On Tuesday, the Rasmussen pollsters published a nice article that assembled numerous survey results from the company about immigration. The upshot is that the voters (the group that Rasmussen polls) don’t like Obama’s permissive approach at all. They want a lawful process overseen by a government that takes law and order seriously, which this administration obviously does not.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the U.S. government is not aggressive enough in deporting those who are in this country illegally, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That’s up slightly from 52% in April but down from a high of 60% a year ago. Just 16% believe the government’s deportation policy is too aggressive, while 17% say the number of deportations is about right. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Fifty-three percent (53%) oppose the president’s plan to protect up to five million illegal immigrants from deportation and give many of them legal work permits. Thirty-four percent (34%) favor that plan, while 13% are undecided.
Ronald S. Colburn, a retired Deputy Chief of the US Border Patrol, has some strong opinions about the looming amnesty and how it will affect the agents’ ability to do their job of protecting the nation.
RONALD COLBURN: I absolutely believe it will make the situation much much worse. I see the President is sprinting toward a precipice, ready to go off the cliff, except he has the American people tethered on a rope and taking us down with him.
First, do no harm. When it comes to comprehensive immigration reform, it’s better to have no reform than to have bad reform. I lived though the immigration reform and control act of ’86; I saw the mistakes made then. In 2003, when I was assigned to the White House as the director for law enforcement I advised both the White House, the Bush administration and Congress, that it would be a bad idea to repeat what we experienced through the previous amnesty program. This should not be about amnesty, this places the Border Patrol agents at much greater danger and they probably have the most dangerous law enforcement job in America.
GRETCHEN CARLSON: You have seen some buses coming through. What do they say?
COLBURN: Amnestia. The placards that you see for destination for a Greyhound bus that say “destination New York City,” “destination Chicago” in Mexico it has been videotaped showing buses en route to the border area from central Mexico saying Amnestia — amnesty. So it’s a theoretical belief in entitlement that Central Americans, South Americans, those from the Caribbean, Eastern Europe and Asia believe that if they can get in, they will get a pass by this president, while those who obey the law and wait their turn to lawfully enter will be pushed aside for those illegals.
CARLSON: Do you now assume that people will be flying fast as they can to the border?
COLBURN: They already are. They’re on their way, I guarantee. I tell you right now, in speaking with Border Patrol agents in just the last couple of days, they are really preparing themselves for a huge influx of amnesty-intended beneficiaries…. This message potentially tonight could really open the valves.
So anyway, what is the job of the Border Patrol in the new post-amnesty era? Hand out milk and cookies to cartel thugs as they cross into the southwest? Rescue aliens who run out of water in the desert?
Neil Cavuto had an interesting mix on Emperor Obama’s upcoming amnesty, to be announced on Thursday.
First, he showed a jaw-drop clip of Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) on Tuesday, spewing forth with typical liberal generosity with other peoples’ jobs, schools and future. As a black woman, she should be aware of the harm to persons of her race from illegal immigration. Instead, she is on board with the Democrat scheme to import more big-government voters from abroad because they cannot convince Americans.
LEE: “This is not amnesty. This is prioritization. This is saving money. This is keeping families together. This is allowing children to not come home to places where the parents have been thrown from their places of work and taken away from them. I’m excited about the courage of this president. I look forward to America finally understanding the gifts that you are given. Let us not be a selfish nation! Let us be a generous nation.”
Then Cavuto curiously introduced Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO, with a D- NumbersUSA grade for enforcement) as Matt Salmon (R-AZ, with an A- grade — a screw-up in booking to have two Democrats in a row on fair & balanced Fox?
Anyway, Polis’ chatter had the sound of Democrat talking points, and they weren’t very surprising, consisting of amnesty now, border security later — “Trust us!”
It’s good to have a king — for them.
POLIS: “It’s an exciting opportunity to focus on criminal aliens. We have limited enforcement resources if Congress were to give the President more. Resources, that would obviously be helpful. But in the meantime, the actual threat of criminal aliens rather than the — who knows — 8, 10 million people here, some of whom were brought here at a young age will help make America safer and restore the rule of law.”
“Restore the rule of law” by rewarding and forgiving the lawbreakers — that’s a thought only a Democrat could love.
Plus, it’s odd that the administration says it will begin to focus on criminal aliens now. In 2011, Obama said, “We’re focusing our limited resources and people on violent offenders and people convicted of crimes — not just families, not just folks who are just looking to scrape together an income. And as a result, we’ve increased the removal of criminals by 70 percent.” (Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration, Politifact, May 11, 2011)
The countdown continues toward California awarding official driving permits to approximately 1.4 million illegal aliens at a huge pricetag to the citizen taxpayers — $141 million is the state’s estimate for the program, although that sounds low given all the associated costs.
The state is bending over backwards to serve the foreign lawbreaker community by expanding hours, opening new DMV offices and hiring 900 new employees to process the illegals. Sacramento could have passed the enormous costs onto the people whom the policy benefits, but it has not.
I noted last January that the cost of a DL was $33 and the price is not being raised for illegals. Most illegals would probably spend hundreds of dollars for a legal driving permit, given the hassel of driving unlawfully to reach their stolen jobs. Instead, Mexifornia is forcing law-abiding citizens to pay for services made for illegal aliens.
The new licenses, which will cost $33, will look almost identical to regular licenses. The only notable difference will be the phrase: “Federal limits may apply” on the front of the license. The back will read: “This card is not acceptable for official federal purposes. This license is issued only as a license to drive a motor vehicle. It does not establish eligibility for employment, voter registration, or public benefits.”
On the verge of granting hundreds of thousands of drivers licenses to immigrants in the country unlawfully, the California Department of Motor Vehicles will extend its hours and offer more appointments next year.
In January California will join the ranks of states that offer driving permits to undocumented immigrants. The rollout hit a snag when federal officials rejected a proposed license design as too subtle but eased back on track after California redesigned the IDs to make them conspicuously different from conventional licenses.
I reported on the surveillance robot last December (Surveillance Robot Is Touted as Security Aid (while It Eliminates Jobs) where the item was described by boosters as being like R2D2, the little fireplug droid in Star Trek. The industry-supplied photo made it look small and unthreatening, suitable for school use because it wouldn’t scare the kiddies (shown below):
However, a more realistic photo of the thing has shown up on the web, and the 300-pound machine looks large, and more menacing than cute:
The news here is that the Microsoft company has installed five of them to patrol its Silicon Valley “campus” (aka workplace in tech speak). The machine won’t be firing photon torpedoes at thieves any time soon, but your privacy is the target: the robot is a data-sucking monster from hell, as well as a human job extinguisher.
Showing a rather shocking disregard for the long-term safety of human civilization, Microsoft has become one of the first companies to deploy autonomous robot security guards. Dubbed the K5, Microsoft’s Silicon Valley campus was being policed last week by five of these roughly human-sized 300-pound (136 kg) robots, each equipped with enough cameras, sensors, artificial intelligence, and alarms that they can replace most human security patrols. Fortunately, despite looking like uncomfortably like a Dalek from the Doctor Who universe, the K5 is not (yet) equipped with a ray gun or any other method for harming or detaining humans.
The K5, built by the Californian company Knightscope, is billed rather euphemistically as an “autonomous data machine” that provides a “commanding but friendly physical presence.” Basically, it’s a security guard on wheels. Inside that rather large casing (it’s 5 foot tall!) there are four high-def cameras facing in each direction, another camera that can do car license plate recognition, four microphones, gentle alarms, blaring sirens, weather sensors, and WiFi connectivity so that each robot can contact HQ if there’s some kind of security breach/situation. For navigating the environment, there’s GPS and “laser scanning” (LIDAR I guess). And of course, at the heart of each K5 is a computer running artificial intelligence software that integrates all of that data and tries to make intelligent inferences — like, should I tell HQ about that large gathering of teenagers, or should that man be climbing in through that window? Continue reading this article
In a corner of Washington National Cathedral, several hundred Muslim worshipers and other invited guests gathered Friday afternoon for a first-ever recitation of weekly Muslim prayers at the iconic Christian sanctuary and to hear leaders of both faiths call for religious unity in the face of extremist violence and hate. [. . .]
Nevertheless, the carefully scripted ceremony was marred once when one well-dressed, middle-age woman in the audience suddenly rose and began shouting that “America was founded on Christian principles. . . . Leave our church alone!” She was swiftly ushered out by security aides, and the service continued.
100 years ago today, the last Caliph, or emperor of Islam, declared the last Jihad against the infidel– and today is the first time ever that the National Cathedral in the nation’s capital will host Muslim prayers.
Most American’s will have no idea that, as part of World War I, the then-Caliph of the Ottoman empire declared a Holy War against infidels, as was his right within sharia law and Islamic theology. You can read the full fatwa here (ignore the date of 1915 which is an original typo).
That statement by the last sitting head of what was the theocratic empire of Islam was the catalyst which led to religiously-fueled genocide against Christian Armenians and Assyrians.
The Episcopal church leaders who agreed to the host Muslim prayers inside the Washington cathedral probably have no idea what happened a century ago in Asia Minor, or that there even was a Caliph in office at the beginning of the 20th century.
However, we can rest assured that the co-organizers do, for they include the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the All-Dulles Area Muslims Society (ADAMS) Center.
Both CAIR and ISNA will be fully aware of the significance of November 14th, seeing as both organizations were declared by a federal court to be unindicted co-conspirators of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood terror group, in the largest terrorist financing trial in US history.
Those muslims who have a supremacist understanding of their religion, such as members of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood – which was recently declared an illegal terrorist organization in the country of its founding, Egypt – have a special regard for historic dates and anniversaries.
It is, of course, no accident that the 9/11 attacks, the worst terror attacks in world history, occurred exactly to the day in 1683 when the Islamic Ottoman forces were defeated outside the city walls of Vienna, the deepest the Islamic Caliphate’s forces made it into the heart of the Christian West.
There is nothing inherently wrong about interfaith initiatives as long as they start from the same place: a mutual respect for the belief system of the other, and their inherent dignity as humans created by God. When one party acts in bad faith based upon its ideological commitment to see other faiths destroyed or subjected, then the event runs the risk of becoming a propaganda coup for the extremists and their followers.
We know that the Episcopal church is in trouble with more conservative believers leaving in great numbers and the remaining adherents not exactly outdoing their Catholic cousins in terms of reproducing the next generation of believers. But I doubt they also understand the finer points of jihadist doctrine, one of which is that if a place of worship is used by Muslims for their prayers, that territory subsequently becomes part of Dar al Islam, sacred muslim land. Forever.
Sebastian Gorka PhD is the Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University, and national security and foreign affairs editor at Breitbart.com. You can follow him on Twitter at: @SebGorka.
He interviewed Roy Beck (of NumbersUSA, the activist pro-sovereignty immigration organization) about the threat posed by Obama’s executive amnesty.
(Note: there is an annoying pause in the connection to Beck plus a couple of spots where the audio stream just drops off.)
In Part 1, Beck observes that a future President will find it hard to remove the work permits, once they are handed out:
ROY BECK: “If they are allowed to stay permanently, then there will almost immediately be probably about 20 million people in their home countries who will line up, who can see through chains of family connections that they can eventually get into America… Once their relatives are legal and permanent here, there’s a chain migration that goes on forever. So I’m saying at least 20 million lining up.”
Dennis Lynch next moved the conversation on to the more immediate affects on American citizen workers:
BECK: “Right now, illegal aliens — and there are about 7 million of the 11 million illegal aliens who are in the workforce in some way or another. But because they don’t have legal authorization, they are heavily working off the books in very low-wage jobs, they are not competing directly for the most part for payroll jobs. What this would do is immediately make it possible (audio drops off…) million Americans who want a full-time job and can’t find one. Eighteen million Americans and legal immigrants already here can’t find a full-time job.”
Lynch then asked about construction work, which has been highly affected by illegal labor, and other employment categories. Do all Americans need to worry about millions of illegal aliens about to get work permits?
BECK: “The fact is, they are at every level. There are medical doctors who will be competing directly with American medical doctors, there are tech workers, and there are people as you say who are working as drivers, and people in construction, all up and down the line. There is no job, no occupation in America that won’t be affected by this.”
In Part 2, the conversation turned to another factor in illegal aliens occupying American jobs — remittances, the money sent home by job-thieving foreigners that is then spent in foreign nations, fueling their economies rather than ours.
BECK: “Yeah, the [remittance trend] will continue for quite some time, and you really hit on something important, and that is, this money first of all instead of going to Americans who need the money, who need the jobs and instead have to go on welfare, it’s going to the illegal aliens. And second, if it were going to the American workers, it would be recirculating in the economy. Instead, a good share of the money that’s going to the illegal aliens is going to other countries. So it’s a double whammy to the American people.”
The important upshot of this conversation is that American workers and unemployed persons will immediately face more competition for jobs and wages from Obama’s amnesty. This stab in the back comes at a time when 18 million cannot find full-time work in the country’s jobless economic recovery, in which the middle class is actually shrinking.
Fewer human workers are needed for the rapidly automating economy, but the administration cares only about importing future big-government Democrats in the form of millions of hispanics. The recent election showed how ineffective Democrat arguments are in convincing current citizens, so Obama is doubling down on importing a more compliant population, despite the fact that there aren’t enough jobs for the people here now.
Should citizens feel reassured to learn that unmanned surveillance planes are now keeping watch over hundreds of miles of America’s southern perimeter? Or is the automation a signal that fewer humans will be doing the job of the Border Patrol in the near future?
A curious part of Obama’s ten-point executive amnesty scheme is a pay raise for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, to “increase morale.” (Apparently Obama has a sense of humor about destroying America.) Of course, if the automation of border surveillance reduces the number of human officers, then a pay raise can be easily budgeted with no extra dollars.
The U.S. government now patrols nearly half the Mexican border by drones alone in a largely unheralded shift to control desolate stretches where there are no agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences, and it plans to expand the strategy to the Canadian border.
It represents a significant departure from a decades-old approach that emphasizes boots on the ground and fences. Since 2000, the number of Border Patrol agents on the 1,954-mile border more than doubled to surpass 18,000 and fencing multiplied nine times to 700 miles.
Under the new approach, Predator Bs sweep remote mountains, canyons and rivers with a high-resolution video camera and return within three days for another video in the same spot, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the effort on condition of anonymity because details have not been made public.
The two videos are then overlaid for analysts who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes — perhaps the tracks of a farmer or cows, perhaps those of immigrants who entered the country illegally or a drug-laden Hummer, they said.
About 92 percent of drone missions have shown no change in terrain, but the others raised enough questions to dispatch agents to determine if someone got away, sometimes by helicopter because the area is so remote. The agents look for any sign of human activity — footprints, broken twigs, trash.
About 4 percent of missions have been false alarms, like tracks of livestock or farmers, and about 2 percent are inconclusive. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring.
The government has operated about 10,000 drone flights under the strategy, known internally as “change detection,” since it began in March 2013. The flights currently cover about 900 miles, much of it in Texas, and are expected to expand to the Canadian border by the end of 2015. Continue reading this article
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Chicago) has been an enthusiastic amnesty cheerleader for a long time. He appeared on MSNBC on Thursday and responded to Joe Scarborough’s question about what would be the “sensible middle” on Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty (aka the work permit holy grail) for millions of foreign lawbreakers:
GUTIERREZ: The President should act in a bold manner, in a generous manner, and he should act quickly and swiftly. I’ve always said the blessings of Thanksgiving should be bountiful this year for millions of immigrants who have been waiting for the Congress to act.
Like all liberals, Gutierrez is generous with things that don’t belong to him, like other people’s jobs. The Thanksgiving mention is a swell sicko touch, given the continuing high level of unemployment among Americans and the fact that many new jobs tend to go to foreigners because they work cheap. (See CIS’ June report, All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants.)
Below, Marxist foreign lawbreakers demand amnesty in Spanish.
As an example of the jobless recovery, on Thursday the Wall Street Journal had a front-page story about the growing number of Americans who struggle with getting by on part-time jobs because they can’t find full-time work. There are various reasons for the dismal job growth, including increased regulation, ObamaCare and automation, but whatever the cause, America certainly doesn’t need millions of illegal aliens instantly transformed into legal workers to compete with citizens.
Economists Puzzle Over Trend’s Roots—Cyclical or Structural—as 7 Million Remain Stuck in Jobs They Don’t Want
Nearly 7 million Americans are stuck in part-time jobs that they don’t want.
The unemployment rate has fallen sharply over the past year, but that improvement is masking a still-bleak picture for millions of workers who say they can’t find full-time jobs.
Martina Morgan is deciding which bills to skip after her hours fell at Ikea in Renton, Wash. Sandra Sok says she’s been unable to consistently get full-time hours after she transferred to a Wal-Mart in Arizona from one in Colorado.
In Chicago, Jessica Davis is frustrated by her schedule dwindling to 23 hours a week at a McDonald’s even though her location has been hiring. “How can you not get people more hours but you hire more employees?” the 26-year-old Ms. Davis said.
The situation of these so-called involuntary part-time workers—those who would prefer to work more than 34 hours a week—has economists puzzling over whether a higher level of part-time employment might be a permanent legacy of the great recession. If so, it could force more workers to choose between underemployment or working multiple jobs to make ends meet, leading to less income growth and weaker discretionary spending.
Employers added some 3.3 million full-time workers over the past year, but the number of full-time workers in the U.S. is still around 2 million shy of the level before the recession began in 2007. Meanwhile, the ranks of workers who are part time for economic reasons has fallen by 740,000 this year to around 4.5% of the civilian workforce. That is down from a high of 5.9% in 2010 but remains well above the 2.7% average in the decade preceding the recession.
“There’s just less full-time jobs available than there used to be,” said Michelle Girard, chief economist at RBS Securities Inc. Continue reading this article
Does Adolf Balbuena, pictured below, look 18 or does he look considerably older?
As a result of the young man being considered a minor, he is being treated differently for running down and killing a child in Porterville, California, with the age mentioned offhandedly in the video report below. But he has no drivers license, so how can authorities know his true age?
TRACE GALLEGER: Balbuena just turned 18 years old, so any criminal record in the past is sealed. But critics note the Obama administration has cut back enforcement of immigration laws against illegal immigrants with DUI convictions or identity theft convictions. A customs and immigration attorney has even filed a discrimination lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security. In it she alleges that she and her colleagues were told to use prosecutorial discretion when it comes to criminal aliens who had old DUI convictions. She says when she challenged her boss about an alien with a criminal record, she was told to quote, let it go.
An illegal immigrant driving drunk and without a license crashed through a fence Sunday, hitting and killing a 3-year-old girl as she was waiting in line for ice cream in Porterville, California.
Adolf Balbuena, 18, mowed down the toddler, Angeles Moreno, as she and several others, including an 8-year-old boy, were waiting line at an ice cream truck.
After hitting Moreno, Balbuena backed up and drove away. He was arrested at his home around an hour later, the Fresno Bee reported.
Initial reports did not state Balbuena’s immigration status, but KMPH reported on Tuesday that he is an illegal immigrant from Mexico. Though the local district attorney is handling the case, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will ultimately decide whether he will be tried in the U.S. or deported back to Mexico, the TV station reported. [. . .]
Following is a story about the lawsuit mentioned above:
The Obama administration told federal immigration lawyers to release illegal immigrants with “old” drunken-driving convictions and those found guilty of stealing other people’s identities, according to a lawsuit filed by one of the lawyers at the center of the operation.
Patricia M. Vroom, a top attorney for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Arizona, filed a 67-page discrimination complaint that details repeated battles with agency higher-ups who told her to close cases and not deport people whom President Obama deemed low-priority.
Federal officials were particularly dismissive of identity theft convictions from Arizona, arguing that the state’s laws were too strict and stealing an ID to get a job wasn’t a serious enough offense to get kicked out of the country.
“This was a very significant development, as generally, criminal aliens, particularly convicted felons, are, under the [prosecutorial discretion] memos, ‘priority’ cases that should be aggressively pursued,” Ms. Vroom said in her complaint.
But she said her superiors deemed the identity theft felons low-level offenders “since the typical alien defendant convicted under these provisions of Arizona criminal law had simply been using a fake I.D. to get and keep employment.”
Homeland Security officials said the department, of which ICE is a part, was looking over the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona.
“We are reviewing the allegations in the complaint, which largely refer to events from 2012 and 2013 concerning workplace environment and various personnel decisions taken by key officials, some of whom have since left the department,” spokeswoman Marsha Catron said.
“The leadership of both [the Department of Homeland Security] and ICE take these allegations seriously and, when founded, will always take the appropriate disciplinary action,” she said.
Ms. Vroom, who filed the complaint Nov. 6, declined to comment through her attorney.
In her complaint, she detailed a September conversation in which top ICE lawyers told staff to ignore “old” DUI convictions if immigrants had enough “equities,” such as ties to the community or family responsibilities in the U.S., that would outweigh their criminal behavior.
ICE officials and Mr. Obama have defended their prosecutorial discretion, saying they have enough resources to deport only about 400,000 immigrants a year, so it makes sense to go after the most serious criminals, recent border crossers and those who have violated immigration laws repeatedly.
“We’re misallocating resources. We’re deporting people that shouldn’t be deported. We’re not deporting folks that are dangerous and need to be deported,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on the CBS program “Face the Nation.”
Mr. Obama has promised to expand his nondeportation policies by the end of the year, potentially granting tentative legal status and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants.
Deportations, though, have dropped by about 20 percent over the past two years, suggesting the administration is having trouble finding enough cases that meet its definition of “high priority.”
The recent guilty verdict in the trial of a convicted terrorist bomber for immigration fraud is another reminder of how inept the feds are at barring the entrance of dangerous people into America. Numerous war criminals have been admitted to this country because of plain sloppy investigation of immigrants’ backgrounds by an unconcerned bureaucracy.
The case is hardly a confidence builder for the idea that the government could responsibly handle an amnesty for millions of lawbreaking foreigners that would still protect public safety.
Anyway, today’s criminal terrorist alien is Rasmieh Odeh (pictured), a Palestinian who was imprisoned in Israel for a bombing that killed two students in 1969. Israel released her from incarceration in a prisoner swap with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, not because she was thought to be rehabilitated. Odeh was convicted in Detroit for omitting her criminal terrorist record when she applied to enter the United States.
A Detroit jury today found a Palestinian immigrant guilty of not disclosing that she had been convicted in a 1969 Israel bombing when she was applying for U.S. citizenship.
Rasmieh Odeh, 67, was accused by prosecutors of being a terrorist who killed Israelis in 1969 and then lied about it when trying to become a U.S. citizen. Odeh used to live in Michigan and is now in Chicago, where she works for the Arab American Action Network. She was not charged with any terrorism crime, but with immigration violations.
Odeh could face up to ten years in prison for her conviction and be stripped of her U.S. citizenship. After the verdict, Odeh said outside the courthouse: “We have to bring the justice together..I’m strong & I ask all of you to be strong…We are the strongest people, not the government…We are stronger.”
In a statement, her supporters called today’s verdict “a travesty of justice,” saying that Odeh did “not get a full and fair trial.”
The Rasmea Defense Committee claimed that “the immigration charge was nothing but a pretext to attack this icon of the Palestine liberation movement.”
They said Odeh’s attorneys will appeal the decision.
But a jury agreed today with federal prosecutors who said that Odeh checked “no” on immigration and citizenship forms she filled out in Detroit when asked whether she had ever been convicted of a crime. Odeh concedes that she was convicted in Israel, but maintains that she was forced to confess after being tortured. She also claims that she thought the questions on the forms referred only to convictions in the U.S.
The trial has drawn national attention, with up to 100 protesters rallying outside the courthouse every day last week and today. Rallies also have been held in Florida, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Odeh, associate director of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago, is being supported by a network of pro-Palestinian groups, which have launched online campaigns on Twitter and Facebook to bring attention to her cause. The group that she works for is part of the Dearborn-based National Network for Arab American Communities. Continue reading this article
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, visa mill “universities” have been a popular way for the criminal entrepreneur to make piles of money from gullible or nefarious foreigners looking to break in to the American economy. The rip-off consists of selling fake educations to colleges with sketchy or nonexistent accreditation to foreigners so they can acquire student visas to worm their way into the US. (See my 2011 examination of these immigrant-focused schemes: Visa Mills Scam Profitably in Silicon Valley.)
One of the more notorious visa mills has been Pleasanton’s Tri-Valley University. The President of TVU was a Chinese woman, Susan Xiao-Ping Su (pictured), who made over $5 million during her tenure, quite a trick when you consider the school was founded in 2008 and shut down by the authorities in 2011. Authorities may have figured out the school was a scam when students were “scattered across the country” in convenience store jobs and such (‘Sham’ University Case One of Biggest, Official Says, Pleasanton Patch, May 4, 2011).
For some diversity fun, you can see the sentencing story explained in a foreign language, perhaps Telegu, at this link, showing interest in TVU’s fate extends far beyond English-speaking California.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A San Francisco Bay Area woman was sentenced to more than 16 years in prison for running what prosecutors said was a sham university that served as a front for an immigration scam.
Susan Xiao-Ping Su, founder and president of the phony Tri-Valley University in Pleasanton, was accused of charging hundreds of foreigners, mostly Indian nationals, tuition and other payments for visa-related documents that allowed them to live and work in the U.S. while she purported that they were here legally to study. She made more than $5.6 million and used the money to buy commercial real estate, a Mercedes Benz and multiple homes, including one at a golf club, federal prosecutors said Monday.
U.S. District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar sentenced Su, 44, on Friday after she was convicted in March of visa fraud and other charges. She was also ordered to forfeit $5.6 million and pay more than $900,000 in restitution to two companies that processed payments from students, authorities said. Su’s attorney, John Jordan, said he has filed a notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Student visas are intended to give people from around the world a chance to come to this country to enrich themselves with the vast learning opportunities available here,” Tatum King, acting special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations, San Francisco, said in a statement. “But in this case, the defendant was interested in a different kind of enrichment, her own.” Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.