(See my article “Diversity Is . . . Drunk Driving” for background showing how hispanic culture celebrates inebriated vehicle operation as a desirably macho behavior. Even NPR agrees that “Latinos are responsible for a disproportionate number of DWI arrests and alcohol-related car accidents.”)
The couple is shown in the photo at right; the inset picture is of Felix Ortega, the habitual criminal who killed them.
Dan Mattle has spoken on talk radio and wrote an opinion piece (below) supporting immigration law enforcement:
As the father of Tad Mattle, killed along with his girlfriend in a horrific accident in Huntsville two years ago caused by the illegal immigrant Felix Ortega, I experienced first-hand results of unrestricted illegal immigration.
The driver was not just seeking a better life in the United States. He was a repeat offender with at least four DUIs, was wanted in at least four other states for both misdemeanors and felonies, had five different aliases, and was supposed to have been deported in 2001.
Because I support Alabama’s HB 56 to enforce laws against illegal immigration, I have been accused of not being Christian. I can no longer maintain silence.
Where in Jesus Christ’s teachings did he advocate flagrant violation of a nation’s laws? How is violating immigration laws and flaunting it in front of those who followed the legal process Christ-like? The willingness of HB 56’s detractors to overlook unfettered illegal immigration is just the sort of mindset that allows hardened criminals into our country.
I ask how Christian is it to allow evil men into our country to rob, maim and/or kill innocent, law-abiding citizens just to demonstrate your pious compassion? Where’s the compassion for innocent victims? (continues)
Dan Mattle’s sensible response to preventable crime was featured recently:
Dan Mattle and his wife, Terri, don’t consider themselves especially political.
But when critics hammered Alabama’s new immigration act as mean-spirited and racist, the south Huntsville couple decided to speak up in support of the Republican-sponsored bill.
In late June, Dan Mattle made his first appearance on talk radio and wrote his first letter to the editor.
GOP legislators are “making up for the fact that the federal government is derelict in its (immigration enforcement) duty,” he said this month. “None of these laws would have passed if they’d been doing their job.”
Immigration became a deeply personal issue for the Mattles just before 9 p.m. on April 17, 2009.
Their oldest son, Tad, was stopped in traffic at the busy intersection of Whitesburg Drive and Airport Road when Felix Dominguez Ortega, an undocumented resident fleeing from Huntsville police, slammed into the back of Tad’s Toyota Supra.
Police estimated Ortega’s pickup truck was traveling nearly 70 miles an hour; no skid marks were found.
Tad, a 19-year-old Eagle Scout who had just earned a full academic scholarship to the University of Alabama in Huntsville, died in the fiery crash along with his girlfriend, Grissom High School sophomore Leigh Anna Jimmerson.
Ortega, with a blood-alcohol content more than three times the legal limit, survived.
“Everyone calls it an accident,” Mattle said. “But that was no accident – it was a murder scene.”
A native of Mexico, Ortega eventually pleaded guilty to reckless murder and is serving a 15-year sentence at Bibb County Correctional Facility.
Municipal court records show that Ortega had three prior drunk-driving arrests in Huntsville under another name, Juan Sanchez. Police say he also used the aliases Adan Herrera and Reynaldo Martinez.
Mattle, 46, said he hopes Alabama’s immigration law will deter criminals like Ortega from sneaking across the border.
Greenfield got national attention in 2009 when a story appeared about a Oaxacan father from the Triqui tribe selling his 14-year-old daughter in marriage to another Mexican for an assortment of beer, soft drinks, food and cash. Beer news is always an eye-grabber because of the near-universal appeal of the noble beverage, even in such a twisted context. The press usually doesn’t like stories that portray diversity in a negative light, but will occasionally make an exception for something that is sensational in the tabloid style.
Now we learn that indigenous Mexicans (the sort who don’t even speak Spanish and learn that language in America rather than English) are disliked by their countrymen residing in Greenfield.
If the comments contained in the article below were uttered by white Americans, la Raza would send in a gaggle of attorneys to shriek about discrimination. But it’s Mex-on-Mex disparagement, with ethnic nuances, so the press reports it as an interesting sociological phenomenon, not another proof of the failure of the multicultural dogma.
(08-13) 08:36 PDT Greenfield, Calif. (AP) — Down wind-swept El Camino Real, where women in shawls push strollers and old men in cowboy hats linger on dusty benches, farmworkers spill from white contractor buses. From the main drag, it’s only blocks to the fields and vineyards that sustain this peaceful town in the Salinas Valley, “the Salad Bowl of the World.”
But there’s tension in this part of John Steinbeck Country.
Nearly all of Greenfield’s 16,300 people are Latino — and yet an ugly conflict has been brewing between longer-time residents and newcomers from another part of Mexico. Established residents say a massive influx of migrants from the Mexican state of Oaxaca has changed their city for the worse.
Over the past decade, the migrants — Triquis, Mixtecs and other indigenous people who streamed from small mountain villages to Greenfield to plant and pick crops — spurred Greenfield’s growth and now make up about a third of the town’s population. (They represent up to 30 percent of farmworkers in California and 17 percent nationwide, the U.S. Department of Labor says.)
They speak their own languages, not Spanish, they keep their own customs, such as arranged marriages, and, despite a longstanding tradition of sanctuary and tolerance in Greenfield, they remain separate.
In a town feeling heavily pressured by the economic crisis and gang activity, the influx of Oaxacans and their lack of understanding of U.S. customs has led to an ethnic clash.
It’s a new round in a conflict as old as the United States, in which successive waves of immigrants have often feuded with each other. But what’s happening in Greenfield is distinct, partly because the split here pits immigrants rooted in the same country, but also because of the hard look it’s forcing the town to take at itself.
Rachel Ortiz became so displeased with the new migrants that, after more than five decades in Greenfield, she left her cul-de-sac home and moved to Salinas, 30 miles away.
Ortiz and others in newly-formed community groups complained that the Oaxacan families clustered in overcrowded apartments and garages, threw trash into the streets, thronged city parks, held loud parties. Some urinated in public and were involved in break-ins.
“It’s fine when you live over there in Oaxaca,” said Ortiz, 53, whose grandfather came from Mexico. “But here things are done differently. Here you have to maintain your home, your children, your job and yourself.” Continue reading this article
It’s too bad the Fox team devising the questions for the candidates in Thursday’s debate chose to focus on illegal immigration only. After all, Washington continues to import 125,000 LEGAL immigrant workers per month when over 14 million citizens are jobless.
Nevertheless, the subject of illegal immigration was explored, which is more than you can say for most Presidential debates.
According to the helpful analysis of NumbersUSA, none of the candidates is outstanding on the topic of enforcement, with only three getting a grade of C or B and most falling in the D and F categories. Underwhelming.
The most egregious response was arguably from Jon Huntsman, who refused to answer directly a question of whether he supported amnesty. Instead he touted his conservative credentials on other issues and strongly hinted he supported the McCain approach of border security first, then a massive amnesty to follow.
It’s kind of amazing that public figures like Huntsman are so clueless about the basics of psychology and how they should be used in public policy. Do political leaders raise their children by rewarding undesirable behavior?
Being a clever fellow who understands his audience, Gingrich skillfully supported border security, bashed Obama and favored official English. However he also noted an alleged difference between newbie illegal aliens and longtime squatters, an unforced error if one believes that lawbreaking is illegal in a long-term way.
As I’ve reported, Governor Romney understands the issue better than many. However his dedication to principles on various issues has been questioned, with good reason. He said the right things in some respects during the debate, but rather than stapling green cards to PhD diplomas, as Romney suggested, the country should make it easier to Americans to get advanced degrees in useful fields.
Rep. Ron Paul was unduly concerned with employers having to check for work eligibility, when they already deal with similar paperwork in the hiring process. Using the government’s e-verify database to check the would-be employee’s social security number takes less than a minute and is not much to ask.
Businessman candidate Herman Cain stayed with his common-sense approach to governance, reciting a brief list of enforcement measures, based on existing laws. He stated, “We have a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. It’s called legal immigration.”
BAIER: Now we turn to Susan Ferrechio with the Washington Examiner. She has the next round of questions for the candidates. The topic: illegal immigration. Susan?
FERRECHIO: OK, we’ll start with Governor Huntsman. You said that we need to bill a fence to secure our borders, but then we need to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants already here in the country.
You said, quote, “There’s got to be an alternative to sending them back. That’s unrealistic.”
Governor Huntsman, are you proposing citizenship for illegal aliens?
HUNTSMAN: Listen, I’m — I am a conservative problem-solver. I am pro-life, I’m pro-Second Amendment, I’m pro-growth on economics, and I’m here to tell you that, when elected president, the thing we need to do most on illegal immigration — because there has been zero leadership in Washington. And with zero leadership in Washington, we’ve created this patchwork of solutions in all — in a lot of the states, which makes for a very complex and confusing environment.
When elected president, I’m simply going to prove to the American people that we can secure the border. That’s what they want done. And I’m not going to talk about anything else until we get it done. Secure the border.
Eighteen hundred miles, we’ve got a third of it done, between fencing and technology and National Guard boots on the ground. We can finish. And I will talk to the four border state governors and get verification from them that, in fact, we’ve secured the border.
And once that is done, then we can move on. But this discussion has zero in the way of any intellectual credibility until such time as we secure the border. Continue reading this article
As far as borders and sovereignty go, Texas Governor Rick Perry is all hat and no cattle. In fact, it would be more accurate to say he is all sombrero and no cattle. His campaign style is attractive to those who admire a certain swagger, but his beliefs run counter to what most American citizens want — that immigration be legal, controlled and reduced.
Even though Ann Coulter says in her book Demonic that conservatives don’t get emotional crushes on political figures the way that the liberal mob does, there does seem to be a mini-swoon forming over the flashy gov who prays in public and talks tough — except when it comes to immigration enforcement.
The border defender and former Congressman Tom Tancredo connects the relevant dots:
On Saturday Texas Gov. Rick Perry is expected to announce whether or not he will run for president. Many now believe he will.
Perry is eager to separate himself from his predecessor in the Texas governor’s mansion, George W. Bush — who is unpopular with both tea party Republicans and the American electorate as a whole. But one area where Perry’s positions are virtually identical to Bush is immigration.
When I ran for president in 2008, I tried to pressure the Republican candidates to take a hard line against illegal immigration. For this, Perry called me a racist.
When he first took office as governor in 2001, Perry went to Mexico and bragged about his law that granted “the children of undocumented workers” special in-state tuition at Texas colleges, the first state in the nation to do so.
“The message is simple,” Perry concluded, “educacion es el futuro, y si se puede.” Education is the future, and (echoing Cesar Chavez’s slogan) yes we can.]
Just a few weeks ago, Perry defended his decision to give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. He said “to punish these young Texans for their parents’ actions is not what America has always been about.”
Perry opposed Arizona’s tough anti-illegal immigration law SB 1070. “I have concerns,” he explained, “with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas.”
He spoke out last year against using E-Verify to prevent illegal immigrants from getting jobs as state employees, who get their paychecks from the taxpayers. He insisted it “would not make a hill of beans’ difference.”
Numbers USA, a group that supports immigration control, gives Perry a “D-” for his positions supporting amnesty, open borders, and opposing border security.
Perry, in a speech in Mexico in 2007, said he supports completely open borders, calling for the “free flow of individuals between these two countries who want to work and want to be an asset to our country and to Mexico.”
In the same speech he came out against building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.Perry also came out in favor of blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants in 2006, albeit without citizenship, supporting “a guest worker program that takes undocumented workers off the black market and legitimizes their economic contribution.
“ Despite all his talk about sovereignty and states’ rights, Perry proposed the Trans-Texas Corridor. This toll road would go through Mexico, but be run together with the Mexican government in the middle of Texas.
While I was in Congress, I co-sponsored the H.C. Res. 487 to block the creation of this highway. Fortunately our efforts in Congress, along with the work of conservatives in the Texas legislature, derailed Perry’s sovereignty sacrificing scheme.
Perry’s views here are at odds with the vast majority of Americans — and virtually all Republican voters. While he opposes E-Verify for even state employees, 82 percent of all voters, and 91 percent of Republicans, support E-Verify for all employees.
While Perry opposes the border fence, 68 percent of all voters, and 86 percent of Republicans, support the fence. While Perry opposes the Arizona law, SB 1070, voters want 1070 in their state by a 2-1 margin — including 86 percent of all Republicans.
Perry’s only true conservative positions on borders involve calling for an end to sanctuary cities and signing a voter ID law. While I support these measures, they don’t make up for the rest of his positions on immigration. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Tom Tancredo served as a Republican congressman from Colorado 1999-2009, and was chairman of the bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus. He now serves as chairman of Team America PAC and the Rocky Mountain Foundation.
The Obama administration has a way of playing fast and loose with national security — like maintaining open borders in a dangerous world.
Another example has been the operation that killed Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani suburb. Way too much has already been revealed to the public concerning tactics, weapons and military units. Joe Biden blabbed that Navy SEALs performed the mission after even his boss said merely that “a small team of Americans” did the deed.
Washington remains worse than useless on immigration enforcement, but fortunately the states have moved to pick up the slack, as indicated by a report showing that the number of state bills is increasing, and some are even signed into law.
Given federal fecklessness and state leadership, Rep. Lamar Smith’s proposal for national e-verify that would eliminate the ability of states to enforce immigration law — the pricetag of the business community for its support of the Smith bill — would be a disastrous choice. The Smith bill would be another stealth amnesty like the 1986 law that promised enforcement which never happened in exchange for rewarding millions of lawbreakers with US citizenship. All carrot, no stick. It appears that bad history may be repeated once again.
LOS ANGELES — State lawmakers considered a record number of immigration-related bills this year, highlighting their continued frustration with federal government inaction on immigration laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
A total of 1,592 bills were introduced in all 50 states and Puerto Rico in the 2011 legislative session that ended June 30, a report by the bipartisan research organization found.
State legislators in 40 states enacted 151 of the bills, which mainly addressed law enforcement, identification and employment issues, said Ann Morse, program director of the conference’s immigrant policy project. An additional five laws were vetoed by governors.
Five states – Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah – created laws similar to a controversial Arizona immigration law, known as SB 1070, which requires law enforcement to check the immigration status of people they lawfully stop and whom they suspect to be in the country illegally.
All five of those laws been challenged in federal court, with opponents citing federal pre-emption and violation of the Fourth and 14th amendments.
“The level of interest in the states is still very high,” Morse said. “What we’re seeing is a frustration with the federal government that it won’t take up these issues.”
An uptick in states’ legislation began in 2005, when 300 bills were introduced and 38 laws were enacted, Morse said.
At that time, states focused primarily on social services and naturalization issues, areas lawmakers believed the federal government was failing to address. But as frustrations with the federal government began to rise, so did the amount of legislation that was introduced, Morse said. Continue reading this article
Coulter notes that the full flowering of the mob came during the French Revolution, in which the mob’s Reign of Terror caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, from the King and Queen of France to the revolution’s own leaders like Robespierre. By comparison, the American Revolution was remarkably principled and orderly as armed uprisings go.
“This is the uprising of the working class. We’re redistributing the wealth,” said Bryn Phillips, a 28-year-old self-described anarchist, as young people emerged from the store with chocolate bars and ice cream cones.
In the video below, a looter in Clapham Junction claims the theft is a kind of tax refund. Brilliant. It’s a Marxist version of H&R Block in which imagined victimhood justifies crime and violence.
It’s too bad the British people have been disarmed by the government and have no guns to defend themselves and their property.
On Saturday I watched the Fox News Special, “A Question of Honor,” and while it added interesting details about a case I’ve followed since the beginning, the news doc was unsatisfying. The film recounted the 2009 Arizona murder of a young woman, Noor Almaleki (shown), by her Iraqi immigrant father because she wanted to live as a free individual in America rather than a submissive Muslim female.
The theme throughout was that of “honor” as the title indicates. But there was no deeper explanation that the honor referred to is not what we Westerners mean when we use the word. Faleh Almaleki killed his daughter because he has the typical Islamic male view belief that women are worth less than men as he learned from the Koran and other Islo-texts, and when females disobey the laws of Mohammed, then they must be murdered to restore “honor” to the family. The idea that “honor killings” are accepted in Islamic societies as a normal behavior is correctly considered barbaric in the West, where women are full citizens with civil rights.
Interestingly, Judge Roland Steinle took a common-sense approach in the sentencing and did not care much about the Islo-honor aspect. He figured that a man who murdered his daughter, even in a lesser second-degree crime, deserved a long sentence in the slammer whatever the motivation, and sent Almaleki to state prison for 34 years.
The film could have shown that honor killings are common in the Middle East and Islamic countries like Pakistan, but it did not. The program could have gently suggested to viewers that Muslim immigration has imported a vile crime, earlier unknown in this country, as part of the absurd pursuit of diversity as the highest good, but it did not.
Not only does Muslim immigration endanger our national security, it has opened up our society to deeply alien cultures with social norms that are repulsive to our values.
An audio tape obtained by Fox News sheds new light into the 2009 murder of an Iraqi-born woman who was killed in Arizona after her father drove over her in what police believe was an honor killing.
According to the tape, as Noor Al-Maleki, 20, clung to life in intensive care, Peoria police believed that her father, Faleh Al-Maleki, had targeted her for an honor killing – and that other members of her family might try to kill her in her hospital bed.
The audio tape records a telephone conversation between Seham Al-Maleki – Noor’s mother – and Peoria police detective Bill Laing. In it Laing informs Seham that her husband had run down Noor and her friend Amal Khalaf with his Jeep Cherokee, as the two women were leaving an Arizona welfare office. The incident occurred on October 20, 2009 in a parking lot in Peoria, a suburb of Phoenix.
The tape was obtained by Fox News as part of an 8-month-long investigation into Al-Maleki’s killing, which will be the focus of a one-hour program, Fox News Reporting: A Question of Honor, is hosted by Bill Hemmer that premieres on Saturday at 10 p.m. ET.
“I want to see my daughter!” Seham Al-Maleki screams on the tape.
“Until he [Noor's father] is located, we are not mentioning where she is at,” responds Laing, who told the mother that witnesses in the parking lot identified her husband as the driver.
“This woman, she is lying, because she is dirty,” Seham says, referring to Noor’s friend Khalaf, who survived being hit by Al-Maleki’s jeep.
The Los Angeles Times loves to pretend that the massive demographic change caused by the Mexicanization of the American southwest is of no consequence. Sometimes the paper rewrites history entirely or ignore the cultural effects of Mexifornication, such as failing schools, increased gang crime and balkanization.
This tendency showed up in a recent news article, where a big lowrider show in Kern County was reported by the paper as if it were some sort of traditional American event, rather an expression of la Raza. There was no mention of lowriders’ hispanic origins. The piece didn’t even celebrate diversity, but wrote as if lowriders had been a part of California ever since cars began.
Instead of learning about the Mexican fondness for decorating automobiles (and turning them into large bouncing toys), one reads that the Lowrider Nationals is a fun event for car enthusiasts and the whole family.
Please. Lowriders reflect Mexican gangster culture transplanted to America.
Think of the words “Southern California” and several iconic images come to mind: palm trees in the breeze, well-toned men and women on the beach, the Hollywood sign, and lowriders moving slowly down the boulevard.
Modified to ride only inches from the ground, top chopped and refitted, custom paint job burnished to a proud shine, the lowrider since the 1940s has appropriated L.A.’s ubiquitous car culture — the famously gridlocked traffic, the pollution, the inability to walk the neighborhoods — and re-imagined the automobile as the ultimate urban art form.
On Sunday, the 14th annual Lowrider Nationals event brings together hundreds of these cars for an entertaining and family-oriented day of auto shows, concerts, dance clubs, and food trucks at Kern County Fairgrounds in Bakersfield.
Rick Muñoz, the event’s producer, sums up the dynamic between the city driver and his vehicle: “The lifestyle of the urban person is very flashy and very loud — the cars certainly match that lifestyle.” Continue reading this article
As we have seen, some states, like Arizona and Alabama, are willing to do the work the feds just won’t do, that of policing the borders and workplaces. Under President Obama, immigration enforcement exists only in terms of appearance. Millions of jobs are still occupied by unlawful foreigners, despite years of terrible joblessness among citizens of this country, when workplace enforcement could liberate those positions for Americans who need them. Plus, Obama’s administrative amnesty ensures that Washington deports only the very worst criminals.
It is highly unlikely that even a well crafted national e-verify would be actively enforced by this pro-amnesty administration, so why cripple the states when they are working to protect American citizens from criminals and job thieves?
One of the most tired clichés of the immigration debate is that “immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do.” With 16 million Americans out of work, this justification for not enforcing our immigration laws rings hollower than ever.
There are an estimated 7-8 million illegal aliens in the workforce. Virtually all of them are in unskilled sectors such as agriculture, food service and preparation, and construction; which also have extremely high levels of native born unemployment.
Freeing up those jobs for Americans should be common sense during a recession.
Hiring illegal aliens is already a crime under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, but neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama enforced this law. Part of the problem is that it is easy for “undocumented” immigrants to get fake documents. Under the current system, an honest employer may be duped into hiring or an illegal, while unscrupulous businesses can intentionally look the other way and plead ignorance if they get caught.
In 1996, Congress created the E-Verify program to help close this loophole. E-Verify is an electronic system that allows an employer to enter the social security or alien registration number of a potential employee. This gets checked against a government database to confirm whether an employee is here legally within minutes. When I served in Congress I cosponsored a number of pieces of legislation to mandate E-Verify nationwide.
These bills never made it through Congress, so states and localities began to do the job the federal government wouldn’t do. In 2006, Hazleton, PA, under the leadership of their mayor Lou Barletta, passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. The next year, Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Worker Act (LAWA.) Following Arizona’s lead, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, and many other states passed their own E-Verify laws.
Predictably, the ACLU sued Hazleton and the Chamber of Commerce sued Arizona on the grounds that states were preempted from enforcing immigration law.
In May, the Supreme Court ruled that LAWA was constitutional in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting. The next week, they upheld the Hazleton law. This opens the door for even more states to pass E-Verify laws when they go back in session.
In the wake of all this momentum in favor of state laws and E-Verify, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced the H.R. 2164, The Legal Workforce Act in June. On the surface, the Legal Workforce Act is a great bill. It requires E-Verify for all new hires and improves the system to prevent identity theft. Unfortunately, the bill includes a preemption provision that will prevent States and localities from enforcing employer sanctions on illegal immigration unless the federal government acts first. This, in effect, will completely wipe out our victory in the Supreme Court.
By including the preemption section, Rep. Smith has won the support of the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups who lobbied against every previous piece of immigration control legislation because it restricts their supply of cheap labor.
However, he has lost the support of some conservatives. Lou Barletta, who is now a freshman Congressman (R-PA), opposes the bill. He claims, “If this bill becomes law, states and municipalities will be powerless without the federal government acting first. Waiting for the federal government to enforce its own immigration laws is how we got into this mess in the first place.” Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.