinks the number would be limited by status (visa overstayers and premature benefits filers as mentioned in the Senators’ recent letter of concern) to around five million, while the Fox News article below refers to “blanket” amnesty, i.e. all-covering.
The amnestied foreigners would be eligible to work legally. It would be unconscionably unfair to unemployed citizens to add millions immediately to the legal workforce during the worst jobs depression since the 1930s (with a real unemployment rate over 16 percent), but the Obama agenda does not include citizens’ well being.
A massive amnesty would of course bring more crime, worse schools, higher taxes and an additional barrage of Spanish. We know the drill already.
Plus, a massive amnesty would be a national security nightmare: the increased terrorist danger would multiply as applications are rubber-stamped just like in 1986 with no background checks. The only difference is that unlike 1986, the terrorist threat today is far more pronounced.
Eight Republican senators and an independent group that supports tighter limits on immigration are warning that the Obama administration is drafting a plan to “unilaterally” issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants as it struggles to win support in Congress for an overhaul of immigration laws.
The senators who wrote the White House on Monday say they are concerned that the administration is readying a “Plan B” in case a comprehensive reform bill cannot win enough support to clear Congress.
“It seems more real than just bullying (Republicans) into a bill — that it’s a plan that they can actually put forward … circumventing Congress,” an aide told FoxNews.com on Wednesday.
In their letter, the senators — Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; David Vitter, R-La.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; Saxby Chambliss, Ga.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Thad Cochran, R-Miss. — urge the president to “abandon” what they say is a move to “unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States.”
“Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books,” they wrote.
Deferred action and parole, which give illegal immigrants the ability to seek a work permit and temporary legal status, are normally granted on a case-by-case basis. But the aide said the lawmakers have learned from “sources” that the administration is considering flexing its authority to grant the status on a mass basis.
Numbers USA, an organization that presses for lower immigration levels along with humanitarian treatment of illegal immigrants, has started a petition to the president expressing “outrage” at the alleged plan.
Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations with Numbers USA, said she’s been hearing for weeks from “sources close to the Democratic leadership” in both chambers that administration officials are discussing whether the Department of Homeland Security could direct staff to grant “amnesty” for all illegal immigrants in the country.
“They’re trying to figure out ways around a vote,” she said.
“Any attempt to force an amnesty on the American people using this underhanded method smacks of despotism,” reads the fax the group is urging supporters to sign.
The White House has not responded to a request for comment.
The Department of Homeland Security estimated last year that 10.8 million undocumented residents live in the United States; other estimates have ranged higher. Any move to grant blanket legal status, even temporary, would raise questions about how Homeland Security would be able to handle the caseload. Jenks said Congress certainly wouldn’t grant the administration the funding for more caseworkers.
The purported discussions of a blanket amnesty come in the middle of several concurrent and heated debates over illegal immigration. The recently signed immigration law in Arizona has divided the country, with some states trying to replicate the state’s tough legislation and other jurisdictions boycotting the state in protest. The Obama administration plans to file a court challenge.
Democrats, meanwhile, have been trying to round up support for an overhaul bill in Congress, and the Interior Department is facing renewed criticism from Republican lawmakers over restrictions it places on Border Patrol officers policing the border on federal lands. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., shocked several Arizona residents last week when he told them that Obama had said he would not beef up border security because it would leave Republicans without an incentive to pass broader immigration reforms.
Jenks said the talks about Homeland Security allowing illegal immigrants to stay are “serious.”
Rosemary Jenks (Government Liaison for NumbersUSA) presented a more nuanced explanation when she appeared on the John and Ken Radio Show June 23 — the audio clip is linked below.
Because amnesty is going nowhere in Congress, the D-leaders (Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Napolitano) are scheming to use the existing system in an illegal way to bypass the Constitution and Congress. The idea is to use the case-by-case tools of deferred action and parole to create a temporary form of amnesty that would allow aliens to remain in the country until some time in the future when a real amnesty-path-to-citizenship could be finagled in Congress.
Persons who are paroled can apply for legal status, but deferred action is not supposed to allow for that possibility. However under the Obama regime, normal standards of law do not apply.
Central to the operation of the stealth amnesty is DHS head Napolitano instructing her people not to deport any illegal aliens turned over to that agency. Every person packed off to be deported will instead be processed very slowly though parole and/or deferred action. The power of Napolitano’s office includes using those tools, but on an individual case basis, not on a massive scale.
So there won’t be an unpopular White House amnesty signing ceremony that would outrage the country, just no deportations happening, and in a way that is invisible to the public eye. Supposedly that will make the open-borders thugs happy in time for the November election — which sounds like pretty scraggly politics, but the Obama administration is becoming more fraught with failure every passing day and they may be grasping at straws.
As Roy Beck has written, only a “public shaming” can stop the anti-borders anti-America President. Call the White House (Switchboard: 202-456-1414), phone your Senators and Representative (Switchboard: 202-224-3121).
We cannot be a nation of laws if the government rewards lawbreakers and punishes law-abiding citizens in the process.
In Arizona, invader families are having tearful garage sales as they load up to leave. That’s the good news. The bad news is many are just relocating to other states rather than to their true homelands.
It’s hard to tell from the anecdotes how many illegals are actually leaving, but 100,000 reportedly departed after Arizona passed a law in 2007 that cracked down on hiring.
Naturally, the open-borders media are there to create sob stories, noting every heartfelt sniffle of every jackpot-baby child.
Ruiz and Suriano and their families plan to move this month. Arias and her family are considering leaving, but are waiting to see if the law will go into effect as scheduled July 29, and, if so, how it will be enforced.
The law requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” they’re in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state’s streets.
Ruiz, Suriano and Arias are representative of many families facing what they consider a cruel dilemma. To leave, they must pull their children from school, uproot their lives and look for new jobs and homes elsewhere. But to stay is to be under the scrutiny of the nation’s most stringent immigration laws and the potentially greater threat of being caught, arrested and deported. They also perceive a growing hostility toward Hispanics, in general.
On the quarter-mile stretch of Phoenix’s Belleview Street where both Ruiz and Suriano live, more than half the apartments and single-family homes have “for rent” signs out front.
Alan Langston, president of the Arizona Rental Property Owners & Landlords Association, said his group doesn’t track vacancy rates but that his members believe they will be affected by people leaving because of the new law.
The friends say most of the vacancy signs went up after the new law was signed in late April.
“Everyone’s afraid,” Arias says.
The three friends are key members of a parents’ support group at their children’s school down the street, said Rosemarie Garcia, parent liaison for the Balsz Elementary School District.
“They are the paper and glue and the scissors of the whole thing,” Garcia said. “I can run to them for anything.”
With two of the women leaving and the other thinking about it, Garcia is concerned about the school’s future.
“It’ll be like a desert here,” she said. “It’s a gap we’ll have all over the neighborhood, the community, our school.”
Ruiz, Suriano and Arias met three years ago at cafecitos, or coffee talks, held at the school. Now their families hold barbecues together and their children have sleepovers.
Arias, 49, and her day laborer husband paid a coyote to come to Arizona 15 years ago from Tepic, Nayarit on Mexico’s central-western coast. Their children, ages 9, 11 and 13, are U.S. citizens.
“I don’t want to leave but we don’t know what’s going to happen,” she says.
Ruiz, 38, and her husband, who builds furniture, came to the U.S. from Los Mochis in the northwestern Mexican state of Sinaloa about six years ago on tourist visas, which expired long ago. Two of their kids, ages 9 and 13, are here illegally, while their 1-year-old was born here. The family is moving to Clovis, N.M., where they have family. “It’s calmer there,” Ruiz says.
Suriano, 28, and her husband crossed the desert six years ago with their then-toddler. The boy is now 9, and the couple has a 4-year-old who was born here. They’re moving to Albuquerque, where they don’t know anyone but already have lined up an apartment and a carpentry job for him.
“I don’t want to go,” Suriano says, wiping away tears. “We’re leaving everything behind. But I’m scared the police will catch me and send me back to Mexico.”
Funny how the press never records the suffering of citizens who lose jobs when cheap alien labor displaces them…
Below, the Quintana family packed up to leave Phoenix for Colorado, including the 10 anchor-baby children. The reporter practically poked a stick at little Graciela as she was sobbing about her friend moving away to make her emote more.
Today’s example is the town of Fremont Nebraska, population 25,000, which is burdened with the illegal alien magnet of meatpacking plants. Yesterday’s referendum to prohibit aliens from acquiring jobs and housing brought out a high voter turnout for a special election (45 percent), and the measure passed easily.
FREMONT, Neb. — Voters in the eastern Nebraska city of Fremont on Monday approved a ban on hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants, the latest proposal in a series of immigration regulations taken up by communities around the country.
About 57 percent of voters in Fremont supported the proposal, according to unofficial results that still must be certified by the election commissioner. The measure is likely to face a long and costly court battle, with the American Civil Liberties Union saying it will try to block it before it even goes into effect.
The town of about 25,000 people has watched as its Hispanic population surged in the past two decades, largely due to the jobs available at the nearby Fremont Beef and Hormel meatpacking plants. The city also has an enviably low unemployment rate that matches the Nebraska rate of 4.9 percent.
Nonetheless, residents worry that jobs are going to illegal immigrants who they fear could drain community resources. Proponents of the ballot measure collected enough signatures and fought in the Nebraska Supreme Court to put the question to a public vote.
Supporters say the measure is needed to make up for what they see as lax federal law enforcement. Opponents say it could fuel discrimination.
Trevor McClurg said the measure is fair because it’s aimed at people who aren’t legally in the U.S.
“I don’t think it’s right to be able to rent to them or hire them,” McClurg said. “They shouldn’t be here in the first place.”
Clint Walraven, 51, who has lived in Fremont all his life, said the jobs should go to legal residents who are unemployed — something he believes the ordinance would help fix. Discussions on the issue can get heated, he said, particularly if racism is mentioned.
“It has nothing to do with being racist,” said. “We all have to play by the same rules. … If you want to stay here, get legal.”
As a result of the lawlessness, Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West has told his people to arm themselves, if they haven’t already. (Heh. This is west Texas.) The Sheriff makes clear that citizens with guns are a part of America’s front lines in the current border war against Mexico, er Mexicans.
ABC’s Nightline recently paid a visit to Fort Hancock and presented a decent report June 19.
An amusing part of the video is when a local rancher makes a little joke about how he always thought that a fence had to enclose something to work. The silly construction shown below is a political fence that allows politicians like Obama to say they are engaged in border security.
It may not have been the biggest anti-illegal demonstration in recent months, but any time Americans pin the tail on the Catholic church for its fifth-column activities, attention must be paid. Many churches work for the benefit of illegal alien lawbreakers and against law-abiding citizens, but the Catholics are the big dogs leading the pack.
The anti-American church in question (St. Julie Billiart) is located in Hamilton, Ohio, and apparently sees servicing illegal alien job thieves as part of its ministry. On Saturday, it got some pushback to its immoral policy of aiding lawbreakers.
Below, Johnny Van Styn unloaded signs on Saturday to voice his opposition to the Catholic Church’s open-borders ideology and actions.
His statistics are spot on. A 2009 Zogby poll found that 64 percent of Catholics supported enforcement to encourage illegals to go home and 69 percent thought immigration was too high.
Nowhere was it more apparent than at St. Julie Billiart Parish Saturday, June 19, how much the Catholic church has placed itself in the center of the immigration debate.
Inside the church’s bingo hall, hundreds of Mexicans lined up for passports or Mexican IDs at the Mobile Mexican Consulate’s Office.
In front of the cathedral on Dayton Street, dozens of activists marched along the street with picket signs, some reading “Immigrants welcome. Illegals go home.”
The Rev. Manuel Viera said the church for years has agreed to host the consular office “as a way to serve the community here, very much in line with the teaching of the Catholic church.”
“We have a higher authority to attend to,” he said, surrounded by the organized hum of more than 100 people asking questions and filling out forms in Spanish.
One of the main functions of the consular office is to issue consular IDs — issued by Mexico without concern for immigration status — that Mexican residents can use to open bank accounts or access hospital services in the U.S.
“So at least they’ll now have some official government document to identify them,” Viera said. “The alternative is they’ll buy IDs from people who sell fake IDs.”
In an open letter sent out last week, Most Reverend Dennis M. Schnurr, archbishop of Cincinnati, outlined the Catholic church’s controversial view on the issue.
The Wednesday, June 16, letter states the church must respect national borders and laws, but “the Catholic Church also teaches that all human beings have a right to migrate.”
The letter is critical of the current immigration system, saying there are too few paths to legal citizenship and those who are here illegally are left “living in fear, hiding in the shadows.”
Of course, the United States has the most generous system of legal immigration on earth, awarding citizenship to over a million annually. The Catholic Church is part of the anti-nation-state left, which believes there should be no borders on earth. The Vaticrats alway voice “respect” for national borders and laws (as above), but acts against those restrictions at every opportunity.
Arizona Senator Jon Kyl met with the North Tempe Tea Party on June 18 and revealed some Washington inside baseball — a fact that we’ve known all along. At 3:40 in the video below, Kyl remarked, “Here’s what the President said, ‘The problem is if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform’ [audible gasp from audience]. In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.
“I explained, you and I, Mr. President, have an obligation to secure the border. That’s an obligation; it also has potentially positive benefits. You don’t have to have comprehensive reform to secure the border, but you have to secure the border to get comprehensive reform… That’s why it isn’t being done. They frankly don’t want to do it. They want to get something in return for doing their duty.”
(Senator Kyl apparently believes that eventual amnesty is a “benefit.”)
Update June 21: Fox is all over this story. The White House denied the charge, although not very convincingly since the mouthpiece felt compelled to mention the importance of “comprehensive reform.” Senator Kyl stands by his statement.
“The president didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a written statement. “There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system.”
But Kyl’s office stood by the senator’s account. Kyl spokesman Ryan Patmintra said, “There were two people in that meeting, and Dan Pfieffer was not one of them.” He said Pfeiffer’s call for comprehensive immigration legislation “only confirms” Kyl’s story.
The Obama administration has reportedly decided to challenge Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court, but a recent Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of U.S. voters oppose such a challenge.
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters, in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state.
When asked specifically about the chief provision of the Arizona law, support is even higher. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters believe a police officer should be required to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation or violation of some other law if he suspects the person might be an illegal immigrant.
The immigration policy page on her campaign website promises that a Gov. Whitman would eliminate sanctuary cities, pursue workplace enforcement, prohibit the dispensing of drivers licenses to illegal aliens, defend English immersion in schools and recoup prison costs from the feds, among other things.
But now that the general election beckons, Whitman thinks she can checkbook her way into hispanic support. She has already spent over $71 million of her own money just to win the primary, and is now making Spanish media more wealthy, including very expensive ads running during the World Cup soccer tournament.
Meg Whitman launched two ads on Spanish-language television stations Thursday, part of an effort to woo Latino voters turned off by the Republican gubernatorial nominee’s tough talk about illegal immigration during the GOP primary.
One of the ads highlights Whitman’s opposition to a controversial Arizona law that compels police to check the immigration status of those stopped on suspicion of a crime. It also says Whitman opposed Proposition 187, the 1994 California ballot measure that would have denied taxpayer-funded services to illegal immigrants. The other focuses on jobs and the economy.
When asked by reporters, Whitman has consistently expressed her opposition to Proposition 187 and to the Arizona law, which became an issue during the closing weeks of the primary.
But she did not broadcast those stances in tens of millions of dollars in ads in her primary battle against Steve Poizner, who made illegal immigration a central issue. Instead, Whitman’s ads emphasized that she would be “tough as nails” on illegal immigrants, and condemned amnesty, sanctuary cities and some taxpayer benefits.
“Illegal immigrants are just that, illegal,” she said in an ad that featured her campaign chairman, former Gov. Pete Wilson.
Wilson is viewed as a pariah by many in the Latino community because he was the most visible supporter of Proposition 187. In a recent Los Angeles Times- USC poll, only 16% of Latinos felt favorably toward him.
Strategists say Whitman, a billionaire who has put $91 million of her personal wealth into her campaign, must secure substantial support among Latinos if she hopes to prevail over Democrat Jerry Brown in November.
“Unless she gets over one-third of the Latino vote, I don’t care how much she spends, she’s not going to win,” said Allan Hoffenblum, a former Republican consultant who publishes the California Target Book. “She was pushed further to the right on that issue than she wanted to go, but the one key thing she remained steadfast on, even though she whispered it during the primary, was that she opposed the Arizona law.”
Whitman would do better to forget about hispandering and support law and borders without apology. Opposing Arizona on immigration enforcement is not a vote-getter among the majority population, who continue to support the state according to every mainstream poll.
Below, a Whitman ad in the language of the invader — for “una nueva California”!
And what is the reaction of the White House when border anarchy is worsening daily? Instead of sending the troops Obama promised two weeks again to Arizona Governor Brewer, the President intends to sue the state for standing up against foreign invasion. No good deed goes unpunished in the Obama administration.
Border-area parks are the front lines and an easy entrance point for illegal aliens and drug smugglers because laws designed to protect land and animals make it easier for the bad guys.
Four years after federal officials quietly surrendered thousands of acres of America’s border to Mexican drug gangs and illegals, there still are “no plans to reopen” the taxpayer-owned national park lands.
Roughly 3,500 acres of taxpayer-funded government land in Arizona have been closed to U.S. citizens since 2006 due to safety concerns fueled by drug and human smuggling along the Mexican border, according to a statement posted on the website for the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.
The section of land — about 3 percent of the 118,000-acre refuge — has been closed since Oct. 6, 2006, when “there was a marked increase in violence along the border due to human and drug trafficking,” according to the statement released Wednesday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The closed area extends north from the international border for roughly three-quarters of a mile; a notice of the area’s closure has been posted on the refuge’s website since 2006. The remainder of the refuge remains open to the public for recreational activities.
“At this time there are no plans to reopen this southernmost 3/4-mile portion of the Refuge,” the statement continued. “However, since 2006 the Refuge has experienced a significant decline in violent activity in the area thanks to ongoing cooperation between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.”
In a statement to FoxNews.com on Thursday, the director of law enforcement for the Bureau of Land Management said the agency takes visitor and employee safety very seriously.
“We have posted these signs to inform visitors to this part of Southern Arizona of the ongoing public safety issues in this area,” William Woody said in a statement. “We are committed to working with everyone engaged with public land management to ensure that all visitors and users have a safe experience on our public lands.”
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News on Wednesday that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, further underscoring the need to keep the area off-limits to Americans.
“It’s literally out of control,” Babeu said. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico.”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have warned visitors in the area to beware of heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers. In a statement posted at the time of the closure, Mitch Ellis, manager of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, said conditions in the zone reached a point where public use of the area was not prudent.
Below, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu explained how lawless and violent the border area has become:
Funny how the well being of citizens always falls at the bottom of the list of political leaders, if it shows up at all.
Austin, like many cities, is struggling to stretch its budget with less tax money coming in from the crappy economy. It put up a website where citizens could choose which city services they would like cut. The big brains at city-central didn’t include the day laborer center, even though it has annual price tag of $357K and caters mostly to illegal alien job thieves.
As the City of Austin tries to close anywhere from an $11 to $28 million budget gap for the FY 2011 budget, everything remains on the table. One idea that is gaining support is not coming from city leaders, but from an Austin resident.
The idea gaining traction was posted online on the city’s budget website. A citizen suggests eliminating the City’s Day Labor Center in North Austin, and it’s getting support from other residents.
Everyday about 100 people come to the City of Austin’s Day Labor site looking for work.
“I found three jobs out of here that help me pay my bills and keep my apartment and stuff,” said day laborer August Holland.
It costs tax payer $357,000 to keep the center open at 51st Street and I-35 in North Austin. City staff did not put it on the cut list.
But some Austin residents believe it should be.
The City of Austin’s budget website asks residents what to cut and what to save for next year’s budget. Paul G wrote, “Close the day labor site for illegal aliens looking for work. Closing it saves money and promotes jobs for Americans.” He seems to have struck a chord with some residents.
“I’d be curious how many people have social security cards that go in there,” said Johnny Gerace.
In 1997, Austin passed a resolution declaring the city a safe haven. It guarantees anyone coming into the city access to programs and services without being asked about their immigration status.
The City points out how valuable day laborers are to the Austin economy, saying they contribute about $1 million a year.
It’s curious how these virtuous liberals aren’t ashamed to brag on how financially advantageous it is to oppress illegal aliens. My analysis: the libs’ morality is skin deep.
Anyway, slavery lasted a long time with a another familiar argument, that the oppressed people did jobs no American wanted: “Who will pick the cotton?” slaveholders asked in 1850. Today’s willing slavettes beg to be cuffed, because they are more fortunate being ripped off in America than being an average worker in dear Mexico.
In recent weeks, the Oklahoma legislature has become even more pro-active, seeking to put a sharia-prevention initiative before the voters. Apparently some wise legislators have observed the rapid ingress of hostile Islam into European society with alarm. For example, Islamic sharia courts have been operating in Britain for several years, and the Archbishop of Canterbury thought that “constructive accommodation” with Islamic legal traditions would be a fine multicultural thing.
No one thought decades ago that Muslim immigrants would bring a completely separate society with them, rejecting the Western culture that created the freedoms they enjoy. Muslim immigration is incompatible with our values, and Oklahomans want to benefit from Europe’s mistake by sending a clear signal that they are not interested in submission.
Oklahoma lawmakers are asking voters to weigh in on a proposal that would ban local courts from considering Shariah or other international law in their rulings.
The unusual measure calling for an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution was approved in late May by the state Senate, sending the issue to voters in the fall in the form of a ballot question.
Though the question’s supporters have not pointed to any specific outbreak of Shariah, or Islamic law, being considered in the U.S. judicial system, they describe it as an encroaching threat. State Rep. Rex Duncan, author of the measure, has called the ballot question a “preemptive strike” against Shariah coming to his state.
Duncan said in a statement after the vote that he hopes other states will soon follow Oklahoma’s lead.
“Judges in other states and on the federal bench have increasingly turned to citing international law in their court decisions, something I and others feel is grossly inappropriate in a sovereign state such as our own,” he said.
In an interview with The Edmond Sun, Duncan said the courts’ willingness in Britain to consider Shariah has become “a cancer upon the survivability of the U.K.” He said the ballot question “will constitute a preemptive strike against Shariah Law coming to Oklahoma.”
And if you still think that worrying about sharia law in America is silly, consider this: The current nominee for the Supreme Court did not object to $20 million from Saudi Arabia in 2005 to establish a center for the study of sharia at Harvard:
Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions questioned the strength of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s moral principles today. Sessions argued that Kagan’s opposition of military recruitment on the Harvard campus – which she called a discriminatory group due to its Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy – was hypocritical as she did not also protest against the creation of a new Center for Islamic Studies “and Sharia Law.”
Sessions, who spoke on Kagan as a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, attacked Kagan for being “less morally principled in her approach than has been portrayed,” and questioned why she did not speak out in 2005 when a Saudi prince donated $20 million to the creation of a Center for Islamic Studies at Harvard. This showed a double-standard, he argued, because some Muslims follow Sharia Law literally, in which homosexuality is sometimes punishable by death.
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.