On Wednesday a young British soldier was murdered in broad daylight on a London street in an act of jihad. The bloody-handed killer was anxious to brag about it (in British-sounding English), as shown in the video below:
The black man holding a bloody knife and cleaver apologized to women present for perpetrating such a horrific act, but in “our lands” women have to see such carnage all the time because of western governments, he said. “We swear by almighty Allah that we will never stop fighting you,” he declared.
The ITV reporter called the act “Baghdad-style violence.”
Actually, it is Muslim-style violence, which has come to Britain and elsewhere in the West because of diverse immigration that stupidly welcomes a historic enemy of 1400 years standing.
Shouldn’t America stop Muslim immigration before it’s too late?
In the Senate Gang of Eight’s immigration bill, much attention has been paid to the amnesty aspect, namely rewarding foreign lawbreakers with work permits, the true object of their desire, which is a topic worthy of objection because it turns normal jurisprudence upside down.
However, the legislation includes hugely increased legal immigration, millions more foreigners jammed into the country now and into the future, while population-propelled growth is providing less for the general good and brings many problems.
Meanwhile, here’s a sign of the times from Crowdifornia, arguably the most foreigner-affected state: Los Angeles County is considering adding a development “fee” (a tax in plain English) to mitigate future traffic congestion. Unrestrained growth is no longer seen as desirable in many quarters, but Washington wants to continue piling on.
The area has long been famous for terrible traffic, and the state’s growing population, fueled by immigration, is making it worse. The items listed to be funded by the additional money — some road widening, new traffic signals — don’t sound like they will improve much, but the urge to tax is strong in the once-Golden State.
Developers in Los Angeles County are bracing themselves for a new layer of congestion fees that would add about $1,900 per new home and about $30,000 on a new Trader Joe’s store,
The added fees are being considered as part of a developing Congestion Mitigation Fee Program, 10 years in the making by the county’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority or Metro.
After more than 50 businesses signed a letter opposing the measure, the program suddenly was withdrawn from Wednesday’s Metro Planning and Programming Committee and placed on hold.
“The Board and their staff felt that it being a complex issue, more time is needed by all to fully understand it. It will probably go back to the Board at a later date,” wrote Metro spokesman Rick Jager. Though the May 23 date originally set for board approval also was withdrawn, Jager said the board had not set a new date for consideration.
The program was created in 1990 and was paired with Proposition 111 that raised the state gas tax 9 cents a gallon. The program is required to fund transit projects that will help alleviate traffic congestion caused by new development. If no program is in place, the county and 88 cities are in jeopardy of losing Prop. 111 revenue, about $83 million a year, according to Metro.
Metro had recommended each city charge a minimum fee of $200 per car trip generated by each new development. Under the minimum, Metro estimates the fee would generate up to $767 million over 20 years.
Cities have submitted wish lists containing numerous projects, from lane widenings and new freeway on- and off-ramps to traffic signalization to a $60 million grade separation proposed at a train-street intersection in Baldwin Park. If all 1,700 projects submitted by 88 cities were completed, it would cost $5.1 billion, create 60,200 jobs, and reduce the number of hours drivers sit in traffic by between 6 percent and 38 percent over 20 years, according to Metro.
Development fees are nothing new to many cities. Pasadena and Santa Monica, for example, have a sophisticated system for charging developers for roads, traffic signals, bikeways, etc. Some 22 cities in the county already impose transportation mitigation fees, while 66 cities do not, according to Metro. Continue reading this article
From Dallas comes news that the city is being used as a main office by the La Familia Mexican drug cartel. The location is a natural for Mexican drug smugglers to use because of the major highway I-35 running from Laredo on the border to Dallas all the way through the center of America and reaching Duluth on Lake Superior.
Some Dallas residents have been shocked to learn that Mexican organized crime has moved into nice houses in their suburbs. It’s another failure of border enforcement, obviously. Plus, Mexicans are everywhere in Texas, so Spanish-speaking entrepreneurs in the neighborhood would not be that unusual. Mexican cartels benefit hugely by having a sea of US-residing hispanics in which to swim.
Dallas authorities shouldn’t be too surprised however. In 2005 a major north Texas drug bust caused a DEA agent to observe, “Dallas is the new Miami for transiting drugs.”
Should Dallas residents be concerned that a drug war might blow up in their city from some other gang trying to take over the territory? Mexicans treat the US like it’s their turf, so it wouldn’t be surprising if they act the same way they do at home. Mexican gangsters already are fighting over territory in Chicago.
DEA says high-level cartel members now direct drug shipments from Dallas to cities all over the country
Trouble came rolling into town and landed squarely in one Seagoville neighborhood.
One neighbor told NBC 5 Investigates he saw federal agents surround a neighbor’s home and then, a short time later, carry out bags full of cash.
The men that lived at the home were not your average street-level drug dealers.
The current residents of the house showed NBC 5 Investigates a crawlspace hidden in a back closet where the DEA said the cartel hid drugs and money.
According to recently unsealed court records obtained by NBC 5 Investigates, prosecutors say they were members of a high-level cell of La Familia, a violent Mexican drug cartel.
For the Drug Enforcement Administration, the case was one example of a dramatic change they’ve seen in Dallas over the last six years.
Cartels now send trusted members to North Texas to set up what the DEA calls “command and control,” directing drug shipments from Dallas to cities all over the country.
“You name it. There’s no city limits sign for these guys. Wherever they can fit in, they’ll move in, sometimes as normally as a normal family,” said Daniel R. Salter, the acting special agent in charge of the Dallas DEA office. Continue reading this article
Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) gave a speech earlier this month to a Horowitz Freedom Center Texas Weekend in Dallas.
Gohmert is one of the strongest defenders of freedom in Congress. His sometimes-relaxed style can belie his toughness, knowledge and courage (last fall speaking about Obama’s legacy in building a second Ottoman Empire). He has gone after members of the administration for their comfy relationship with hostile Islam, as he did last week when he questioned AG Eric Holder during a hearing [Watch]. The Representative’s request was for Congress to be allowed to see the documents about the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial which were given to the accused contributors to Hamas terrorists but have been kept from the public.
The Congressman is also a defender of American sovereignty who stood with a handful of House conservatives on May 14 to speak against amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. He understands that immigration enforcement is integral to national security, remarking near the end of his Texas talk, “There are consequences to giving citizenship and to letting anybody in.”
Bad consequences, as we saw in the Boston bombing.
Frank Gaffney: I’m very pleased to present to you all tonight a great American, a great Texan, one of my personal heroes and a man I’m very proud to call a great friend, Congressman Louie Gohmert.
Louie Gohmert: Oh, gosh. Thank you. Well, I’m so glad you did that before I talked. That’s really good. Now, I don’t know what you’ll do when I finish.
You’ve heard from three of our best experts earlier today, and then the ultimate expert did the introduction of me tonight. Boy, what a juxtaposition that was. But thank you, Frank, and I appreciate your kind comments. You know, I’m not a household name other than with people that work at the Huffington Post –
– and I tell my family, “Just don’t Google my name. You won’t recognize what you see.”
Back in East Texas, all three networks have stations in my hometown of Tyler, and for a town that small, 85,000, to have all three networks, they all have their own news programs, six and 10, and they’re always looking for news. Back when I was a judge, they were constantly coming to the courthouse and asking for comments. Yeah, Andy is an ultimate expert, having prosecuted the blind sheik that we really need to let go …
… or at least that’s what the people visiting the White House on a regular basis have been saying.
But anyway, so in East Texas, I’m better known. You spend a couple million dollars running for Congress, people get tired of seeing your face. And I was coming home back to Tyler one night, stopped at a — it was about two-thirty in the morning. I stopped at one of the fast fuel places. I like to travel in jeans because I don’t want to wallow around in my suit, you know? They cost too much. Jeans are comfortable. So I had on my jeans. I had my shirttail out. I prefer boots except I’ve got some Brookstone moccasins that are so great to drive in.
And so it’s two-thirty. I shuffle into this place, and I go get my Dr. Pepper and some chocolate, and I see a girl like in her 20s go over to an elderly man who was back stocking something, and she kind of pointed in my direction. Obviously seen the commercials. And I put my stuff on the counter, and she says, “Can I ask you something?” I said, “Sure.” And she said, “Are you James Taylor?”
And so I started to try to sing “Sweet Baby James,” but it wasn’t any use. I couldn’t pull it off, not talking like that, but I thanked her. But anyway, so you never know.
You know, I’m so envious of Frank’s beard. He looks so distinguished. I grew a beard one time for about six weeks before I was a judge or chief justice, and I got ready to try a case in federal court, and I was going to pick the jury that Monday.
My daughter was five. Heard me tell my wife that in East Texas, there’s some people that don’t like beards. So I was going to shave my beard before I went to pick the jury, and anyway, I was tucking our five-year-old daughter in, and she said, “Daddy, are you really going to shave your beard?” And I said, “Yeah, you like it?” And she said, “Yeah, it helps you not look like a clown.”
So, Frank, you don’t look like a clown, buddy. You look really distinguished, and I appreciate that so much.
But anyway, all of those lessons are still muddled around in my mind. I talked to Andy earlier about the things that had been discussed because you’ve had ultimate experts before you. But you hear all the talk about the Muslim Brotherhood, and sometimes — well, I’ve run into so many people that say, “When did it get started? What was it about?” And some of you may have heard me challenged in some of the small networks, you know, those that you add up all of their ratings and they don’t quite add up to Fox News viewers. But when you don’t have as many viewers as C-SPAN, it’s time to check it in. But CNN, MSNBC, they’re still hanging in there.
But anyway, they raised some cane back when I said, “This president has really jumpstarted a new Ottoman Empire.” Now, I don’t know why they had never heard about the Ottoman Empire before. Continue reading this article
This refugee story is quite the opposite of what one usually sees. Instead of going straight to the welfare office for an array of free stuff, Somali woman Amun Abdullahi attempted to contribute to Swedish society by reporting as a journalist about the jihadist group Al-Shebaab, an al Qaeda spinoff, operating in a Swedish city.
Amun was ostracized and threatened by other Somalis residing in Sweden for blowing the whistle on their jihadist activities. But she was also criticized by Swedish scribblers for discussing an unpleasant topic that blasphemes the belief that diversity is the highest good. As a result, she has given up on the West and is going back to live in Mogadishu and work as a teacher.
It’s a shame that Swedish society couldn’t embrace a courageous woman willing to tell the truth about the largely hostile Muslim tribe which Sweden continues to import.
Amun is a journalist, and the first thing you notice is
that she has more passion for journalism than most people do.
Let’s say that if all the jobs in the world were a person, then the journalist would be the head
and all the other jobs would be the different parts of the body.
Now that you have spoken so warmly about journalism,
I have to assume that you would like to work as a journalist in Sweden?
Never… I wouldn’t do that.
Amun came as a refugee in 1991, first arriving in Umeå,
which she describes as one of the most beautiful cities on earth.
Later on she moved to Rinkeby near Stockholm.
She had made the whole transition from refugee to reporter on Swedish Radio.
And her knowledge and contacts as a Somali led her onto a story which changed her life.
One morning she recognised a young Somali,
who had changed character after studying religious scripture.
That was the beginning of an investigative report,
in which she revealed how a leader of am after-school activity center lured youths into Al-Shabab
“It’s half past five, you are listening to Ekot.
Many of the young men from Sweden recruited by the Islamist rebel group Al-Shabab
have come from an after-school activity center in Rinkeby.”
After the report was aired, Amun received numerous threats.
And one night her car was torched on the street.
But she had prepared herself for the threats and social ostracism.
But she was not prepared for what followed later on.
A few months later criticisms emerged from an entirely different front.
From her own colleagues on one of Sweden’s most influential political radio shows, “Konflikt”
Here Ekot’s and thereby Amun’s research was dismissed as mere “hearsay” and “rumors”.
Behind it stood Randi Mossige-Norheim, who has been awarded
the Swedish “Grand Journalism Award” among many others
It’s simply normal to ask “did it really happen?”
I don’t think we made a claim of truth. And I could say that about many things.
We did not say that anything was correct or incorrect.
-You didn’t claim anything was correct or incorrect?
No, we didn’t say anything was correct or incorrect.
But isn’t it your job to say, that which is correct?
But what I mean is, we don’t judge anybody. We don’t judge anybody. Continue reading this article
The Irish are back — now with hands outstretched for a special visa category in the all-encompassing open-the-floodgates immigration bill because they believe they are special, what with their history of millions bailing off the island for export to America. That background gives them a unique entre, they figure: therefore, the Irish deserve more visas now.
The government of South Korea hired a former CIA analyst, two White House veterans and a team of ex-congressional staff members to help secure a few paragraphs in the giant immigration bill.
The government of Ireland, during St. Patrick’s Day festivities, appealed directly to President Barack Obama and congressional leaders for special treatment. And the government of Poland squeezed Vice President Joe Biden and top lawmakers on Capitol Hill for its own favor, a pitch repeated at an embassy party last week featuring pirogi and three types of Polish ham.
Those countries, and others, succeeded in winning provisions in the fine print of the 867-page immigration bill now before Congress that give their citizens benefits not extended to most other foreigners.
Ireland and South Korea extracted measures that set aside for their citizens a fixed number of the highly sought special visas for guest workers seeking to come to the United States. Poland got language that would allow it to join the list of nations whose citizens can travel to the United States as tourists without visas. And Canadians successfully pushed for a change that would permit its citizens who are 55 and older and not working to stay in the U.S. without visas for as much as 240 days each year, up from the current 182.
South Korea alone has four lobbying firms in the campaign, paying them collectively at a rate that would total $1.7 million this year, according to required disclosure reports. Other nations generally relied on their own ambassadors and embassy staff to make the push, meaning there is no way to track how much has been spent on the effort. [. . .]
Indeed, lawmakers are pushing to grant special benefits to others, including Tibet, Hong Kong and parts of Africa. [. . .]
Parts of Africa?? Kenya perhaps? Not that Obama’s illegal alien aunt and uncle (both citizens of Kenya) aren’t doing fine already. Being illegal aliens hasn’t hurt them.
Immigration from Ireland hit its peak in the 1850s, when more than a million Irish immigrants — many fleeing their homeland because of famine — became legal permanent residents.
It’s fallen quite a bit since then. In the 2000s, the number of Irish legalizing was only about 1.5 percent of what it was back in its heyday.
Yet Irish interests quietly remain part of the immigration debate in Washington.
An immigration bill being considered in the Senate would give special consideration to several countries for future immigration. South Korea, Poland and Canada are all hoping for their own part of the deal. And so is Ireland.
This wouldn’t be the first time the Irish have gotten special consideration.
One of the most notable examples was the so-called diversity lottery. During the early ’90s, as the program was getting off the ground, 40 percent of visas were earmarked for Irish, thanks to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)
But that visa allotment was temporary, and groups like the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform (ILIR) are hopeful the Senate bill will create a more permanent program. A provision added by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) would make 10,500 renewable visas available to Irish nationals each year.
To see why the Irish might need their own deal, I spoke to Niall O’Dowd, the founder of the ILIR and the editor of the New York-based Irish Voice.
Adverse effects of the 1965 immigration law Prior to 1965, the immigration system overtly favored European nationals over people coming from other parts of the world. Then Congress passed an immigration bill that scrapped that system in favor of more even visa distribution.
While that meant opportunities for immigrants from Latin America and Asia — and ended clear discrimination — it cut visas for European nationals.
“It’s been impossible for Irish people to emigrate legally to America since 1965,” O’Dowd said. “The new preferences militated against Irish people; indeed, any people coming from Europe.”
He’s right. While the migration flows from Ireland are much smaller than from a place like Mexico, for example, you can see a drop in Irish that were able to become legal permanent residents around the time that the 1965 law was passed.
That said, part of the reason the number of visas to Irish dropped was that they were no longer benefiting from a discriminatory system.
Irish Still Come, Just Illegally Niall O’Dowd estimates that there are 50,000 undocumented Irish living in places like New York, Boston and Chicago. Continue reading this article
Thursday was Day #3 of the Senate mark-up of S.744 in the Judiciary Committee. Unsurprisingly the Gang of Eight Republicans on the committee (Senators McCain and Flake) continued to hang tough with Democrats to prevent any meaningful amendments. It looked like a committee markup on the surface, but it was a dog-and-pony show with foregone conclusions because the pro-amnesty members meet in advance to decide what tiny increments of change they will allow. Genuine friends of sovereignty Jeff Sessions and Chuck Grassley deserve our respect for plugging away in such a corrupt environment.
The interests of the nation surely cannot be safe when amnesty hack Frank Sharry is pleased, as indicated by his remark upon the proceedings: “The Gang of Eight has . . . accepted a number of Republican amendments, but none of them undermine the core elements of the bill.”
You can watch the three-hour hearing on C-span, which allows the viewer to use the search function which will go to that place in the video when clicked. So if you search for grassley in the Timeline search function on the left of the page, then click, that part of the video will begin to run. It saves time and unnecessary brain pain.
After a Senate committee finished poring through the enforcement sections of a sweeping immigration bill on Thursday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, didn’t want to dwell on the three amendments he proposed that were voted down by his colleagues.
He has already been thinking of other ways to change the bill.
The core of the immigration bill, which was produced by a bipartisan group of senators known as the Gang of Eight, remained largely intact after the third hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee that is considering more than 300 amendments. Grassley said little had been accomplished to satisfy him and other Republicans who feel the bill doesn’t do enough to secure the border and ensure that unauthorized immigrants can’t find work in the U.S.
Grassley said he will try to bolster those provisions on the Senate floor and lobby House members working on their own version of an immigration bill.
“I had my day in court (today), and I’m going to have a lot of other days in court,” said Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “It’s a long process. It’ll be going on for the next six months, so you shouldn’t be drawing any conclusions right now.”
Grassley’s disappointment was met by tempered enthusiasm from members of the Gang of Eight, and other pushing to pass the bill, which would allow the nation’s unauthorized immigrants the chance to become U.S. citizens.
Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a group that supports the bill, said having four members of the Gang of Eight on the Senate Judiciary Committee — Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Democrats Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois — allowed them to fight off any amendments that would critically damage the bill.
“The Gang of Eight has held strong,” Sharry said. “They’ve accepted a number of Republican amendments, but none of them undermine the core elements of the bill. The early threats — the poison pills, the delaying tactics, things that we thought might actually hurt the process — they’ve been overcome.” Continue reading this article
One of the worst parts of the Senate amnesty bill is the disregard of public safety and the coddling of foreign criminals. And because this item has appeared in at least two previous amnesties, one must conclude that protecting illegal alien gangsters is a priority of the bill’s authors — the the special interests, both business and ethnic who actually wrote the legislation.
This kind of a pattern shows a suspicious friendliness toward brutal drug gangs that have made Mexico a killing field in the last few years. You have to wonder who in La Raza defends hispanic gangsters with such zeal and why. In many cases of gang crime in this country, hispanics are the victims, so why the permissiveness toward a real danger to the fellow members of The Race?
In 2011, Senator Jeff Sessions warned that the new DREAM Act was worse than the previous version, and provided a list to show it. One important item was the forgiveness for gangsters with just a promise to behave. (Surely Mexican Mafia members now incarcerated in American prisons would love a deal like that.)
3. The DREAM Act Provides a Safe Harbor for Any Alien, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly S.952 protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional nonimmigrant status”—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for millions. Though the bill requires a modest “prima facie” showing of eligibility, this is the lowest standard of legal proof and could likely be satisfied by the alien’s signature. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent an illegal alien’s removal from the United States. Such delays will increase the number of those released on bail and will increase the number of absconders. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.
In 2007, that year’s bill also contained a coddle card for criminals, as analyzed by Senator Sessions in a list of 20 loopholes, detailing three categories that related to the care of criminals:
Loophole 6 – Some Child Molesters Are Still Eligible: Some aggravated felons – those who have sexually abused a minor – are eligible for amnesty. A child molester who committed the crime before the bill is enacted is not barred from getting amnesty if their conviction document omitted the age of the victim. The bill corrects this loophole for future child molesters, but does not close the loophole for current or past convictions. [See p. 47: 30-33, & p. 48: 1-2]
Loophole 7 – Terrorism Connections Allowed, Good Moral Character Not Required: Illegal aliens with terrorism connections are not barred from getting amnesty. An illegal alien seeking most immigration benefits must show “good moral character.” Last year’s bill specifically barred aliens with terrorism connections from having “good moral character” and being eligible for amnesty. This year’s bill does neither. Additionally, bill drafters ignored the Administration’s request that changes be made to the asylum, cancellation of removal, and withholding of removal statutes in order to prevent aliens with terrorist connections from receiving relief. [Compare §204 in S. 2611 from the 109th Congress with missing §204 on p. 48 of S.A. 1150, & see missing subsection (5) on p. 287 of S.A. 1150].
Loophole 8 – Gang Members Are Eligible: Instead of ensuring that members of violent gangs such as MS 13 are deported after coming out of the shadows to apply for amnesty, the bill will allow violent gang members to get amnesty as long as they “renounce” their gang membership on their application. [See p. 289: 34-36].
Back to the present, the President of the ICE agents union, Chris Crane, has been doing media appearances to warn about the bill’s extreme laxity regarding criminals. He appeared on the John and Ken radio show on Monday to draw attention to the gang member waiver:
Chris Crane: It’s a lot bigger than just the gang members of course but on the gang member part of this, if they come forward and allegedly claim to renounce their gang affiliation, their gang membership, then they have a path to citizenship, and it’s pretty much that simple. [. . .] Continue reading this article
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Obama administration’s refusal to grant asylum to the Romeike family.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder filed against the family, arguing that asylum should not be granted because home schooling isn’t a fundamental right protected under religious freedom.
The Romeikes fled Germany in 2008 facing criminal prosecution for home schooling. In 2010, they were granted political asylum by immigration Judge Lawrence Burman, but his decision was overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals last year.
On Tuesday, the three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit issued a unanimous decision against the family.
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike began home schooling in Germany because they didn’t want their children exposed to things like witchcraft and graphic sex education that are taught in German schools. Continue reading this article
It’s not news the Britain’s leftist party favored enormous flows of diverse immigrants who were presumably friendly to the big-government approach to society. In 2009, Andrew Neather, a speechwriter for PM Tony Blair, blabbed that increased immigration under Labour was designed to make Britain more multi-culti and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”
‘We were sending out search parties for people’: Former Labour Cabinet Minister Peter Mandelson has admitted that his party actively encouraged immigration to the UK while in government
Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.
In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.
He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.
By contrast, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party got it wrong on immigration but has refused to admit it was too high under Labour.
Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2million, more than twice the population of Birmingham.
The annual net figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009.
Lord Mandelson’s remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain. Continue reading this article
On Tuesday, Congressman Steve King organized a presser with several House colleagues who strongly oppose the Senate amnesty bill.
The other speakers included Republican Congressmen Louie Gohmert, Mo Brooks, Steve Stockman, John Fleming and Paul Gosar.
Rep. King noted that he has been a fierce foe of Obamacare, but sees the Senate amnesty as “far, far worse.” Like the other assembled representatives, a primary focus of King is to maintain the rule of law, which amnesty shreds by the act of rewarding lawbreakers. His other concerns are cultural assimilation, border control and national security.
Rep Gohmert of Texas (a drought-troubled state) observed that it’s likely a billion or more people abroad would like to move here. He was not reassured that authorities are able to keep out dangerous persons among the millions to be amnestied when the FBI couldn’t sort out the Boston bomber Tsarnaev brother when warned about Tamerlan by Russian police.
John Fleming of Louisiana reminded listeners that the 1986 amnesty was a failure and the government should not go down that path again.
Dr. Paul Gosar of Arizona warned against a huge bill which puts too much enforcement authority in the hands of Janet Napolitano.
Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks alerted about the enormous numbers of foreigners who would like to relocate here, e.g. 20 percent of Mexicans who would come illegally. He doesn’t want millions of lawbreakers to be future Americans, who will also cost taxpayers trillions of dollars according to the recent Heritage study. An open-borders society promotes anarchy, he stated.
Steve Stockman (R-TX) emphasized fairness for legal immigrants, whose care in doing immigration the lawful way is undermined by rewarding lawbreakers.
Congressman King emphasized how the bill is really really bad. He fears a doomsday scenario in which House leadership allows a conference between the House and Senate versions that might pass legislation unfavorable to the rule of law.
Rep. King said, “That conference committee could produce from it some version of the amnesty bill and send it to the floor, unamendable, an up-or-down vote, in which case, every Democrat would vote for it, it would only take a couple of dozen Republicans, and we could be stuck with a very bad bill on the way to the president. So I’m most concerned about that and I’ll continue to talk about that.”
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.