Foreign Student Workers Are Still Welcomed in America

The Energizer Bunnies of open borders over at the State Department have long thought that bringing young foreigners to this country is a swell way to make friends for America on the cheap. In particular, the diplomats like welcoming college students, such as the 20,000 Saudis that the Bush administration promoted. Diplomats don’t worry that little citizen students might be displaced under the blowback of their brilliant policy initiatives; nobody in Washington cares about Americans any more.

(One problem is the auslanders like America so much that they don’t want to leave.)

Another hobby of Washington diplomats is to hook up young foreigners with American jobs, even during the current jobs depression in which youth are particularly hard hit.

One scheme favored by employers utilizes temporary work visas, which they laud as fostering good will, but are also conveniently profitable for business owners. The practice leaves our own young people unemployed while ripping off the foreign kids as employers charge them expensive room and board, which can leave the workers with only enough money to gt home.

The Denver Post article, linked below, mentioned near the end that “Nationally, there were 320,805 visas for all categories of J-1 visitors for 2010.” The program cost taxpayers $635 million last year, so we are paying to have foreigners displace us.

South Florida has noticed the problem as well, with the Palm Beach Post posting articles like U.S. program lets noncitizens take PBC luxury resort jobs

SUMMER JOBS: Visa program encourages seasonal hiring of foreign students while U.S. youths go jobless, Denver Post, June 19, 2011

At a time when job creation has top political billing and American high school and college students can’t find summer work, more than 2,100 young foreigners are filling seasonal jobs at resorts, farms, amusement venues and national parks in Colorado and hundreds of thousands more nationally under a government-sanctioned cultural exchange program.

Colorado has the nation’s largest number of foreign students employed under a work/travel program on a type of visa called the J-1. Their duties include running cash registers at Rocky Mountain National Park, changing beds at Mesa Verde National Park and packing fruit at orchards on the Western Slope.

The J-1 work/travel visa, which can be traced to the 1960s Cold War-era Fulbright-Hays Act, was designed to promote “the interchange of persons, knowledge and skills in the fields of education, arts and sciences.” Last year, the program received $635 million in government funding for administration.

The work/travel visas allow foreign college students aged 18 to 28 to spend four months (or up to 18 months with extensions) in the United States working and traveling.

Backers of the program see it as a way to foster goodwill and a cheap and easy way for companies needing seasonal workers to fill that void with foreign students, who generally have longer vacations than their domestic counterparts. The foreign workers commit to stay with one employer for a specified time.

“When you take into account attrition rates and other issues with local workers, this (the J-1 program) makes our lives more comfortable,” said Bruce Talbott of Talbott Farms in Palisade. He employs 20 to 30 Russians, Latvians, Lithuanians and Taiwanese in his family’s packing shed each summer and fall in lieu of hiring locals who rarely last the entire season.

Critics cite loss of U.S. jobs

Critics of this program administered by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs say it cuts into opportunities for unemployed Americans. It gives tax breaks to employers, including government contractors, and it has been abused by some employers who treat the students like indentured workers. It also has been abused by some agencies that promise jobs, collect fees and leave students without employment.

“A high priority for our government at this time should be putting our people to work. It’s very nice to foster relationships and all, but that shouldn’t come at the expense of American workers,” said Ira Mehlman, spokesperson for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Continue reading this article

Senator McCain Notes Illegal Alien Arsonists

Good for Senator John McCain (something I don’t say very often) for stating out loud that many of Arizona’s destructive wildfires have been started by illegal aliens.

Interestingly, wildfires often occur along the invaders’ favorite routes, as noted in the June 15 Arizona Star, Another major fire in a smuggling corridor.

However, the cause of border-area fires is a topic that the irresponsible mainstream media has been loath to discuss, an omission that mirrors their disinterest in illegal alien crime generally. On June 3, Katz Journalism Award winner Leo Banks mentioned that squeamishness during his acceptance speech, noting, “The local media has covered it as a fire, extensively, which they should. They don’t cover it as part of the border war.” (Watch the video or read the transcript of the CIS event).

So it’s a good thing that McCain is piping up about the illegal alien cause of many wildfires in Arizona and other border states.

McCain blames some Arizona wildfires on illegal immigrants, CNN, June 19, 2011

(CNN) — U.S. Sen. John McCain is blaming illegal immigrants for starting some of the wildfires that have scorched hundreds of thousands of acres in Arizona.

“There is substantial evidence that some of these fires have been caused by people who have crossed our border illegally,” McCain, R-Arizona, said Saturday at a press conference. “The answer to that part of the problem is to get a secure border.”

The Arizona senator, however, did not say what the evidence is, prompting a swift rebuke from Latino civil rights advocates.

“It’s easier to fan the flames of intolerance, especially in Arizona,” said Randy Parraz, a civil rights advocate who ran unsuccessfully against McCain as a Democratic candidate in 2010. Continue reading this article

Illegal Alien Pickers Remain Troublesome in Washington State

Poaching by illegal aliens has been an interest of mine for years, mostly because of the ongoing damage to America’s wilderness and animals. In addition, poaching was the cause of the 2004 mass murder of six American hunters by a trespassing Hmong immigrant in Wisconsin, which showed how extreme the thieving urge can get. The subject of resource theft gets little attention in the dinosaur media, which doesn’t care much about conservation, although the scribblers do manage to burp out annual stories about Mexican drug gangs growing marijuana in national parks and forests.

One ongoing crime scene is the coastal Northwest where aliens illegally pick in protected lands like the Olympic National Park valuable plants which are sold for use in floral arrangements. The industry generates a lot of money, one estimate being $250 million annually. As a result, theft and violence have grown, as noted in a 2006 Seattle Times article, A War in the Woods. So it’s not exactly an atmosphere of idyllic nature.

Below, Guatemalans pick salal in Washington state.

Along the trend toward more lawlessness, a recent kerfuffle has brewed up in Forks, Washington, as least according to the Associated Press, about the accidental death of a foreigner who was trying to avoid arrest. The AP writer gave it the full sob story treatment, as if the problem were law enforcement rather than the choices made by the alien.

Only the Mayor Bryon Monchon was quoted as being unhappy about the Border Patrol presence (contact him: Given that the town is poor (40 percent of schoolkids get free or reduced price lunches), it’s more likely that local Americans would prefer fewer aliens competing for scarce jobs and less illegal poaching of the area’s natural resources.

Still, the event focused attention on a region not often thought to be afflicted with the scourge of illegal alien job thieves.

‘Twilight’ town death sparks Border Patrol debate, Associated Press, June 18, 2011

Benjamin Roldan Salinas, a forest worker in the country illegally, leapt into the frigid Sol Duc River to escape a pursuing U. S. Border Patrol Agent, disappearing into the fast-moving waters.

For more than three weeks, his family, friends and volunteers — including other illegal immigrants — scoured the dense forest along the swollen river’s banks for any sign of him.

The Border Patrol suspected that Salinas had survived and fled. Still, as many as 150 people at a time continued to look.

“They believed he was out there somewhere because he hadn’t gone home,” Clallam County Sheriff’s Sergeant Brian King said.

The search ended June 4 when a family friend spotted the 43-year-old Salinas’ bloated, decomposing body entangled in roots downstream, according to the sheriff’s report.

His death heightened tensions in what has become a protracted engagement between the Border Patrol and the immigrant population of Forks — the small, remote Washington town best known as the fictional home of the vampire series “Twilight.”

“We talk about Arizona, Texas and the southern border…it’s here. It’s in our backyard,” said Forks Mayor Bryon Monohon, about immigration enforcement efforts in his town. “It really is just an atmosphere of fear.”

Border Patrol agents have questioned citizens and arrested illegal immigrants leaving the Forks courthouse. They’ve chased migrants working as pickers for the decorative floral industry in nearby forests.

The crackdown has spurred immigrants and their allies to develop a warning system using phones and text messages any time a Border Patrol car is spotted, according to interviews with Border Patrol officials, town leaders, and immigrant advocates.

The agency says that it is simply following its mandate: Enforcing the country’s immigration laws, protecting the border and shoreline from terrorists, drug smugglers and other illegal activity. Forks is just another locale where the nation’s immigration laws are being violated, officials said. Continue reading this article

House Investigates Gunwalking to Mexican Organized Crime

The June 15 hearing held by the House Oversight Committee examining the ATF’s curious scheme of purposely allowing thousands of firearms to reach Mexican drug cartels did not crack the answer of who authorized the program and to what purpose, but did clarify how crazy evil it was. Chairman Darrell Issa says that high-level officials in the Justice Department knew about the program and did not object to the American government arming Mexican organized crime.

The testimony of the three ATF agents who appeared was striking. They painted a picture of pointless police work, where the agents were instructed by superiors to observe the purchase of weapons by illegal straw buyers, watch the guns handed off to the real buyer (a Mexican cartel rep) and then repeat. There was no follow-through of arrest and seizure of the firearms in order to build a case for trial, not to mention protect the public. What interested the bureaucrats was the pattern of purchases, or something like that.

ATF Agent Olino James Casa described his experience (read his full testimony):

After I reported to Phoenix Group VII Office, I was briefed by group members on the investigation that later became titled Fast and Furious. Shortly after, I became aware of what I believed to be unusual and questionable investigative techniques. For instance, I became aware that certain suspected straw purchasers were purchasing numerous firearms from area firearm dealers. What I found concerning and alarming was more times than not, no law enforcement activity was planned to stop these suspected straw purchasers from purchasing firearms. The only law enforcement activity that was occasionally taken was to conduct a surveillance of the transaction, and nothing more.

The Fast and Furious strategy of the ATF sounded more like slow and pointless, designed to waste time and accomplish nothing.

(All written statements can be seen on the Committee’s hearing page: 6-15-11 “Operation Fast and Furious: Reckless Decisions, Tragic Outcomes”. Another important document is the report: “Four ATF Agents Working on Controversial Operation ‘Fast and Furious’ Tell their Story” also press release about the paper.)

Panel 1 included opening statements from the Committee and Senator Grassley’s testimony.

Panel 2 presented three members of the family of Brian Terry (the Border Agent killed by gunwalked weapons) and three whistleblower ATF agents.

I watched carefully and read the statements. The hearing did not convince me that the gunwalking scheme was not designed to damage the rights of US citizens to own firearms by blaming America’s Second Amendment for Mexico’s anarchy.

A bloodbath in Mexico is probably seen by Washington gun grabbers as a useful argument against American firearm ownership. Presidente Calderon has certainly been a willing partner in bashing US gun rights. The dinosaur media have been pushing the myth that the majority of weapons seized in Mexico from drug gangs are from the United States, but most have no marks showing origin and cannot be traced at all. Perhaps some big brains in the Justice Department thought delivering thousands of identifiable American guns to Mexican organized crime would improve the stats, from their viewpoint.

Good old human stupidity accounts for many of the dumb decisions made by government, so it’s possible that an out-of-the-box idea of bringing down cartels via gunwalking was seen as a swell way to increase funding to the ATF. In fact, funding seemed an important focus when I reported in July 2010 about “Gunrunner Teams” assigned to tracking the few firearms headed south. It wouldn’t be the first time a government agency created a problem in order to get money to solve it.

At this point, the motivation for the gunwalking fiasco remains unclear, although the DOJ’s obstruction shows that whatever the reason, it’s bad.

Afghanistan Is Judged the Worst Nation on Earth for Women

The world is filled with barbaric societies where existence for women is a living hell and from those, a group of experts has determined that the worst of piggyman cultures is that of Afghanistan. If there is a way to mistreat and oppress the female half of the population, the Afghan males have thought of it.

No opportunity for cruelty goes untaken in the primitive Muslim society. Women risk death for learning to read, forced marriage of child brides is common, and selling women like livestock is normal.

Anyway, a lot of Afghan men prefer little boys when a goat can’t be found.

Plus, there are acid attacks from disappointed suitors, honor killing, lack of medical care and the annoying religious police punishing unacceptable hemlines on burqas.

Meanwhile, a health minister in Somalia was shocked that her country wasn’t chosen as the worst, remarking, ”I’m completely surprised because I thought Somalia would be first.” (Somalia came in fifth, behind the Congo, Pakistan, India, and numero uno Afghanistan.)

Afghanistan got the coveted top spot, even given the tough competition.

What’s odd is how first world countries like the United States welcome immigration from barbarian cultures and then are surprised when the foreigners remain quite attached to their retro customs even when relocated.

Afghanistan named most dangerous country for women, Daily Telegraph, June 15, 2011

Pakistan, India and Somalia ranked third, fourth and fifth, respectively, in the global Thomson Reuters Foundation survey of threats ranging from domestic abuse and economic discrimination to female foeticide, genital mutilation and acid attacks.

“Ongoing conflict, Nato airstrikes and cultural practices combined make Afghanistan a very dangerous place for women,” said Antonella Notari, head of Women Change Makers, a group that supports women social entrepreneurs around the world.

“In addition, women who do attempt to speak out or take on public roles that challenge ingrained gender stereotypes of what’s acceptable for women to do or not, such as working as policewomen or news broadcasters, are often intimidated or killed.” Continue reading this article

Issa to Hold Operation Gunrunner Hearing

My alarm is set to watch the House Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday morning at 10am EDT to investigate Washington’s idiot scheme of sending serious weapons to Mexican drug traffickers in order to track them in a “sting.” The witness list includes Senator Grassley, family members of Agent Brian Terry who was killed by a Gunrunner weapon, and at least one whistleblower from the ATF.

Chairman Darrell Issa gave an interesting preview of the hearing and the specific issues to be investigated. He emphasized that the program “was not a rogue operation of the ATF… it was wrong fundamentally from the start.”

He also noted how the administration has been careful to say “it did not authorize” the program but the Attorney General never said he wasn’t aware of it.

At the end of the interview, Issa mentioned that he didn’t believe conspiracy theories flying around and thought the paper trail indicated plain bad thinking on the part of bureaucrats. He may have been referring to Larry Pratt’s assertion that the Gunrunner scheme was really part of the administration’s agenda to quash citizen rights of firearm possession. (You can watch Pratt explain here.)

Rep. Issa questioned Attorney General Eric Holder in early May about the Gunrunner scheme and got little in response. Holder will not appear in Wednesday’s hearing, although an Assistant AG from the Justice Department is listed as a witness. The video below is of the Issa questioning, bracketed by an NRA commenter who pointed out problems with the AG’s answers.

Also just released is a report from the Committee: “Four ATF Agents Working on Controversial Operation ‘Fast and Furious’ Tell their Story” (Press release; link to full report).

Highlights include:

  • The supervisor of Operation Fast and Furious was “jovial, if not, not giddy but just delighted about” walked guns showing up at crime scenes in Mexico according to an ATF agent. (p. 37)
  • Another ATF agent told the committee about a prediction he made a year ago that “someone was going to die” and that the gunwalking operation would be the subject of a Congressional investigation. (p. 24)
  • The shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords created a “state of panic” within the group conducting the operation as they initially feared a “walked” gun might have been used. (p. 38)
  • One Operation Fast and Furious Agent: “I cannot see anyone who has one iota of concern for human life being okay with this …” (p. 27)
  • An ATF agent predicted to committee investigators that more deaths will occur as a result of Operation Fast and Furious. (p.39)
  • Multiple agents told the committee that continued assertions by Department of Justice Officials that guns were not knowingly “walked” and that DOJ tried to stop their transport to Mexico are clearly untruthful. (p. 45-50)

Gingrich Gets Smacked for Noticing Islam Hostility

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a sovereignty squish and shameless hispanderer, but has been pretty good on recognizing the national security threat that hostile Muslims represent. His outspokenness on that issue is a welcome difference from liberal fools who think they can kumbaya their way to peaceful relations with the West’s historic enemy.

But out in the big leagues of Presidential politics, no good idea goes unpunished by America’s enemies (varieties of whom reside here in the millions, from the Mexicans of La Raza to the unindicted terror co-conspirators at the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR]).

In Monday’s Republican Presidential debate, Gingrich made the sensible statement that keeping America’s enemies out of the government might be a good idea.

Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

We did this — we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.

Too bad Newt won’t take the next logical step and recommend ending Muslim immigration, as Geert Wilders has done.

Naturally, the proponents of Planet Sharia from CAIR and their friends in the dinosaur media couldn’t let stand a prudent statement favoring national security.

More than that, the squawks emerging from the liberal MSM show how crazed it has become with its silly multicultural peacenik ideology. When you think diversity is the highest good (as liberalism does these days), then the real world will be full of disappointment.

GOP Debate: Newt Gingrich’s Comparison of Muslims and Nazis Sparks Outrage, ABC News, June 14, 2011

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s comments comparing Muslims to Nazis at the GOP debate Monday night have sparked a firestorm in the blogosphere, where liberals, and even some conservatives, have pounced on the former House speaker for what they view as excessive fear mongering.

“Of course Newt is taking it too far. He is appealing to the basest instincts of a very small minority of folks,” said Matthew Dowd, ABC News consultant who served as chief strategist on George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election team. “Either he is doing this for political purposes to distract people from a campaign in disarray, which is bad, or he actually believes it, which is scary.”

At the New Hampshire debate Monday night, Gingrich responded to questions about loyalty tests for administration officials, saying, “The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S., became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square, was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed and when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, ‘You’re my enemy. I lied.’”

“Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period,” Gingrich added to applause.

But Gingrich didn’t stop there, despite an attempt by moderators to interject. He compared hiring Muslims to how Americans dealt with Nazis in the 1940s.

“We did this in dealing with the Nazis. We did this in dealing with the Communists. And it was controversial both times and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say, ‘No,’” he concluded.

Many people have chastised Gingrich, whose senior aides resigned en masse last week, for invoking 1950s-era McCarthyism, a time during which free speech came under assault amid a heightened threat of Communism.

Muslim groups expressed outrage, saying Gingrich was merely exploiting Muslims for personal and political gain.

“It’s really reprehensible when you have a mainstream presidential candidate equate Muslims with Nazis and communists,” said Ibrahim Hooper, communications director at Council on American-Islamic Relations. “It is what we’ve come to expect from the right wing of the political faction.”

CAIR also assailed GOP candidates Herman Cain and Rick Santorum for their comments on the question of sharia law taking over the U.S. court system. Continue reading this article

Germany: Culture Clash

Rasmussen Poll: Majority of Voters Prefer English-Only Ballots

It’s disappointing that only 58 percent of Americans believe that ballots should be English-only, a decrease of 10 points from five years ago.

Language diversity in elections does not come cheap because of translation and printing costs. For example, Los Angeles County spent $3.3 million to produce ballots in seven languages and hire diverse poll workers in the 2002 primary.

Plus there’s the tiny detail that becoming a naturalized citizen requires the ability to speak and understand English. So no legal voter should need a Spanish or Mandarin or Tagalog ballot, by definition.

58% Want English-Only Ballots, Rasmussen Reports, June 13, 2011

When voters goes to the polls, most still want to see their ballots in English only.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters think election ballots should be printed only in English.  Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree and feel ballots should be printed in both English and Spanish. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Republicans and 60% of voters not affiliated with either major party support ballots only in English. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats prefer bilingual ballots.

Americans overwhelmingly believe that English should be the official language of the United States and reject by sizable margins the idea that such a move is racist or a violation of free speech. Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters also continue to feel that when people move to America from other countries, they should adopt this nation’s culture. [. . .]

The new numbers are identical to findings from last August but mark a 10-point drop in support for English-only ballots from June 2006.

A majority of white voters (64%) favor English-only ballots, while a majority of black voters (71%) want ballots printed in both English and Spanish. Voters of other ethnicities are evenly divided.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the Political Class think ballots should be bilingual, but 67% of Mainstream voters feel they should be in English only.

Seventy-five percent (74%) of all voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification before being allowed to cast their ballot. By a 48% to 29% margin, voters think ineligible people voting is a more common problem than legitimate voters being denied their right to vote.

In 2008, then-presidential nominee Barack Obama said that “instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English,” Americans “need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.” But voters strongly disagreed and also did not feel it was important for Americans to be bilingual or trilingual. Most also felt that government documents should be printed in English only.

Britain: Police Hide Muslim Violence

Britain is failing to support the basic values of Western civilization as it allows political correctness to mask the ill effects of Muslim immigration. The latest example is how police have covered up violent efforts by local unfriendlies to Islamize their borough, the Tower Hamlets.

The police complicity shows how deeply the disease of multicultural ideology (i.e. the false idea that all cultures are morally equal) has spread in society. The symptoms are appalling: teacher Gary Smith was beaten severely by Muslims for teaching religious studies to girls, and Muslims filled the Tower Hamlets with stickers declaring it a “gay free zone.” Unveiled women there have been threatened with death.

As Parapundit (Randall Parker) has remarked, “Muslims are nature’s way of telling us that multiculturalism is a really bad idea.”

Let me add my axiom: “You can have (substantial) Islamic immigration or you can have women’s equality, but not both.”

Below, Muslims residing in London show their hostility to Western values.

Meanwhile, one of the few encouraging signs is legislation to block sharia: Plans to curb influence of sharia courts to be unveiled. It is hopeful, but demography is relentless, particularly when the state allows hostile immigrants to run amok.

Police ‘covered up’ violent campaign to turn London area ‘Islamic’, Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2011

Victims say that officers in the borough of Tower Hamlets have ignored or downplayed outbreaks of hate crime, and suppressed evidence implicating Muslims in them, because they fear being accused of racism.

The claims come as four Tower Hamlets Muslims were jailed for at least 19 years for attacking a local white teacher who gave religious studies lessons to Muslim girls.

The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered more than a dozen other cases in Tower Hamlets where both Muslims and non-Muslims have been threatened or beaten for behaviour deemed to breach fundamentalist “Islamic norms.”

One victim, Mohammed Monzur Rahman, said he was left partially blind and with a dislocated shoulder after being attacked by a mob in Cannon Street Road, Shadwell, for smoking during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan last year.

“Two guys stopped me in the street and asked me why I was smoking,” he said. “I just carried on, and before I knew another dozen guys came and jumped me. The next thing I knew, I was waking up in hospital.”

“He reported it to the police and they just said they couldn’t track anyone down and there were no witnesses,” said Ansar Ahmed Ullah, a local anti-extremism campaigner who has advised Mr Rahman. “But there is CCTV in that street and it is lined with shops and people.”

Teachers in several local schools have told The Sunday Telegraph that they feel “under pressure” from local Muslim extremists, who have mounted campaigns through both parents and pupils – and, in one case, through another teacher – to enforce the compulsory wearing of the veil for Muslim girls. “It was totally orchestrated,” said one teacher. “The atmosphere became extremely unpleasant for a while, with constant verbal aggression from both the children and some parents against the head over this issue.”

One teacher at the Bigland Green primary school, Nicholas Kafouris, last year took the council to an employment tribunal, saying he was forced out of his job for complaining that Muslim pupils were engaging in racist and anti-Semitic bullying and saying they supported terrorism. Mr Kafouris lost his case, though the school did admit that insufficient action had been taken against the behaviour of some pupils. The number of assaults on teachers in Tower Hamlets resulting in exclusions has more than doubled from 190 in 2007/8 to 383 in 2008/9, the latest available year, though not all are necessarily race-related.

Tower Hamlets’ gay community has become a particular target of extremists. Homophobic crimes in the borough have risen by 80 per cent since 2007/8, and by 21 per cent over the last year, a period when there was a slight drop in London as a whole.

Last year, a mob of 30 young Muslims stormed a local gay pub, the George and Dragon, beating and abusing patrons. Many customers of the pub told The Sunday Telegraph that they have been attacked and harassed by local Muslim youths. In 2008 a 20-year-old student, Oli Hemsley, was left permanently paralysed after an attack by a group of young Muslims outside the pub. Only one of his assailants has been caught and jailed. Continue reading this article

Alabama State Immigration Law Faces Scrutiny from Usual Suspects

More good news on the state enforcement front: Alabama Governor Robert Bentley has signed his legislature’s tough bill into law. It’s heartening that state elected officials are still moving forward, despite the barrage of criticism and lawsuits they know they will face.

And yes, the enemies of the nation are squawking up the usual storm of protest against the defense of American sovereignty.

Alabama’s Tough New Immigration Law Can Withstand Legal Challenges, Experts Say, Fox News, June 11, 2011

Alabama’s new law cracking down on illegal immigrants will likely survive legal challenges from advocacy groups that say it is unconstitutional and racist, analysts told Fox News.

The law, which takes effect Sept. 1, empowers police to arrest people suspected of being an illegal immigrant if they are stopped for another reason and requires businesses and schools to verify whether workers and students are in the country lawfully. It also makes it a crime to knowingly transport or shelter illegal immigrants.

As soon as Republican Gov. Robert Bentley signed the bill into law Thursday, the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center were vowing to defeat it in court.

“It is clearly unconstitutional. It’s mean-spirited, racist, and we think a court will enjoin it,” said Mary Bauer, legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“By signing this bill into law, Gov. Bentley has codified official discrimination in the state of Alabama,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “We will take action to keep this law from going into effect to ensure that the civil rights and liberties of all Alabamans are protected.”

Legal experts told Fox News that they expect the case to head to the Supreme Court where they believe the state will prevail.

“I think the states have the right to do this,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. “I think it will be successful.”

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates strict immigration laws, says the one in Alabama is fair.

“It does not go too far,” he said. “The ACLU will object to anything that involves immigration enforcement.”

“There are a lot of different pieces to it but I think probably the most important part is completely fair and very neutral and very effective, is requiring all businesses when they hire someone to check that info, the Social Security number against the federal government online E-verify system. Common sense. It works well.”

There are an estimated 120,000 illegal immigrants in Alabama, a nearly fivefold increase from a decade ago, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Alabama isn’t the only Southern state cracking down on illegal immigrants. Georgia passed a similar measure a few weeks ago and that law goes into effect July 1. Civil liberties groups have already sued that state in an attempt to block the law.

The Alabama law was modeled on Arizona’s. A federal judge blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s law last year after the Justice Department sued. The case appears headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. A less restrictive law in Utah also was blocked after a lawsuit was filed.

“The states are sick and tired of the federal government basically doing nothing to protect the individual citizens from what is a serious problem,” Sekulow said.

Krikorian said these laws send a clear message to illegal immigrants.

“The point is to make it as difficult as possible for an illegal alien to put down roots, to make it hard to live a normal life,” he said, explaining that not being able to get a job or an apartment makes it less appealing to be an illegal alien.

“So if you are thinking of going there, you think twice, and if you are illegal already, you think seriously about packing up and leaving,” he said.

Right, and many of the illegals will head for sanctuary cities like Houston and New York, where foreign lawbreakers are welcome. In 2008 leftist San Francisco actually spent scarce city funds to advertise its friendliness toward illegal aliens.

To The Contrary Examines Immigration

Bonnie Erbe’s PBS show “To the Contrary” usually centers on an all-woman panel balanced between liberals and conservatives taking on a specific topic. This week’s show has no discussion segment but is all documentary style, looking at immigration’s mostly negative effect on the American workforce, healthcare, poverty and natural resources like farmland and water supply. These are the issues about which liberals claim to care, but won’t admit that excessive immigration is harmful to poor Americans and environmental sustainability.

Roy Beck and Steve Camarota are among the experts interviewed for the show.

Watch the full episode. See more To The Contrary.