But lawbreakers mostly come for American jobs and more money (aka “a better life” in lib speak).
If illegals live in fear about being deported, they certainly don’t act like it. Illegals are busted for drunk driving all the time, so they can’t be too concerned about getting the hook. A Google search for Illegal Immigrant Drunk Driving Arrest found 3.7 million results. Case closed on the fear argument.
Illegals aren’t clamoring for citizenship or the vote — that noise is coming from the Democrat Party. An official work permit is the real amnesty, and illegals would like to have that very much, although clearly most are getting along fine without genuine “papers.”
If millions of unlawful foreigners weren’t making money and successfully coping with American society, they would leave. Their length of stay shows amnesty is not needed, and would only reward and incentivize lawbreaking.
The number of immigrants living illegally in the United States has leveled off in recent years, but those who remain are more likely to have far deeper ties to the country than they did a decade ago, according to a report released Wednesday.
The study from Pew Research Center found that half of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants have lived here for at least 13 years and as many as 4 million have U.S.-born children.
The findings offer the most detailed portrait yet of the undocumented population and come as President Obama is weighing options about how he could use executive authority to remake his administration’s deportation policies amid mounting pressure from advocates to stem the breakup of immigrant families.
“These new estimates show that today’s unauthorized immigrants have lengthier ties to the U.S. than those in the past,” said Mark Hugo Lopez, Pew’s director of Hispanic research.
Immigration advocates have said that the administration, which has deported more than 2 million immigrants, has contributed to millions of people living in constant fear of removal from communities in which they’ve lived for many years. Opponents of relaxed immigration policies say unauthorized immigrants broke the law to get here and compete for jobs with American workers in a still-weak economy. Continue reading this article
The newsprint title of Friday’s front-page Washington Times story is “Germans sell their own version of the American dream,” including a photo of the new diversity:
The narrative is a familiar one: many native Germans are retiring and business needs more worker bees to do the jobs. At least Germany is looking for skilled persons capable of contributing to a modern economy rather than admitting millions from the third world headed straight for the permanent underclass, as America is doing.
Still, Germany is not immune from technological progress and business must be undergoing the same transformation of robots and computers that’s happening in this country. Unemployment has increased in recent months, to the surprise of economists, which may be a hiccup or part of a trend affected by greater efficiency. So perhaps the optimum number of immigrant workers is fewer that elites imagine.
Even so, the German government preaches the gospel of Diversity Is Our Strength as it puts out the welcome mat for more immigrants, including a “Success Through Diversity” competition to recognize businesses that don’t hire Germans.
Immigration policies help counter aging population, low birthrate, declining workforce
BERLIN — When Marie Duness-Rose, 39, immigrated to Germany from Bulgaria 10 years ago, she left a lot behind, she says. But now she holds a management degree and runs a thriving bistro serving Balkan food in a popular neighborhood in Berlin.
She is one of about 6.2 million non-German citizens in the country and one of about 15 million — or 19 percent of the total population — who are not ethnically German.
That percentage is one of the highest proportions of immigrants in any European country, and it is not expected to decrease any time soon. Last month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development determined that Germany is the world’s second most popular destination for immigrants after the United States.
Unlike many other countries with large immigrant populations, Germany’s government and industry wants it to stay that way. Continue reading this article
When immigrants come to America, do they think that “freedom” means an absence of standards for behavior and employment? Or are they arrogantly seeking to impose their values on Americans in opposition to traditional assimilation?
An example of the latter is the squawking from the diverse cab-driving community around the issue of hygiene, specifically the foul odors emitting from foreign drivers in San Diego and beyond. The foreign drivers insist that a requirement that they don’t stink is discrimination.
Sacramento is not mentioned in today’s report, but passengers in that city have complained about smelly drivers as well as other examples of inadequate performance, like poor English skills and no knowledge of local streets. (See Sacramento: Diverse Cabbie Update for details.)
SAN DIEGO (AP) — Body odor is among 52 criteria that officials at San Diego International Airport use to judge taxi drivers. Cabbies say that smacks of prejudice and discrimination.
For years, inspectors with the San Diego Regional Airport Authority run down their checklist for each cabbie — proof of insurance, functioning windshield wipers, adequate tire treads, good brakes. Drivers are graded pass, fail or needs fixing.
Anyone who flunks the smell test is told to change before picking up another customer.
Leaders of the United Taxi Workers of San Diego union say the litmus perpetuates a stereotype that predominantly foreign-born taxi drivers smell bad. A 2013 survey of 331 drivers by San Diego State University and Center on Policy Initiatives found 94 percent were immigrants and 65 percent were from East Africa. Continue reading this article
Senator Jeff Sessions presented one of his well researched speeches on Wednesday, denouncing the “Masters of the Universe” (his term for powerful economic elites) who would put hard-working Americans into the unemployment line to save a few dollars.
Sessions’ continued sense of outrage about the threats on the Constitution by a lawless administration is unflagging and inspiring to citizens who are starved for principled leadership in Washington.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, delivered a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday evening about Senate Democrats’ refusal to support legislation to block the president’s proposed executive actions on immigration policy, and the interests supporting amnesty. Following is an adapted version of his remarks.
Earlier this week I spoke about the president’s promise that he would issue an executive amnesty to 5 or 6 million people. The planned amnesty would include work permits, photo IDs, and Social Security numbers for millions of people who illegally entered the U.S., illegally overstayed their visas, or defrauded U.S. immigration authorities.
The Senate Democratic conference has supported and enabled the president’s unlawful actions and blocked every effort to stop them. Not even one of our Democratic colleagues has backed the House legislation that would stop this planned executive amnesty or demanded that Senator Reid bring it up for a vote. Every Senate Democrat is therefore the president’s partner in his planned lawless acts.
Tonight I would like to talk about the influence of special interests on our nation’s immigration system. How did we get to the point where elected officials, activist groups, the ACLU, and global CEOs are openly working to deny American workers the immigration protections to which they are legally entitled? How did we get to the point where the Democratic party is prepared to nullify and wipe away the immigration laws of the United States of America?
Just yesterday Majority Leader Reid wrote in a tweet something that was shocking. He said: “Since House Republicans have failed to act on immigration, I know the President will. When he does, I hope he goes Real Big.”
Let this sink in for a moment. The majority leader of the Senate is bragging that he knows the president will circumvent Congress to issue executive amnesty to millions, and he is encouraging the president to ensure this amnesty includes as many people as possible. And the White House has acknowledged that 5 to 6 million is the number they are looking at.
Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to reject Mr. Reid’s statement? Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to say: I support the legislation passed by the House of Representatives that would secure the border and block this executive amnesty? Have they ever said they support that? Have they ever said: I will do everything in my power to see that the House legislation gets a vote in the Senate so the American people can know what is going on? No. All we hear is silence.
This body is not run by one man. We don’t have a dictator in the great Senate. Every member has a vote. And the only way Senator Reid can succeed in blocking this Senate from voting to stop the president’s executive actions is for members to stop supporting him.
Every senator needs to stand up and represent their constituents — not big business, not the ACLU, not activist groups, not political interests, but the American interests, the workers’ interests. That is what we need to expect from them, and we don’t have but a few weeks, it looks like, to get it done.
In effect, the entire Senate Democratic conference has surrendered the jobs, wages, and livelihoods of their constituents to a group of special interests meeting in secret at the White House. They are surrendering them to executive actions that will foist on the nation what Congress has refused to pass and the American people have rejected. They are plotting at the White House to move forward with executive action no matter what the people think and no matter what Congress — through the people’s House — has decided.
Politico reports that “White House officials conducted more than 20 meetings in July and August with legal experts, immigration advocates and business leaders to gather ideas on what should be included in the order.”
So who are these so-called expert advocates and business leaders? They are not the law-enforcement officers; they are not our ICE officers; they are not our Border Patrol officers; they are not the American working man and woman; they are not unemployed Americans. They weren’t in the room. You can be sure of that. Their opinions weren’t sought.
No, White House officials are meeting with the world’s most powerful corporate and immigration lobbyists and activists who think border controls are for the little people. The administration is meeting with the elite, the cosmopolitan set, who scorn and mock the concerns of everyday Americans who are concerned about their schools, jobs, wages, communities, and hospitals. These great and powerful citizens of the world don’t care much about old-fashioned things like national boundaries, national sovereignty, and immigration control — let alone the constitutional separation of powers. Continue reading this article
The only thing worse than an overgrown national government is a bloated transnational bureaucracy, and the European Union is indeed the unaccountable modern super-state run amok. The distant government is disliked by many Europeans, but remains stubbornly entrenched, passing ever more niggling laws to control behavior, not protect freedom.
Reporter Dale Hurd visited Brussels to check out the undemocratic regulation machine.
Another aspect of the EU is its effect on illegal immigration. The EU’s Dublin Regulation requires that the country in which refugees first enter Europe is where they must apply for asylum and remain, which is tough on countries like Italy, which is easily reached from Africa. But that rule isn’t enforced, and illegal aliens routinely travel to places known to have generous welfare benefits, particularly Britain.
In the CBN piece, Hurd interviewed filmmaker Peter Vlemmix who produced a documentary expressing his dismay with the EU’s lack of democratic input and the superstate’s overturning of national laws. The film is called Euromania:
BRUSSELS — The European Union has been called the most ambitious political project in history, but it faces a very troubled future. And in politics, as in boxing, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
While Russia was fighting Ukraine and the Middle East was in chaos, European Union leaders were tackling the really important issues, like banning powerful household vacuum cleaners.
EU bureaucrats made the heroic move to save the planet. Now whenever Europeans use their weaker vacuum cleaners, they’ll be reminded of how EU laws have taken over more and more of their lives.
The ‘Soviet’ EU In 2009, former leader of the Czech Republic Valcav Klaus came to Brussels and gave a speech in which he told EU lawmakers that the European Union reminded him of the Soviet Union. He was booed.
Klaus, who grew up under communism, saw in Brussels a Soviet-style group of elites deciding what they thought was good for Europeans and then ramming it down their throats.
But all of the new laws out of Brussels restricting everything from vacuum cleaners to the size of fruit have not made Europeans freer or more prosperous. Continue reading this article
The Los Angeles Times had an interesting front page graphic on Wednesday, showing that Beijing’s air pollution is many times that of the famously smoggy City of the Angels.
The chart goes with a news article about the struggle of Chinese people to convince their government to tackle cleaning up their nation’s air, a hugely expensive project, as we know from our own environmental regulations. We shall see whether reform happens, iffy given the stubbornness of the ChiCom leadership and the dependence of industry on old-fashioned coal-fueled energy.
A potential clean-up of Chinese air filth should be welcomed by environmentalists, if the greenies could unhinge briefly from their globalist perspective and celebrate an instance of national responsibility.
Unfortunately, what happens in China doesn’t stay in China. Airborne crud floats across the jet stream directly to the west coast of the United States.
BEIJING (Reuters) – Pollution from China travels in large quantities across the Pacific Ocean to the United States, a new study has found, making environmental and health problems unexpected side effects of U.S. demand for cheap China-manufactured goods.
On some days, acid rain-inducing sulfate from burning of fossil fuels in China can account for as much as a quarter of sulfate pollution in the western United States, a team of Chinese and American researchers said in the report published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, a non-profit society of scholars.
So the “cheap” manufactured products from Red China come with a hidden cost to Americans’ health and environmental safety.
China’s prolific pollution production makes another argument for returning outsourced industry to the United States, where manufacturing will be kinder to the planet.
And why is planet-fouling Red China a member of the World Trade Association where it is given a level playing field with environmentally responsible nations? China deserves a big pollution tariff, which would be good for all concerned, particularly the ChiCom leaders who need a strong reality check to get their act together.
Here’s the LA Times article, which doesn’t mention the effects of Chinese pollution on others, but focuses on the efforts of Chinese citizens to knock some sense into politicians, which is very laudable in an authoritarian state.
Last fall, 29-year-old Fang Da, an entrepreneur and cycling enthusiast, suddenly found himself in the midst of a coughing fit after biking near his home in Hangzhou, in eastern China.
So he went to the Internet and started learning just how serious the air pollution problem was. Fang’s curiosity quickly turned into an obsession. He created an environmental awareness group called the Survival Guide to Haze on the Chinese social media site WeChat; more than 50,000 people now subscribe. He engaged in a high-profile battle with a Chinese smog mask manufacturer, calling out the company’s products as useless.
“We need citizens to get involved with the environment,” said Fang. “People … think it’s just the government’s responsibility to clean up the air. But to be honest, it’s the government that made it this way.”
The growing anger from citizens such as Fang has garnered the government’s attention.
In March, Premier Li Keqiang said China would “declare war” on pollution, acknowledging growing public anger over unchecked industrialization that has defiled the country’s skies, water and soil. The government has outlined plans to spend $275 billion on efforts to reduce air pollution between 2013 and 2017.
But as the effort gets underway, a key question facing Communist Party leaders is whether imposing strict anti-pollution measures from the top down will be enough. Cities and nations that have made the greatest progress in tackling environmental crises have been open, pluralistic systems responsive to citizen demands for change.
The countries that have been successful “have all been democratic, constitution-based societies,” said Donald Worster, an environmental historian at the University of Kansas who is now helping establish an ecological history center at People’s University in Beijing.
Environmental advocates are closely watching to see whether China can become the first authoritarian country to make significant progress on a cleanup, or whether environmental degradation might become a formidable driver of political change.
China’s leaders, said Worster, seem to be demonstrating a sincere intention of making progress, knowing that they must respond to the increasing public frustration to maintain their legitimacy.
“The Chinese are caught … between their political institutions and the rising demands and concerns of a rising middle class,” Worster said. One of the factors in the collapse of the Soviet Union, he added, was growing dissatisfaction among satellite states in Eastern Europe with widespread environmental pollution.
The problems are vast: All 74 cities surveyed by the government last year exceeded World Health Organization air standards. A report released by the Ministry of Environmental Protection this spring said 19.4% of China’s arable land is contaminated. And a 2013 study by the Ministry of Land and Resources found that nearly 60% of China had “very poor” or “relatively poor” groundwater quality.
For the all-cultures-are-equal file, there’s this: in Pakistan, a substantial proportion of men believe having sex with little boys is normal and not abusive.
Ezra Levant had a brief segment on Canada’s Sun News about the normality of child rape in Pakistan, particularly of street boys. It sounds similar to the practice of grooming boys for sex in neighboring Afghanistan, called bacha bazi.
Levant cited a recent Daily Mail article describing a Pakistani bus driver who thought it was perfectly acceptable to rape little boys:
There are 1.5 million street kids in Pakistan — an estimated 90% of them have been sexually abused at some point in their lives.
Rape in Pakistan is so common, it’s barely taboo. Last week the Daily Mail interviewed a bus driver from Peshawar who says, after his shift is over, he likes to go into the slums and rape street kids. Sometimes he pays them a dollar. But often he doesn’t – he just joins in a big gang rape.
“Once, there was a boy on the bus and everyone had sex with him,” he told theDaily Mail. “I did it too but what else could I do? They invited me. And he was that kind of boy anyway.” He says he’s raped 12 different children.
This wasn’t a solitary rapist, hiding in the shadows, afraid of being seen or being caught. This was men joining together, unworried about social norms, unworried about someone stopping them.
A poll of 1,800 Pakistani men found that a third don’t think raping street kids is a crime – and they don’t even think it’s a bad thing to do.
And then there’s so-called honour killings – where families kill their own daughters for social improprieties, real or perceived. Continue reading this article
Unlike America, Israel never forgets that it has enemies. It even has an effective airport screening system based on profiling and behavior.
Below, African asylum seekers protested Israel’s policies earlier this year.
The latest proof of effectiveness is the complaints of a human rights group that Israel deported thousands of Africans and a handful may have been questioned at home. A couple might have been treated badly in Sudan (97% Muslim), where visiting Israel is a crime.
Still, they keep coming — 60,000 Africans since 2005 and Israel is a small country, slightly larger than New Jersey.
When thousands of hostile moochers show up on a nation’s doorstep and expect the red carpet, why should any country treat such people as well as citizens when there are millions more where the foreigners came from?
JERUSALEM — Thousands of Sudanese migrants to Israel and hundreds of Eritreans have returned to their home countries this year as a result of an Israeli policy that amounts to “unlawful coercion,” Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday. The group said the migrants had been left few other options even though they were at risk of imprisonment or abuse at the hands of repressive governments back home, and despite protections Israel is obligated to provide under international treaties.
The New York-based human rights group said in a lengthy report that it had documented seven cases in which citizens of Sudan were detained and interrogated in the capital, Khartoum, on their return.
While four of the seven were released after short periods, the report said, one was tortured, a second was put in solitary confinement and a third was charged with treason for visiting Israel, which does not maintain diplomatic relations with Sudan. The group said that under Sudanese law it is a crime to visit Israel, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and that at least 6,400 Sudanese had returned between January 2013 and the end of June 2014. Continue reading this article
Congress is back from its August recess, which mostly means trouble, but at least Senator Jeff Sessions is on the floor with his enlightening remarks.
Regarding the President’s political postponement of amnesty until after the November election, Sessions noted,
“The American people have one chance to have their voice heard. The President is talking about unilateral, illegal action contrary to American law to legalize as many as 5 to 6 million people — and we shouldn’t inject it into the election? And the Democratic senators and other senators who fail to object to that? They should be protected and not be criticized for allowing it to occur? Is that what we’ve gotten to in a democracy? That the President can make this decision and not involve the American people?
What’s particularly disturbing is our Senate Democratic colleagues don’t object to the President carrying out his executive amnesty, unilateral amnesty. They only prefer that the President implement it after the election, after the race is over, so they don’t have to explain it to the people they represent. What’s wrong with the American people being able to influence their government? Is the President above that? Has he reached such a high level of popularity he doesn’t have to worry about what the American people say, think or believe? That he can just advocate and carry out policies based on political deals he’s made with big business and special interests?”
A recent study from USC put the proportion of illegal alien workers in California at 10 percent (which sounds on the low side). Sending the job thieves home would free up thousands of jobs for law-abiding citizens.
Sitting at her street vending booth with products arrayed neatly on a sequined purple tablecloth, Jackie Lloyd reflects nostalgically on the days when she had a steady salary and regular hours.
That was four years ago, before the 39-year-old was laid off from her job as an elementary school cafeteria worker and mounting bills forced her to venture into self-employment.
Now the Pico-Union resident hops from location to location, selling body oils, shea butter, soap and incense. She moves when nearby businesses complain or she feels unsafe.
Some days, her sales bring in $150. Others, they don’t break $20.
“If I just had a 9-to-5 job, it’d be guaranteed money,” she said. “Then again, I’m my own boss, and I meet different people every day.”
￼Once the domain of recent immigrants trying to scratch out a living, the ranks of sidewalk merchants have swelled since the economy soured in 2007. The group — an estimated 10,000 countywide — is now larger and more diverse, pulling in out-of-work professionals, war veterans and single mothers, according to a recent report by the Los Angeles chief legislative analyst’s office. Continue reading this article
The head of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage, recently visited the United States for a few days and got a fair amount of attention from the conservative media.
He spoke about the failure of “four decades of state-sponsored multiculturalism” in Britain when he appeared with Fox’s Neal Cavuto on Wednesday:
Farage sensibly recommended that ISIS fighters from Britain not be allowed to return to the country, a suggestion that PM David Cameron picked up, though Obama hasn’t.
NIGEL FARAGE: We’ve seen an increased radicalization within the United Kingdom, much of this I’m afraid to say is a self-inflicted wound. We’ve had four decades of state-sponsored multiculturalism. We’ve actually encouraged people not to come together and be British but to live separately, to live apart.
NEIL CAVUTO: Kind of like what we are doing here.
FARAGE: Yes, there are similarities. We even have the last Archbishop of Canterbury suggesting that Sharia law be acceptable in British cities. So, I’m afraid we have been weak and we have not been muscular in standing up and saying to people, ‘We are a Christian country. We have a Christian constitution, a Judeo-Christian culture. We’ve allowed our schools to be infiltrated. Our prisons, you know, are now perhaps where jihadism is on the march more rapidly than anywhere else. Much of this we’ve done to ourselves.
For another interview with Nigel Farage, check out Laura Ingraham’s talk with him, where the subject of immigration was included: “Controlling immigration is a logical, sensible thing to do,” Farage remarked.
Senator Jeff Sessions released a statement on Friday that warned of the dangerous time following the election when politicians feel free to take actions against the wishes of the voters, since the public’s memories are often short.
Obama has drawn back for the time being from his promise of an executive amnesty, largely in the hope that Democrat Senators in red states might benefit in November.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, issued the following statement today after a Politico report about Senate Democrats’ continued support for the President’s planned executive amnesty, modified only by their desire to alter the timing until after the election:
“A development today reported by Politico ought to send shudders down the spine of those who care about our representative system of government. In an article entitled ‘More Senate Democrats urge Obama to delay immigration order,’ we learn that Senate Democrats—instead of opposing the President’s executive amnesty—urge him to issue it after they face voters in November. As one office relayed to Politico: ‘Obama should use his executive authority to make fixes to the immigration system, but after the November elections.’
The only thing that is more shocking than Senate Democrats’ support for the President’s planned executive amnesty is the cravenness of asking him to proceed beginning the day after the midterms. Once again, powerful politicians are colluding with powerful interest groups to deny you, the American citizen, the protection of your laws and your voice in government. They don’t care what you want, or what you think—they scorn and mock our good and decent citizens for wishing their laws to be enforced.
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.