Pew Poll Assesses Muslim Satisfaction among American Infidels

Leave it to the Associated Press to readminister its scab-picking habit of portraying Muslims residing in America as poor little victims who suffer Islamophobia at the hands of cruel Americans. That’s the unsubtle message in the AP’s report on a new Pew poll that begins with the assertion that Muslims here endure harassment from the public and undue attention as potential terrorists from law enforcement.

If life in the United States is so terrible, then Muslim immigrants can always pack up and leave the same way they got here. Most can be defined as newbies: 63% of Muslim residers are first-generation immigrants to the U.S., with 45% having arrived in the U.S. since 1990.

Wouldn’t Muslims be happier in Dar al-Islam? For example, living in Riyadh would be ever so handy for the hajj, and Saudi Arabia does not permit any pork chops that annoy Muslims. It just seems a better fit.

Most come for the money alone (like most immigrants) and live in their tribal enclaves like Dearbornistan and Tehrangeles.

The liberal press assumption about mean Americans always leaves out the fact that the behavior of Muslims themselves has reduced any positive regard toward them from the public. The average citizen doesn’t need to read or to understand the widespread hostility among Muslims when there are unavoidable news stories like the gang rape of Lara Logan in downtown Cairo during the press-touted “Arab Spring” or the various attempted terrorist attacks in this country like the Christmas underwear bomber over Detroit and the Times Square bomber.

The poll itself can be found at the Pew Research Center: Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism.

Ezra Levant and Kathy Shaidle have an intelligent discussion about the poll results in the following video:

However I don’t agree with them that it’s a good thing that Muslims with all their complaints still find America a friendly place to them — go figure. More Americans need to get unfriendly, and pipe up with the idea that Muslim immigration should end yesterday, because it is one of the worst public policies ever.

The growing presence of foreign Muslims, fueled by continuing immigration, endangers national security and domestic tranquility. Washington elites are determined to ignore the disastrous diversity experience of Europe, from the restricted freedom of Scandinavian women to no-go zones where police fear to tread and the potential of future civil war.

Europe is burning, while Pew and the AP are concerned about whether Muslims are happy immigrants in the US.

Most US Muslims feel targeted by terror policies, Associated Press, August 30, 2011

More than half of Muslim Americans in a new poll say government anti-terrorism policies single them out for increased surveillance and monitoring, and many report increased cases of name-calling, threats and harassment by airport security, law enforcement officers and others.

Still, most Muslim Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S. and rate their communities highly as places to live.

The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country’s Muslims, finds no signs of rising alienation or anger among Muslim-Americans despite recent U.S. government concerns about homegrown Islamic terrorism and controversy over the building of mosques.

“This confirms what we’ve said all along: American Muslims are well integrated and happy, but with a kind of lingering sense of being besieged by growing anti-Muslim sentiment in our society,” said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington, D.C.-based Muslim civil rights group.

“People contact us every day about concerns they’ve had, particularly with law enforcement authorities in this post-9/11 era,” he said.

Muslim extremists hijacked four passenger planes on Sept. 11, 2001, crashing them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pa.

In all, 52 percent of Muslim Americans surveyed said their group is singled out by government for terrorist surveillance. Almost as many — 43 percent — reported they had personally experienced harassment in the past year, according to the poll released Tuesday.

That 43 percent share of people reporting harassment is up from 40 percent in 2007, the first time Pew polled Muslim Americans. Continue reading this article

San Francisco: Chinese Tribalism Is Alive and Well

According to the SF Chronicle, the big Asian buzz in Chinatown is how appointed Mayor Ed Lee is not a real Lee. The horror!

The rumor is that his immigrant father bought into the powerful clan when he arrived as a Paper Son. That status arose out of an act of nature that Chinese exploited: when the 1906 San Francisco earthquake destroyed public records, thousands of Chinese fraudulently claimed to be related to persons already residing in California, often paying to do so. Hence the term Paper Son.

The rationalization is that America was a rotten racist country (because of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882), so it was okay to cheat. However, the People’s Republic of China has an exclusion policy of all non-Chinese for immigration to this day: nobody immigrates to the PRC. Diversity runs one way only where Chinese are concerned.

It’s noteworthy how the Paper Son theft of citizenship is no longer considered a negative family story to be kept quiet. Now the idea that granddad was an illegal alien who stole American citizenship is no big deal. The controversy isn’t that Ed Lee’s father was a lawbreaking illegal alien, but that he wasn’t a true member of the Lee tribe. Honest dealings with the United States vis-a-vis immigration are simply not valued.

And Chinese are supposed to be a model minority. The truth is that in many cultures, loyalty to tribe trumps everything else.

Below, Asian Mayors Ed Lee and Jean Quan (Oakland) attended a state dinner for PRC President Hu Jintao at the White House earlier this year.

Mayor Ed Lee: What’s in a name?, San Francisco Chronicle, August 29, 2011

Shortly after Ed Lee became interim mayor in January, the rumor spread around Chinatown. When he announced earlier this month that he was running for a four-year term, the gossip began again. Lee, the whisperers said at banquets and festivals, was not a Lee at all.

While the mayor vows he is really and truly a Lee, the hubbub offers a window into the fascinating world of Chinatown’s powerful family associations, its sometimes heartbreaking history, and the significance and transience of its residents’ surnames.

This much is true: The mayor’s full name is Edwin Mah Lee, and his father, Gok Suey Lee, was born in the Toishan district of Guandong province in southern China.

This much is also true: As a Lee, the mayor is a member of the prominent Lee Family Association, the largest of dozens of family associations in Chinatown.

Formed in the 1800s as social-service organizations for new immigrants, they’re based on surnames that tell where in China one was born. There are roughly 10,000 Lees in San Francisco, an expected boost for the mayor at the ballot box.

Paper son
The Chinatown gossip has it that the mayor is trading on a powerful name that isn’t his own – that his father was born a Mah or a Mar, variants of the same name, and immigrated to the United States as a “paper son,” buying his way into a Lee family already established here.

The paper son phenomenon dates back to the 1906 earthquake, which destroyed government buildings and the immigration records inside them. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act had barred most Chinese from entering the country, and many Chinese people living here used the loss of immigration records to claim citizenship and bring in family from China.

Many also, for money, brought people who weren’t related to them. There’s no telling how many paper sons immigrated to the United States to join families that weren’t their own, but Sue Lee, executive director of the Chinese Historical Society of America in Chinatown, said there were probably thousands. Continue reading this article

Imam Rauf Critically Evaluated — on Television!

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf — formerly of the Ground Zero mosque scheme — doesn’t want to go away, even though Americans rejected his pitch for a territory-marking Islamic monument near the World Trade Center site. Rauf is routinely promoted by the media as being a “moderate” Muslim, but his assertion that “sharia law is fully compatible with the Constitution” reveals him to be either a lying Islo-propagandist or a fool.

It’s a relief to see the TV commenters (Canadian!) call Rauf out for the charlatan he is. There is so much liberal diversity blather about Islam in the media that a bit of truth is noteworthy.

Unfortunately, citizens of the West learn mostly about the beliefs of Islam from the violent behavior of Muslims, not from the limited reporting of the cowering press.

California Democrats Plan to Bill Taxpayers for Illegal Aliens’ College Educations

Here in chronically broke California, Sacramento is gearing up to pass taxpayer-funded grants for illegal alien students, so that lawbreaking foreigners can get free educations while citizen young people are pushed aside.

The evil Gil Cedillo broke his Mexifornia version of the ironically named DREAM Act into two parts, hoping to squeeze it through in stages. The first legislation enabled illegal aliens to receive college funding from private sources, and that bill was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown.

The next step in Assembly Bill 131 — providing taxpayer money for illegal alien students — is somewhat more challenging even for spendaholic open-borders Democrats.

Illegal aliens already receive the taxpayer-subsidized in-state tuition rate — but current freebies are never enough.

Concerned citizens can easily register their objection to the misuse of taxpayer funds in AB 131 using an automated phone system with the following steps:

Voice your opinion and cast your vote:

•  Call 916-445-2841
•  Press 1 for English
•  Then press 2
•  Then press 1
•  Lastly, press 2 to vote in opposition of the DREAM ACT!

One stand-up guy against the scheme is Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, shown below making a speech on the Capitol steps last spring.

You can listen to Assemblyman Donnelly interviewed on the John and Ken Show on Monday where he explained the political dynamics around the bill. His segment starts at around 22 minutes in.

Donnelly urges protest over Dream Act: Legislature to vote on giving state financial aid to illegal immigrants, Victorville Daily Press, August 29, 2011

As the controversial Dream Act advances, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly is urging citizens to voice support for Gov. Jerry Brown to veto the bill that would allow students who entered the country illegally to receive statefunded financial aid at California’s public colleges. Donnelly in a statement called Assembly Bill 131 — which passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Thursday — a “nightmare for citizens.”

“Students are already struggling to pay increased tuition and many cannot even get into the classes they need,” he said, “but the Legislature continues to pretend we can afford this entitlement. The simple truth is, everyone including the governor knows we can’t.”

Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, authored the California Dream Act’s twin bills as a way to expand opportunities for deserving students who were brought to the U.S. illegally through no choice of their own.

Brown signed the first bill, AB 1081, in June, agreeing to allow undocumented students to receive private financial aid. That bill is currently eligible to be heard on the Senate floor.

Now that the Senate committee approved AB 131, Cedillo said he expects the bill to pass the Senate and Assembly this week and land on Brown’s desk soon after.

“The fiscal impact of granting illegal alien students access to the statefunded Cal Grant on top of the in-state tuition rate already afforded them is staggering,” Donnelly’s statement continued. “Analysts estimate the cost to be in the tens of millions annually and say it is likely to increase over time as the promise of inexpensive, high quality education draws more illegal immigration to the state.”

Obama's Re-election Strategy: Does It Depend on Illegal Alien Voter Fraud?

It didn’t take long for Obama’s executive amnesty for illegal aliens to be followed by a major opinion piece in the New York Times complaining about voters being required to show identification at the polling place. How convenient for illegal aliens who want to vote to Obama!

Timed to coincide with the dedication of the made-in-Red-China statue of Martin Luther King Jr., the op-ed by civil rights figure Rep. John Lewis, currently a Congressman from Georgia, compared voter ID with the hated poll tax which historically kept black Americans from exercising the franchise.

At least he didn’t compare the requirement for voter identification with attack dogs and fire hoses.

However, an editorial in Sunday’s Times (The Nation’s Cruelest Immigration Law) opined that the recent Alabama enforcement legislation “brings to mind the Fugitive Slave Act.” So the queen of crazy liberal media now compares basic immigration law enforcement to the practice of slavery, a crude escalation of rhetoric that hints at the 2012 Democrat campaign.

Rep. Lewis asserts that poll shenanigans are not really problematic, but the Weekly Standard said in response that dozens of Acorn workers have been convicted for organizing voter fraud.

We can be sure that voter fraud will not be a deportable offense. And that’s the point. Illegals will hear on Spanish-language radio and TV that Obama is the amnesty President and must be kept in office at all costs to preserve open borders — it’s the illegals’ duty to vote early and often, in the Chicago style.

As word gets around in Mexico and beyond that Obama has repealed deportation, the floodgates will reopen and millions of job thieves will head north for American employment and freebies — meaning more D-voters for 2012. The Mexican flood has supposedly “sputtered to a trickle” in the phrase of the New York Times, which is overstated IMO. The word “amnesty” is like a dinner bell to Mexicans — they’ll be back.

Following is the John Lewis piece:

A Poll Tax by Another Name, New York Times, By JOHN LEWIS, August 26, 2011

AS we celebrate the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial, we reflect on the life and legacy of this great man. But recent legislation on voting reminds us that there is still work to do. Since January, a majority of state legislatures have passed or considered election-law changes that, taken together, constitute the most concerted effort to restrict the right to vote since before the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Growing up as the son of an Alabama sharecropper, I experienced Jim Crow firsthand. It was enforced by the slander of “separate but equal,” willful blindness to acts of racially motivated violence and the threat of economic retaliation. The pernicious effect of those strategies was to institutionalize second-class citizenship and restrict political participation to the majority alone.

We have come a long way since the 1960s. When the Voting Rights Act was passed, there were only 300 elected African-American officials in the United States; today there are more than 9,000, including 43 members of Congress. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act — also known as the Motor Voter Act — made it easier to register to vote, while the 2002 Help America Vote Act responded to the irregularities of the 2000 presidential race with improved election standards.

Despite decades of progress, this year’s Republican-backed wave of voting restrictions has demonstrated that the fundamental right to vote is still subject to partisan manipulation. The most common new requirement, that citizens obtain and display unexpired government-issued photo identification before entering the voting booth, was advanced in 35 states and passed by Republican legislatures in Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri and nine other states — despite the fact that as many as 25 percent of African-Americans lack acceptable identification.

Having fought for voting rights as a student, I am especially troubled that these laws disproportionately affect young voters. Students at state universities in Wisconsin cannot vote using their current IDs (because the new law requires the cards to have signatures, which those do not). South Carolina prohibits the use of student IDs altogether. Texas also rejects student IDs, but allows voting by those who have a license to carry a concealed handgun. These schemes are clearly crafted to affect not just how we vote, but who votes.

Conservative proponents have argued for photo ID mandates by claiming that widespread voter impersonation exists in America, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. While defending its photo ID law before the Supreme Court, Indiana was unable to cite a single instance of actual voter impersonation at any point in its history. Likewise, in Kansas, there were far more reports of U.F.O. sightings than allegations of voter fraud in the past decade. These theories of systematic fraud are really unfounded fears being exploited to threaten the franchise. Continue reading this article

Obama Illegal Alien Relative #2 Surfaces

President Obama’s illegal alien uncle, Onyango Obama (pictured), showed up a few days ago when he nearly crashed his SUV into a Framingham police car whilst in a state of inebriation. For his phone call, he wanted to ring up the White House. Oops!

And now, the mug shot has appeared. The internet is so informative.

This makes #2 on the list of Obama’s illegal alien relatives. We already knew about the welfare moocher (Aunt Zeituni) who lives off the taxpayer in rather luxurious style in Massachusetts. Efforts to have her deported somehow fizzled when the case came before a friendly judge, who granted her asylum based on the idea she would be in danger in her Kenya homeland. In fact, remaining relatives seem to be doing fine and are minor celebs in their communities.

The man in question, Uncle Omar, is Aunt Zeituni’s brother.

The President has lots of relatives. (See the now-incomplete graphic from an exposition in New York magazine, The Obama Diaspora.) The math works out that way in polygamous African families. Daddy Obama had four wives, some at the same time. Add kiddies, and the cast of characters gets confusing for us simple monogamists.

The situation could work out well for Uncle Omar, since he may well be covered by his nephew’s executive amnesty. After all, Uncle Omar has lived here for decades (albeit illegally) and is not a known axe murderer. He could get a work permit, or perhaps go straight to the welfare office, since he is no longer young.

Naturally you have to go to the foreign press to get good coverage:

Barack Obama’s uncle has been arrested and held as illegal immigrant, The Australian, August 28, 2011

BARACK Obama’s long-lost “Uncle Omar” has been arrested for alleged drink-driving outside Boston and detained as an illegal immigrant, The Times can reveal.

The arrest ends a mystery over the fate of a relative that the US President wrote in his memoir had moved to America from Kenya in the 1960s, although the circumstances of his discovery may now prove to be an embarrassment for the White House.

Official records say Onyango Obama, 67, was picked up outside the Chicken Bone Saloon in Framingham, Massachusetts, at 7.10pm on August 24. Police say he nearly crashed his Mitsubishi 4×4 into a patrol car, and then insisted that the officer should have given way to him. A report filed with the Framingham District Court said that a breathalyser at the police station registered his blood alcohol at 0.14mg/100ml of blood, above the state limit of 0.08mg.

According to a local newspaper, Mr Obama was charged with driving under the influence and driving to endanger, as well as failing to use a turn signal. He was detained as an illegal immigrant because the US Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has an outstanding warrant for him because he was previously ordered to be deported to Kenya.

The Times has established from his birthdate that Mr Obama is the Uncle Omar mentioned in President Obama’s best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father. In the 1995 book, President Obama writes of “the uncle who had left for America 25 years ago and had never come back”. Continue reading this article

Obama Allows Mexican Police to Launch Operations from US

This item is definitely for the “What could possibly go wrong?” file. The idea is crazy and dangerous.

First, it is suspicious that this news was released on a Friday in late August, which makes it look like the Obama administration hopes it will pass unnoticed.

The White House spin is that the extreme violation of sovereignty is justified because it will help out America’s friends the Mexicans (which they most certainly are NOT). Mexicans despise America and only want to rip us off.

Plus, who counts to make sure all the Mexicans leave when the operation is over?

And who keeps the violent cartel criminals out of the United States? They already enter at will and control large areas of southern Arizona to run their drug shipments. Will Obama send additional Border Patrol agents to protect Mexican police when he has not acted similarly to defend Americans?

Below, Mexican police are the men wearing masks in this drug lord arrest photo. Mexico is so lawless that being a cop is indeed dangerous — but that’s not America’s problem.

Mexican police (or criminals dressed like police) have already made hundreds of incursions into this country. They shouldn’t be made to feel even more relaxed about American sovereignty than the average Mexican already does. Training foreign policemen to violate our border as a normal procedure does not send the message that Americans still value the perimeter that denotes our nation.

U.S. Widens Role in Mexican Fight, New York Times, August 25, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has expanded its role in Mexico’s fight against organized crime by allowing the Mexican police to stage cross-border drug raids from inside the United States, according to senior administration and military officials.

Mexican commandos have discreetly traveled to the United States, assembled at designated areas and dispatched helicopter missions back across the border aimed at suspected drug traffickers. The Drug Enforcement Administration provides logistical support on the American side of the border, officials said, arranging staging areas and sharing intelligence that helps guide Mexico’s decisions about targets and tactics.

Officials said these so-called boomerang operations were intended to evade the surveillance — and corrupting influences — of the criminal organizations that closely monitor the movements of security forces inside Mexico. And they said the efforts were meant to provide settings with tight security for American and Mexican law enforcement officers to collaborate in their pursuit of criminals who operate on both sides of the border. Continue reading this article

Colleges: Freshmen Orientation Means Indoctrination to Liberalism

It’s a crime what many universities do to impressionable young minds. Freshmen students go in expecting an advanced education with intellectual stimulation arising from the debate of great ideas. Instead they undergo liberal reprogramming that would make Pol Pot proud.

For some reason, cultural Marxists are crazy for white guilt. Apparently worship of the great god Diversity cannot be accomplished without debasing whites, and particularly white males. Perhaps the low self-esteem of professors translates into a psychological need to see students appropriately groveling at their Marxist analysis of seeing oppression everywhere.

Other oppressions du jour include sexism, racism and Islamophobia. All the better to identify approved victims.

One curious expression of the brainwashing that substitutes for education is the Tunnel of Oppression at DePauw University, a sort of interactive event that was analyzed recently in the New York Post (see below).

Googling around turned up a number of Tunnels of Oppression (e.g. one in 2007 in Nevada), so the ritual of sacrificing critical thinking to liberal ideology has a history. At least it gives freshmen an idea of what what they face.

In other diversity news, the President has created a new bureaucracy to emphasize the importance of the post-American value: Obama Creates Office Of Diversity, Inclusion (from Judicial Watch).

Brainwashing U, by Robert Shibley, New York Post, August 24, 2011

Parents sending children off to college for the first time, beware: Their “freshman orientation” is all too likely to include being herded through a “tunnel of oppression” to learn about the evils of “white privilege,” being lectured about how they’re part of a “rape culture” or being forced to discuss their sexual identities with complete strangers — before they even meet their first professor.

That’s right: For all we hear about faculty ideological or political bias, campus administrators are often worse when it comes to brainwashing students.

Consider the shocking account from a student trained to be a dorm supervisor — a resident adviser, or RA — at DePauw University in Indiana. One of her first duties last fall was to lead her new students through a house decorated as a “Tunnel of Oppression,” where supposedly “realistic” demonstrations in each room taught lessons such as how religious parents hate their gay children, Muslims would find no friends on a predominantly non-Muslim campus and overweight women suffer from eating disorders.

Indeed, in her training to become an RA, “We were told that ‘human’ was not a suitable identity, but that instead we were first ‘black,’ ‘white,’ or ‘Asian’; ‘male’ or ‘female’; … ‘heterosexual’ or ‘queer.’ We were forced to act like bigots and spout off stereotypes while being told that that was what we were really thinking deep down.” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. must be spinning in his grave.

Unsurprisingly, she turned down the school’s offer to be an RA this year — she’d rather find another job.

DePauw is no rare case. At least 96 colleges across the country have run similar “tunnel of oppression” programs in the last few years. Continue reading this article

Alabama’s Immigration Enforcement Law Goes to Court

The Associated Press reports that Alabama’s tough enforcement law has gone before a federal judge, and along the way, explains perhaps inadvertently the reasons for alarm on the part of Alabamans.

One example is an estimated 120,000 illegal aliens residing in the state, which is quite a large number given that the influx has been rapid and unrequested. According to the Census, Alabama’s Hispanic population grew 145 percent between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s second-largest percentage growth in that time.

Alabama’s unemployment rate for July was 10 percent, above the national average.

Below, in Crossville Elementary School, enrollment is about 65 percent hispanic, while the town population is almost entirely white, illustrating the rapid demographic change of the state.

Contentious Ala. immigration law goes before judge, Associated Press, August 24, 2011

A federal judge in Birmingham is poised to hear arguments from the Obama administration and others Wednesday over whether a new Alabama immigration law constitutes an unfair assault on civil liberties or is a long-overdue effort to protect American jobs and borders.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn scheduled a hearing starting at 9 a.m. Wednesday on motions seeking to temporarily block a new state law that’s been described by supporters and opponents as the toughest crackdown on illegal immigration in the country. Attorneys said they don’t know when Blackburn will rule, but pointed out that she doesn’t have much time because the immigration law is set to take effect Sept. 1.

The measure allows police officers, in conducting routine traffic stops, to arrest those they suspect of being illegal immigrants. The law’s broad provisions also make it a crime to transport or provide shelter to an illegal immigrant. It also requires schools to report the immigration status of students, a provision opponents say will make many parents afraid to send their children to school.

The lawsuits challenging the law — filed by the Obama administration, a coalition of civil rights groups and church leaders — have all been consolidated before the chief federal judge from Alabama’s northern district. Continue reading this article

Rasmussen Poll: Voters Oppose Benefits for Illegal Aliens

President Obama may think he can “rekindle excitement among hispanic voters” (in the characterization of the Washington Post) with his administrative amnesty, but American voters as a whole are not impressed with the trend toward erasure of citizenship.

Somewhat surprising is that a majority of voters object to public school for illegal alien kiddies. Apparently “the children” are no longer sacrosanct when taxpayers feel beleaguered by the costs of so many millions, plus the failing standards of schools overwhelmed by diverse kids who don’t speak English.

Most Voters Oppose Public Schooling, Tuition Breaks, Driver’s Licenses For Illegal Immigrants, Rasmussen Reports, August 23, 2011

The Obama administration announced last week that it was slowing the deportation process for “low priority” immigration cases to focus on illegal immigrants with criminal records. Critics complain the move is intended to get around Congress’ refusal to pass the so-called Dream Act aimed at providing a path to citizenship for those who came to the country illegally before age 16.  But a majority of voters remain opposed to giving the children of illegal immigrants the same educational opportunities as those who are here legally.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that only 32% of Likely U.S. Voters believe children of parents in this country illegally should be allowed to attend public school here. Fifty-three percent (53%) do not believe those young illegal immigrants should be allowed to attend public school. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Last September, just 20% said local government should be required to provide a public school education for a child brought into the United States illegally by his or her parents. Sixty-four percent (64%) disagreed and said local governments should not be required to educate them.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters believe parents should be required to prove they are legal residents of the United States when registering their child for public school. Twenty-one percent (21%) oppose such a requirement.

Several states have made illegal immigrants eligible for lower in-state tuition at colleges and universities, but 81% of voters oppose such a move in their state. Just 12% think illegal immigrants should be eligible for these tuition breaks in their home state. Opposition to allowing illegal immigrants to be eligible for in-state tuition is slightly stronger than it was back in October 2007. [. . .]

Some states also have authorized the issuance of driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Just 18% of voters believe illegal immigrants should be allowed to obtain U.S. driver’s licenses. Seventy-four percent (74%) are opposed to driver’s licenses for illegals. These findings also have changed little since November 2007. Most Republicans (70%) and voters not affiliated with either political party (57%) don’t think children of illegal immigrants should be allowed to attend public schools. Half of Democrats (50%) disagree. But sizable majorities of all three groups oppose giving driver’s licenses and in-state tuition breaks to illegal immigrants in their states.

Tea Party voters are more strongly opposed than non-members to any beneficial moves on behalf of illegal immigrants.

Most Political Class voters (52%) support children of illegal immigrants attending public schools in the United States; 64% of Mainstream voters are opposed. Those in the Mainstream are almost twice as likely as the Political Class to oppose in-state tuition and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

Even as the Obama administration moves to slow the pace of deportation for illegal immigrants, voters continue to believe strongly that gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States.

When voters were asked in October 2007 whether children of illegal immigrants who finish two years of college should be “given” citizenship, 59% said no. But last September, when voters were asked if children of illegal immigrants who finish two years of college should be given “a chance” at citizenship, 52% said yes.

Only 32% of voters now believe a child born in this country to an illegal immigrant should automatically become a U.S. citizen, as is the current practice. That’s generally consistent with findings since April 2006.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) think a state should have the right to enforce immigration laws if it believes the federal government is not enforcing them. Most voters also continue to believe that policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration.

Unsafe Streets: Child Killed in California Crosswalk by Illegal Alien

A little four-year-old boy was struck by a car in a Santa Rosa crosswalk Thursday afternoon as he walked to soccer practice with his mom and two sisters, one of whom was his twin. He died the next morning in the hospital.

Christopher “Buddy” Rowe (pictured) was hit by a man driving a Honda Accord who then sped off. Fortunately a local resident, Leroy Flach, heard about the hit-and-run on his police scanner and spotted the car, whose driver switched off into a Volvo driven by a woman. Flach got the license number and the driver was quickly arrested, due to the attention of a concerned citizen.

The driver turned out to be an illegal alien, Marcos Lopez Garcia, who had two prior arrests for driving without a license. The most recent arrest was just five days before the hit-and-run; at that time Garcia was merely told not to drive until his court appearance in October — rather than be deported.

Why should any illegal alien be left in this country to endanger public safety when he has shown himself to have no respect for American law or sovereignty? Why do we even have police if they no longer enforce one law for all? In America today, the illegal alien is a special person who is not required to obey the law as we little citizens must.

You can see more about Buddy at his family’s remembrance website, ChristopherBuddyRowe.

4-year-old hit-run victim in Santa Rosa identified, San Francisco Chronicle, August 22, 2011

Authorities have identified the 4-year-old boy who was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver in Santa Rosa last week while walking to soccer practice with his mother, his twin sister and his 6-year-old sister.

Christopher “Buddy” Rowe was hit at about 6 p.m. Thursday at West Ninth Street and Rockwell Place near Jacobs Park in Santa Rosa. He clung to life at Children’s Hospital Oakland, his family said in a statement today, but “his heart finally gave way” Friday morning.

“Little Buddy will be remembered as an energetic, curious, active young boy who was also kind, compassionate and caring, especially with his twin sister,” the family said. “We will always remember his ever-present smile, beautiful steel blue eyes and peace-loving nature.

“The man who stole Buddy’s life from us will be one day free,” the family said, “but we will always carry the burden of losing him forever.” Continue reading this article

Robert Rector Totes Up Tax Dollars for Poverty Programs

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation is an expert on poverty, welfare and immigration (particularly the cost of low-skilled immigrants to the taxpayer). He appeared on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal program on Saturday morning (August 20).

He has researched the government’s anti-poverty efforts and found over 70 separate federal programs spending over $900 billion this year to supply poor people with food, housing, healthcare and other welfare items. That works out to $20,000 per poor person.

Rector’s recent study about poverty analyzed the kind of lifestyle many designated poor people live by examining the household items owned, from refrigerators to cable TV and X-box games. The point being that the poverty in which some contemporary Americans live is not so bad.

Immigrants were not the point of the interview. However, as Steve Camarota pointed out in recent research, the foreign born use welfare programs at far higher rates than US-born persons (see Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children).

In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

One can assume that it is more than just employment that keeps immigrants and illegal aliens in this country. They come for the jobs, but may stay for the free stuff when the employment disappears.