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.
Hopefully today will mark the last time we hear about Muzzammil Hassan, the Pakistani immigrant who murdered his wife Aasiya by beheading her. The Muslim TV executive was sentenced to the maximum allowable prison term in New York state after being found guilty in February by the jury in less than an hour.
A date with Old Sparky would have been my choice of punishment, but New York state does not provide a death sentence for even stone cold murderers. In fact, even though Hassan received the maximum sentence, he will be eligible for parole in 23 years (25 – 2 years already served). Hopefully the horror of the crime will keep him incarcerated for his entire life.
For now, however, it is interesting to hear how thoroughly both the judge and jurors rejected Hassan’s absurd claim of self-defense against a wife who supposedly battered him, even though he was much bigger than her.
A judge on Wednesday gave a former television executive the harshest punishment he could for beheading his estranged wife: 25 years to life in prison and a withering assessment of his character.
Muzzammil Hassan, who’d claimed his wife abused him, stood with his head bowed as the judge told him that even his own children had nothing but contempt for him. He scoffed at the idea that Hassan stabbed Aasiya Hassan more than 40 times and decapitated her because he was afraid of her.
“You bought two hunting knives, you tested them for sharpness, you laid in wait in a darkened hallway for your unsuspecting wife and you butchered her,” Judge Thomas Franczyk said. “Self-defense? I don’t think so.”
Hassan, who killed his wife inside the offices of the Muslim-oriented television station the couple started to dispel negative cultural stereotypes, kept his comments brief, in stark contrast to his trial testimony. Acting as his own attorney, Hassan, 46, spent four days on the stand, painting himself as a victim in an eight-year marriage filled with arguments and threats. He said God sent him the courage to kill his wife and that he felt as if he’d escaped from a terrorist camp afterward.
Prosecutors countered with piles of medical and police reports showing it was Aasiya Hassan who was incessantly verbally and physically abused. The 37-year-old mother had filed for divorce a week before her death.
“I deeply regret that things came down to what they came down to,” Hassan said at his sentencing in Erie County Court. “I truly wish there would have been some alternative mechanism.”
The judge said: “I’m sure there are more men than we can imagine who are victims of domestic violence and you have done them no favors. If ever there was a message lost on the messenger, this was the case.”
Hassan’s legal adviser, Jeremy Schwartz, said Hassan sincerely believes what he said at his trial.
After three weeks of testimony, a jury spent just one hour deliberating before finding Hassan guilty on Feb. 7 of second-degree murder. Several jurors returned for the sentencing.
“To see such brutality, what she went through, will be with us forever,” juror Kelly Maccagnano said outside the courtroom.
She and others said they’d kept an open mind when the burly Hassan claimed he was battered by his much smaller wife, and they waited for proof that never came.
“All he wanted to do was trash her, which was really sick,” juror Linda Janiga said.
At the sentencing, prosecutor Colleen Curtin Gable cited letters from the victim’s family and friends “which speak to her kindness, her generosity and her optimism.” Prosecutors asked for the maximum prison term.
“He got what he deserved. We hope he dies in prison,” Erie County District Attorney Frank Sedita said afterward.
Sedita said members of the Muslim community asked him to stress that the killing was strictly a case of domestic violence and not an “honor killing” as some people speculated after the February 2009 murder. The practice is still accepted among some fanatical Muslim men, including in the couple’s native Pakistan, who feel betrayed by their wives.
“This case has nothing to do with religion,” Sedita said.
A woman was brutally murdered, and all the local Muslims can think about is deflecting criticism from Islam by classifying the murder as “domestic violence” rather than yet another Islam-based honor killing.
Feminist Phyllis Chesler has investigated cultural murders of women (Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?) and listed several typical characteristics that differentiate honor killing, including a sense of victimhood in the killer who feels no remorse. That description fits Hassan, who called himself a battered man who was forced to kill his wife.
In addition, domestic violence is usually a crime of passion, occurring in the moment. Hassan carefully purchased hunting knives and ambushed his wife from the rear after he had lured her to the empty television studio.
But there was no denying the irony in the case that involved a couple who made it their life’s work to improve the image of Muslims in a post-Sept. 11 world and the worst possible stereotypes their television station was meant to counter.
Bridges TV continues to broadcast, now under new management and with a broadened focus on bridging understanding among many cultures and religions.
Just before his sentencing, Hassan brought in a new lawyer who indicated he would appeal. Earl Key is the fifth attorney to be hired by Hassan since he turned himself in to police about an hour after killing his wife. He fired three others and demoted the fourth to an advisory role during the trial. Key’s request to postpone the sentencing so that he could familiarize himself with the case was denied.
The judge granted prosecutors’ request that Hassan be barred from contacting his two oldest children from one of two previous marriages. Twenty-year-old Sonia Hassan and her 19-year-old brother, Michael, testified against their father on their stepmother’s behalf. Hassan also has two younger children with Aasiya Hassan, who were 4 and 6 years old at the time of their mother’s death. They are living with their maternal grandparents in Pakistan.
I saw bit and pieces on news shows of this undercover video showing an NPR executive schmoozing for dollars with men identified as terrorist sympathizers, but watching the whole thing at once is quite a tour of liberal condescension. Attitudes range from the university (“liberal because it’s intellectual”) to the Tea Party (“racist, racist people”).
We also learn that the “educated, so-called elite is too small a percentage of the population” in the opinion of the NPR suit, Ron Schiller. And that firing Juan Williams was something Schiller was “very proud of” because it demonstrated NPR’s dedication to a “non-racist, non-bigoted, straightforward telling of the news.”
He believed he was meeting with two generous members of the Muslim Brotherhood who were interested in donating $5 million to a news organization where their views would be expressed. Did Schiller think he was impressing the jihadists with his snooty liberal talk?
Schiller’s clearly stated opinion that NPR would be better off without government money got a lot of attention in Congress and beyond, where many Republicans agreed with him at least on that point.
What do they put in the water cooler over at NPR? First, they fire Juan Williams in October for comments he made on Fox News Channel and Vivian Schiller, the CEO of public radio, smilingly suggests he needs to have his head examined.
This week a sting video shows NPR Foundation President Ron Schiller (no relation) saying that Tea Party activists were “seriously racist” and telling two purported Muslim program underwriters that there aren’t enough “non-Zionist” news organizations.
Vivian Schiller was denied her 2010 bonus and Ron Schiller, an NPR spokesman says, is already on his way to a job elsewhere. But, with a new large Republican majority in the House of Representatives, NPR leaders could hardly have done a better job of persuading Congress to zero out public radio funding.
Rep. Peter King, the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, has been getting thrashed by the liberal media for what appears to be a rather mild investigation of the obvious problem of growing Islamic violence within this country.
The Chairman’s treatment on MSNBC Tuesday morning was particularly harsh. Liberal polemicists like Eugene Robinson are downright competitive about how thick they can lay on invective. King gives as good as he gets, however.
At the urging of the Council of Islamic American Relations (CAIR), the lefty press has worked itself into a full froth about poor little Muslims being “unfairly singled out” by Rep. Peter King. (Hint: free speech critical of Islam is not permitted under sharia law.)
CAIR intends that the ongoing noise keeps the absurd idea of Muslim victimhood alive, and distracts from the real danger that a fifth column poses. Not all Muslims are jihadists, but Muslim communities are the ocean in which the would-be killers swim.
Apparently the media snoozed through the march of attempted terror attacks in the last little while. As terror analyst Walid Phares noted last fall, “According to open-source reports, between 2001 and 2008, U.S. agencies stopped one or two terror attempts a year. However, from 2009 until today, the government has been uncovering one or two cases a month, a troubling growth in jihadi activities.”
But to the unserious liberal press, the tender feelings of Muslims residing in America are more important than national security. The media further believes the fiction that Muslims are the frontline defense against bad guys in their communities, an idea with which Chairman King disagrees.
When I heard that Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) was going to hold hearings on the issue of radicalization inside our American Muslim community, I thought: It’s about time.
As those hearings begin on Thursday, all of us need to grab a front row seat. This is a discussion we desperately need to have as a nation because for far too long we have lived in a culture of denial, fueled in part by Muslim community leadership that–like just about any community tends to do until prodded–denies our problems rather than admits them.
I arrived in this country in 1969 as a four year old from India and, after 42 years as an American-Muslim, I can say without a doubt: an ideology of extremism has crossed across our borders, and radicalization is a real threat inside our communities in the U.S., often times unchallenged because members of our Muslim community are intimidated to speak out against it. We have brave leaders and activists who do, but usually at great cost to their social standing in the community.
To me, the hearings are not a “witch hunt.” Rep. Peter King is not a 21st century Joe McCarthy, the senator who led hearings on communism in the 1950s. I believe he is an American, like so many, frustrated and annoyed by the largely recalcitrant posture of our community to admitting our problems. In Congress, we have had honest debate about everyone’s dirty laundry–from BP to the Big Three automakers. There has been discussion in the halls of Congress about “Jewish extremists,” “white supremacists,” the Ku Klux Klan and clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Muslims should not be exempt from critical examination, just because its lobby takes a defensive posture–just like all special-interest groups tend to do.
If we have any doubts, as Muslims, about our divine injunction to truth-telling, even about our own community, we need look no further than the Qur’an, which states:
Oh ye who believe!
Stand out firmly
For justice, as witnesses
To God, even if it may be against
Yourselves, or your parents
Or your kin -
“Al-Nisa” (The Women),
Qur’an, 4: 135
Instead of circling the wagons with a public relations campaign of victimization, Muslims should rise to the occasion and honestly discuss what we all know: there is a very real interpretation of Islam inside our communities that threatens to convert our youth and others to extremism. It is expressed through publishing houses, imams, YouTube videos, websites and arm-chair ideologues.
We need to have an open conversations about how extremist Islam gets into the heads of Muslims such as would-be Time Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hassan and so many others. We need to own up to the fact that some within Islam have a problematic interpretation, and we need to have the moral courage to be honest about it. We will not shame ourselves. We will not shame Islam. There is no shame in honesty. In fact, I think we would engender more good will–and invite less anger and rage by folks frustrated by our stonewalling.
Like most Muslims, I’ve seen rigid, puritanical interpretations creep into the American Muslim community, starting in the 1970s with the exportation of the dogmatic Wahhabi ideology from Saudi Arabia, fueled by the oil money that gave the Saudis a largess from which to pump its ideas into the world. In my hometown community of Morgantown, W.V., I saw the Saudi ideology express itself with mandates that women and men sit strictly segregated from each other at our community potluck dinners, rather than the family style arrangements we’d been enjoying. I felt a crisis of faith and didn’t think there wasn’t a place for me as I came of age as a fierce, strong-willed girl. Continue reading this article
In New York on Sunday, a couple hundred protesters showed up to complain about King’s investigation of Islamic diversity, with identical signs reading “Today I Am a Muslim Too.” Photos of the crowd (pictured) indicated that many were Muslims every other day as well.
The White House took a preemptive step to defuse an emerging controversy Sunday, sending out a top aide to reassure American Muslims that the U.S. government doesn’t see them as a collective threat.
Denis McDonough, deputy national security advisor to President Obama, addressed a largely Muslim audience days before congressional hearings into homegrown Islamic terrorism. The hearings, which sparked protests in New York on Sunday, will be led by Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
In his speech to members of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, McDonough said, “The bottom line is this: When it comes to preventing violent extremism and terrorism in the United States, Muslim Americans are not part of the problem; you’re part of the solution.”
So the whole thing is blowing up into a big deal in the media. There’s nothing like conflict to excite the MSM honchos.
Indeed, the hearing has certainly been a great opportunity for camera-loving Muslim windbags to get their mugs on television as pundits!
So we hear more of the Muslim victimhood theme which has been much used by well paid Islo-mouthpieces; it is the only card they have to play, yet the credulous liberal media is still slurping it up.
More importantly, the uproar against Peter King is yet another example of how Islam cannot abide free speech: any criticism of the totalitarian belief system must be stamped out, according to Muslims. I consider an attempt at physical disruption of the hearing to be a distinct possibility (like many events that are critical of Islam). Certainly there will be lots of security.
Chairman King has twisted and turned and accommodated to make his critics back off — which was never going to happen. He invited one of the most annoying naysayers, the Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, to appear as part of the hearing. In fact, the persons listed on the HSC website as witnesses are pretty underwhelming: Ellison, Rep. Frank Wolfe, Zuhdi Jasser, LA Sheriff Lee Baca, Abdirizak Bihi (Director, Somali Education and Social Advocacy Center) and private citizen Melvin Bledsoe.
King could easily have gotten more impressive, knowledgeable people — Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Steve Emerson — but the Chairman chose another route which he may have felt was less confrontational. That choice was a disappointing weakness, in my opinion. It’s possible Rep. King could still pull off an educational event, since there is more than one way to indicate a growing danger to the country.
He keeps insisting that he hasn’t been intimidated by political correctness and general badmouthing. Let’s hope to be pleasantly surprised.
When Mexico’s Presidente Calderon visits Washington, he not only hopes for a handout, his to-do list also includes complaining at length about America’s immigration laws. He thinks that the USA should stop border enforcement and admit Mexican workers to do any American job they can weasel, hypocritically overlooking that Mexico has very tough immigration enforcement within its own highly defended borders.
Calderon’s latest ploy to convince weak Washington minds to enact comprehensive amnesty is to say that Mexicans are developing anti-American feelings — oh, my! Americans have reacted in an unwelcoming manner to millions of Mexican job thieves? How surprising is that?
Many Americans would be thrilled if Mexicans disliked this country enough to stop entering it illegally.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon, during his visit to Washington, D.C., this week, indicated that “anti-American” sentiment is growing in Mexico because of how the people there view Americans’ perception of illegal immigration.
Prior to going forward with immigration reform in the United States, “We need to change the general perception inside the public opinion in America and the public opinion in Mexico,” said Calderon.
“My most serious concern is that bad feelings are growing on both sides of the border,” he added. “The anti-American feeling in Mexico is growing again.”
Naturally President Obama was happy to oblige his partner Calderon by stating his support for rewarding Mexican lawbreakers with amnesty.
Last year, the BBC researched worldwide public opinion about whether the influence of the United States was positive or negative. Only 13 percent of Mexicans regard America’s affect on the world to be “mainly positive.” (Not very friendly, these neighbors.)
In the recent trip, Presidente Calderon had the extra ammo of Wikileaks leaks indicating the low esteem in which Washington regards his corrupt fiefdom, so the Mexicans pretended to have their sensitive feelings hurt to help their diplomatic efforts. Calderon complained at length about the “severe damage” the Wikileaks info had done to the bilateral relationship.
The guilt trip was a helpful crowbar to beat the spineless Obama into servicing the Mexicans. It worked like a charm, with Obama agreeing to allow hazardous Mexican trucks into America despite serious reasons to keep them out, including public opinion, national security and highway safety.
In 2007 I blogged about three members of an American family killed by a mechanically faulty Mexican vehicle: Early Warning: Victims of Mexican Trucks Remembered. Robert and Marie Jennings of Carlsbad, and their nephew, David Jennings II of Ohio (pictured) died in a crash that likely would not have occurred with an American truck required by law to maintain high safety standards.
WASHINGTON—The U.S. and Mexico unveiled a deal Thursday to resolve a longstanding dispute over cross-border trucking, an agreement that could help ease tense relations between the two neighbors.
The deal seeks to end a nearly 20-year ban on Mexican trucks crossing the U.S. border, a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement that subjected $2.4 billion of U.S. goods annually to punitive tariffs by Mexico. Half of the tariffs will be suspended when the deal is signed by both nations, expected in about 60 days. The remainder will be lifted when the first Mexican hauler complies with a series of U.S. certification requirements, including English-language, drug and safety tests.
The new requirements for Mexican trucks are tougher than those established in Nafta and somewhat tougher than those currently in force for American truckers. Specifically, Mexican trucks will have to carry electronic recorders to ensure they do only cross-border, not domestic, runs and to track compliance with U.S. hours-of-service laws.
Nonetheless, the agreement appears to be a setback for U.S. labor unions, which have backed the ban in its various incarnations and opposed some other Obama administration trade initiatives, including efforts to conclude a trade pact with Colombia. Unionized U.S. truckers say the plan threatens their jobs.
The trucking deal “caves in to business interests at the expense of the traveling public and American workers,” said International Brotherhood of Teamsters president Jim Hoffa. The union has long said that Mexican trucks and drivers are potentially unsafe, which the Mexican government disputes. Continue reading this article
In Texas, nearly 8,200 farms and ranches back up to the Mexican border.
The men and women who live and work on those properties say they’re under attack from the same drug cartels blamed for thousands of murders in Mexico.
“It’s a war, make no mistake about it,” Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples said. “And it’s happening on American soil.”
Texas farmers and ranchers produce more cotton and more cattle than any other state, so Staples is concerned this war could eventually impact our food supply, and calls it a threat to our national security.
“Farmers and ranchers are being run off their own property by armed terrorists showing up and telling them they have to leave their land,” Staples said.
To raise awareness, Commissioner Staples launched the website ProtectYourTexasBorder.com. It’s a place where frustrated and scared farmers can share their stories.
One Texas farmer, who asked not to be identified, said it’s common for him to see undocumented immigrants walking through his property.
“I see something, I just drive away,” he said. “It is a problem, I’ve learned to live with it and pretty much, I’ve become numb to it.”
Another farmer, Joe Aguilar, said enough is enough. After walking up on armed gunmen sneaking undocumented immigrants into the United States through his land, Aguilar decided to sell his farm.”It’s really sad to say, you either have to beat ‘em or join ‘em and I decided not to do either,” Aguilar said.
Aguilar’s family farmed 6,000 acres of land along the Texas-Mexico border for nearly 100 years.
“Our farmers and ranchers can’t afford their own security detail,” Staples said. “We’re going to become more dependent on food from foreign sources.
Americans don’t like being dependent on foreign oil, they won’t stand for being dependent on foreign food.”
Hispandering on a grand scale has required squishy language which Gingrich hopes will go unnoticed, like his statement, “We have to find policies that extend to every American, and that includes people who are not yet legal.”
Newt Gingrich’s simultaneous courtship of the base of the Republican Party and Latino voters could pose major problems for his likely bid for the White House.
Gingrich, who is soon expected to announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, frequently stresses the need for the GOP to reach out to Latinos. According to the 2010 census, Latinos are now the fastest-growing and largest minority group in the country.
Putting that call into practice, the former House Speaker has set up a bilingual news and opinion website directed at Latinos and has staked out a nuanced position on immigration reform that some critics have labeled amnesty.
At the same time, Gingrich has tried to woo conservative activists, coming out against the construction of a mosque near the Ground Zero site in lower Manhattan and calling for the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The problem, according to some observers, is that Gingrich’s stance on immigration doesn’t lend itself to an easy explanation for a conservative talk-radio audience.
“If I was his adviser, I would just say, ‘Let’s call a truce on that one for now,’ ” said Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who served with Gingrich in the House. “Immigration and illegal aliens are still a very, very hot topic. And people who will be voting in the Republican primary do not want to hear about any backdoor amnesty program.”
Gingrich uses phrases like “pathway to legality” to characterize his support for a measure similar to the DREAM Act, which grants young illegal immigrants U.S. residency if they enroll in college or join the military.
Other powerful players in the GOP, including former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, who have warned conservatives to watch their rhetoric on immigration.
Regardless, many right-wing bloggers have lambasted Gingrich.
Three years after Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) stole the spotlight on immigration issues in the GOP presidential debates, Gingrich says that deporting 11 million illegal aliens is unrealistic.
Gingrich doesn’t shy away from critics who say he is soft on illegal immigration.
“I’m just going to ask them a simple question,” he told The Hill. “They’re going to take somebody who came here at 3 years of age, who doesn’t speak Spanish and who just graduated from a high school in Texas, and they’re going to say to him, ‘We’re going to deport you.’
“That’s certainly their prerogative. I don’t think the country will go for that. I think that’s so lax in a concern for the human beings involved.”
Gingrich emphasizes a border-security-first approach, which he noted in his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last month.
“I am deeply committed to securing the border,” Gingrich told The Hill. “I am deeply committed to changing the deportation rules for felons and gang members. … But I also think we have a huge challenge — what do you do with the human beings who are engaged, some of whom are married, have children? It’s a very complicated situation, and I don’t you think you can just wave a magic wand and have some kind of a simple, clean answer.”
That’s a position that could cause Gingrich hardship in some early voting states.
In Iowa, Republicans such as Rep. Steve King have taken a hard-line stance against immigration reform, insisting on mass deportation of those in the U.S. illegally.
Robert Haus, an Iowa-based Republican consultant, said Gingrich will likely be challenged on the issue should he launch a presidential bid.
King said, “I want to hear [Gingrich's] position very carefully before I would critique it. Mine is that the DREAM Act provides amnesty to people that came into this country [illegally], some knowingly and some unknowingly. Where do you draw the line? You’re going to get drug smugglers along with the little ladies.”
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.