Below, the city’s historic arch is a popular spot for locals and visitors. Marseille’s diversity is 30-40 percent Muslim.
However, recent news indicates that Marseille is not a multicultural paradise at all, with one report characterizing it as “restive.” France voted to ban the burqa from public areas a couple years ago, a move displeasing to Allah’s rabid followers. When police recently asked for an ID from a woman illegally disguised in a identity-hiding head sack, a local riot ensued over her refusal to comply.
It gets worse. Not only were the violent Muslims quickly released to “appease tensions,” but the officers involved face an administrative inquiry for enforcing the law. This behavior is no way to maintain the rule of law in a western nation.
Muslim immigration is poison. Why does America continue it while Europe’s experience is slow-motion suicide?
Police unions in France are furious after three officers were injured trying to check the identity of a woman flouting the country’s burka ban and who was later released to “appease tensions during Ramadan”.
The officers ordered the 18-year-old called Marie-Louise to produce her identity card around midnight outside a mosque in the southern French city of Marseille, which has a large Muslim population.
She was wearing the niqab that leaves all but the eyes covered in contravention of a 2010 law banning wearing any face-covering veil in public.
The woman refused, saying: “I don’t obey the laws of the French Republic” and allegedly bit one of the officers. Scuffles then broke out with around 50 people present including the woman’s partner. Three officers were lightly injured.
Reinforcements arrived and four people, including the woman and her partner, were arrested and taken to a police station. But they were released shortly afterwards “in a gesture of appeasement during Ramadan”, according to the public prosecutor.
The officers involved, however, now face an administrative inquiry after people present during the incident complained they had used “illegal force”.
Police unions were furious. “Nobody can understand how police officers can be attacked…and in the end the people arrested are released before the officers themselves,” said David-Olivier Reverdy, of the local Alliance union. Continue reading this article
“Prosecutorial discretion for DREAMers is solely based on the individual’s claims. Our orders are if an alien says they went to high school, then let them go; if they say they have a GED, then let them go. Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything. Even with the greatly relaxed new policies the alien is not even required to prove that they meet any of the new criteria. At this point we don’t even know why DHS has criteria at all, as there is no requirement or burden to prove anything on the part of the alien. We believe that significant numbers of people who are not DREAMers are taking advantage of this practice to avoid arrest.”
One can imagine how stories are spreading throughout the illegal alien community about the borders being essentially open now for anyone who is brazen enough to lie about age and education, no matter their appearance or ability to fake high school English.
A top union official for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers said Thursday that President Barack Obama’s administration has ordered ICE agents to blindly — and without any evidence — believe illegal immigrants if they claim they qualify for Obama’s administrative DREAM Act.
Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, explained at a press conference on Capitol Hill Thursday afternoon how the new selective immigration law enforcement policy Obama announced during a White House Rose Garden speech in June is affecting the officers he represents.
“As we still wait on detailed guidance from the administration, it’s impossible to understand the full scope of the administration’s changes, but what we’ve seen so far concerns us greatly,” Crane, said. “As one example, prosecutorial discretion for DREAMers is solely based on the individual’s claims. Our orders are: If an alien says they went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have a GED, then let them go.”
“Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything,” he continued. “Even with the greatly relaxed policies, the alien is not required to prove that they meet any of the new criteria.”
ICE officers are often called in after local and state law enforcement officials arrest a person and find that he or she is an illegal immigrant. ICE officers also conduct their own investigations and detain suspected illegal immigrants independent of other law enforcement. Normally, if the immigrant is found to be in the country illegally, ICE would bring federal charges against him, possibly leading to deportation.
Under the new orders, however, illegals can escape federal charges simply by claiming — whether it’s the truth or not — that they meet the DREAM Act rule’s requirements issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Crane did not specify who has given his officers these new orders.
The new directive would contradict Homeland Security’s own words in announcing the policy, which said that “only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action.
Homeland Security announced in June that it will not go after illegals who came to the U.S. under the age of 16 and are not more than 30 years old; have lived in the U.S. for five straight years; are currently in school or have graduated high school, obtained a GED or been honorably discharged from the military; have not been convicted of a felony or significant misdemeanor and are not a threat to public safety. Continue reading this article
There’s a brushfire now growing in the Republican party concerning national security, and many among the GOP leadership have taken the side of America’s enemies. Fox News has presented stories supporting the Islamic unfriendlies, though not loudly so. Top radio commenters Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin have weighed in on the side of protecting the country.
Sen. McCain chose to publicize the letters by condemning the intelligence inquiry on the Senate floor. He defended Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin as a “dedicated American,” even though her mother is a top leader of the Muslim Brotherhood/Sisterhood movement in Egypt [Watch.]. Inquiring (and informed) minds have long had questions about the ever-present Huma.
As Mark Levine observed in the radio clip below, his service in the White House some years ago was preceded by a very thorough FBI background check. But now such investigations are seen as somehow improper and an expression of being anti-Islam in a government culture devoted to the ideology that the most extreme diversity is the highest virtue.
The normalization of the Muslim Brotherhood has been ginned up in the dinosaur media, as seen by the recent characterization of the group as moderate since the onset of the so-called Arab Spring. Today a Google search for moderate “Muslim Brotherhood” gets two million results.
But there is no radical or moderate Islam; there is only Islam — a totalitarian ideology with religious trappings that seeks worldwide domination.
In the current controversy, Republican leaders like Speaker Boehner and Chair of the Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers are bashing Bachmann for raising concerns about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in our government. When the White House has had “hundreds” of closed-door meetings with jihadist front group CAIR, many citizens would respond that such worries are overdue.
Attorney Andrew McCarthy, who gained his expertise about Islam by prosecuting the blind sheik Abdel Rahman in New York City, now believes that the Republican party can no longer be trusted to protect the country and our liberty:
The embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood by President Obama, aided and abetted by the Republican establishment, is not new. It is the culmination of a gradual surrender whose silhouette was already evident nearly twenty years ago. I wrote about it in Willful Blindness, a memoir about the start of our nation’s confrontation with Islamic supremacism as a domestic threat — back in the early Nineties, when I led the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh’s New York jihadist cell, which carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Is our wayward course one that can be corrected? The ongoing controversy over Islamist influence on our government will probably answer that question.
Spotlighted are concerns raised by five conservative members of the House of Representatives about (i) Brotherhood-friendly government policymaking and (ii) government officials, such as the State Department’s Huma Abedin, who have longstanding Islamist ties. The crossroads at which we’ve arrived, however, involve a lot more than any single government official or policy. Let me be stark: Our liberty and security are threatened, and the questions not only of whether GOP leaders comprehend the stakes, but also of whether the Republican Party remains a worthy home for defenders of liberty, have become very real.
A little history, to measure how far we’ve veered. When we tried Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his cohorts in 1995, the overarching charge was that all 12 defendants, plus dozens of unindicted coconspirators, conspired to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States. Beyond the Trade Center attack, this campaign included a more ambitious plot to bomb New York City landmarks (e.g., Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, UN complex, FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters, some U.S. military installations, etc.), as well as sundry schemes to kidnap or assassinate current and former government officials, murder the president of Egypt, and the like.
Here is the crucial part that you need to understand: The Blind Sheikh and his subordinates were not merely “violent extremists,” seized by some sort of psychological problem. They were Islamic supremacists. Yes, their methods were barbaric; but that does not mean they were insane or irrational. Indeed, had that been the case, they would have been not guilty by reason of mental incapacity.
To the contrary, we proved that their actions were rationally motivated by Islamic supremacist ideology, an easily knowable interpretation of Islam, drawn directly from Muslim scripture, that commands its adherents to coerce societies into adopting sharia. Sharia is Islam’s totalitarian framework for how societies are to be ruled. It is not just a set of spiritual guidelines; it is a comprehensive social and legal system, said to be Allah’s gift and directive to mankind. It governs all human activity — not just prayer and worship, but financial, social, familial, political, military, and even hygienic activity. Continue reading this article
Newly released government records seem to indicate that the Obama Administration got to work right away on its stealth amnesty plan, drastically slashing the number of immigration apprehensions during its first two years in power.
Apprehensions for immigration violations plummeted dramatically from 1.8 million in 2000 to an all-time low of 516,992 in 2010, according to a report released this month by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The document was created by a special division of the DOJ (Bureau of Justice Statistics) that collects and disseminates information on crime and the operation of the justice system.
Less than two years into the Obama presidency, the number of immigration violation apprehensions was at the lowest level since 1972, according the federal report. Arrests, however, tripled from 25,205 to 82,438, but this is deceiving because apprehensions are instances in which foreign nationals are caught in the U.S. illegally. Arrests refer to the booking of an individual by U.S. Marshals for violating federal immigration law.
Under this formula, if a lot less illegal immigrants are getting “apprehended” or caught in the first place, simply increasing the number of actual “arrests” is not going to cut it. For the purpose of the DOJ stats, apprehensions and arrests represent events and not actual individuals because some illegal aliens could be apprehended or arrested on multiple occasions.
Not surprisingly, the core of the apprehensions took place at or near the Mexican border with the Tucson Arizona sector leading the way in 2010 with 212,202. The others are; San Diego (68,565), Rio Grande Valley (59,766), Laredo (35,287), El Centro (32,562) and Del Rio (14,694). An overwhelming chunk of the illegal immigrants, 83%, were citizens of Mexico though an increasing number (12%) came from Central American countries. Continue reading this article
Clarisse was a legal immigrant from Ethiopia. Her mother worked hard to get to America and the opportunities it would offer to her daughter, who was by all accounts a good student, filled with curiosity and love of learning. That’s all gone now.
The driver, Carlos Viveros-Colorado, was a previously arrested illegal alien who had been deported once after a DUI in 2001, but made his way back to the easy pickings of Minnesota where “nice” is a cultural imperative. The impetus to go along with whatever makes a community more sheep-like and easily induced to public-safety disasters like sanctuary cities, where citizens are required to obey the law, but unlawful foreigners are not. Plus, unlicensed drivers are five times as lethal as those with proper papers.
What’s interesting now is that the local paper, the Pioneer Press, is mildly questioning the negative side of sanctuary policy, namely the occasion deaths of innocents when illegal criminals are allowed to run amok. While the report is certainly a welcome step in the right direction, it never grapples with the societal rot created by employing two unequal systems of law enforcement applied according to tribe. And of course, the preventable death.
If witness accounts are true about Carlos Viveros-Colorado’s speed before he struck and killed a girl outside a St. Paul high school, it wouldn’t be the first time he’d been driving fast.
In the year leading up to the accident that killed Clarisse Grime, 16, near Harding High School this month, police stopped Viveros-Colorado three times, citing him for speeding and not having a Minnesota driver’s license.
Viveros-Colorado, who turns 51 on Sunday, July 22, is in the U.S. illegally for the second time. He was undocumented when convicted of DWI in 2001 and left the country, but he returned about two years later.
Now, some question how three law enforcement agencies handled Viveros-Colorado’s traffic stops in the past year: Should they have suspected him of being an illegal immigrant and done more than give him citations?
Yoseph Yimam, Grime’s stepfather, wishes they had.
“They should have to find out whether he’s illegal or not and have taken action on him before he killed my daughter,” Yimam said.
But he also said he doesn’t know how officials should do that or how he, as an immigrant himself, would feel about being questioned about his right to be in the country. Yimam and his family are from Ethiopia and said they came to the U.S. legally. Continue reading this article
On Friday, Congressman Chris Smith held a hearing to investigate the growing problem of Christian Coptic women being kidnapped in Egypt and forced to convert to Islam. The problem is not new, but the election of the Muslim Brotherhood to power presents a threatening future to Copts.
The usually Islamo-fawning BBC had a surprisingly decent report of forced conversions of young Christian women in Egypt a couple years ago:
WASHINGTON — Coptic Christians make up the largest Christian community in the Middle East, which also makes them sitting targets for violence and discrimination.
As Egypt moves toward “democratic reforms,” the situation is deteriorating for the Coptic church, especially Christian women.
Last year’s protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square inspired hopes for freedom. But one year later, “freedom” seems even more distant for Egypt’s Coptic Christians who’ve seen their churches burned and community abused.
“I kept asking myself, ‘What if this man hadn’t saved me. Where would I be now?’” a Coptic Christian going by the name “Ann” said at a hearing in Washington, Wednesday.
Ann is seeking asylum in the United States and recently testified to a congressional committee from behind a wall to conceal her identity and protect her family in Egypt.
She recounted how a man tried to kidnap her last year.
“I was screaming. I didn’t know what he wanted. I had no idea why he was doing this,” she recalled.
Ann managed to escape. But many victims aren’t that fortunate.
According to a new Christian Solidarity International report, the number of disappearances and abductions among Coptic women is on the rise, all with the goal of converting the women to Islam. Continue reading this article
Senator Jeff Sessions, quoted later in the article below, has been a critic of the government supplying benefits to legal immigrants. “An immigration policy should seek to bring people to the United States who will be able to function independently without government subsidies,” he said.
The Mexican government has been working with the United States Department of Agriculture to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.
USDA has an agreement with Mexico to promote American food assistance programs, including food stamps, among Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in America.
“USDA and the government of Mexico have entered into a partnership to help educate eligible Mexican nationals living in the United States about available nutrition assistance,” the USDA explains in a brief paragraph on their “Reaching Low-Income Hispanics With Nutrition Assistance” web page. “Mexico will help disseminate this information through its embassy and network of approximately 50 consular offices.”
The partnership — which was signed by former USDA Secretary Ann M. Veneman and Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista in 2004 — sees to it that the Mexican Embassy and Mexican consulates in America provide USDA nutrition assistance program information to Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals working in America and migrant communities in America. The information is specifically focused on eligibility criteria and access.
The goal, for USDA, is to get rid of what they see as enrollment obstacles and increase access among potentially eligible populations by working with arms of the Mexican government in America. Benefits are not guaranteed or provided under the program — the purpose is outreach and education. Continue reading this article
On Tuesday, an article appeared that was something of a head-scratcher, which indicated that some states could use a federal immigration database to check their voter rolls to delete illegal aliens. Underline “some” because that was the headline:
WASHINGTON — The federal government is expanding access to an immigration database so that several states can use it to purge ineligible voters, officials said Monday.
Homeland Security Department representatives notified Florida officials last week that they could check to see whether registered voters were actually noncitizens who should not be eligible to cast a ballot. State officials said Monday that the department was offering similar access to other states who had requested the information.
“I’m pleased that DHS has agreed to work with states to verify the citizenship of people on the voter rolls and help reduce our vulnerability,” said Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, who had renewed his request for the data last week, writing a letter with the support of several other states.
Elections leaders in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio and Utah had signed onto Gessler’s request. Five of the states — Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico and Ohio — are expected to be competitive in the 2012 presidential race. Each of the election chiefs in those states are Republican. [. . .]
So what’s the deal? Why aren’t ALL states allowed to use the federal database to
purge voter rolls of non-citizen voters?
So the friends of electoral integrity have good reason to fear widespread voter fraud. The ability of states to purge illegal alien voters would be a step in the right direction.
Wednesday’s news has a partial answer, with the hint that states may officially request permission to use the Washington database. If so, then citizens of responsible states could lobby their governments to take that step to help assure an honest election in November — although there are signs of considerable pushback:
Texas elections officials on Wednesday joined a growing number of states across the country seeking access to a massive immigration database to check voter rolls for possible noncitizens.
Texas Secretary of State Esperanza “Hope” Andrade sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano requesting access to a federal database that contains more than 100 million immigration records.
Andrade, appointed by Gov. Rick Perry, is the latest of roughly a dozen Republican election leaders from across the United States to seek the information since Homeland Security granted Florida officials permission last week after a protracted fight.
Andrade’s plans to check voter rolls against the DHS database mark the latest chapter in an ongoing controversy over the state’s efforts to combat voter fraud. Texas officials and the Department of Justice already are embroiled in a court battle over a Texas law passed last year that requires voters to show photo identification at the polls.
Some Texas voter advocates worried that Andrade’s plans to run checks through the immigration database – coupled with the state’s controversial voter ID law – would fuel confusion and discourage minority voters from going to the polls in November.
“We think this will address a problem that doesn’t really exist and will create confusion about a supposed or alleged fraud that – if it happens at all – is so miniscule that it has no impact,” insisted Carlos Duarte, the Texas Director of Mi Familia Vota, an advocacy organization. “This is happening so close to the election that the actual effect is going to be disenfranchising people who otherwise should be eligible to vote.”
First request in 2007 Spokesman Rich Parsons at the secretary of state’s office said Texas plans to start using the DHS database “as quickly as possible,” but did not have a timeline and could not say if it will begin the checks before the November election.
For months, the Obama administration resisted granting Florida access to the DHS database, but relented after a judge ruled in the state’s favor on a separate issue related to its efforts to purge noncitizens from its voting rolls.
Since then, election leaders in nearly a dozen states have expressed interest in gaining access to the DHS database. But opponents of the move argue that the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program, also known as “SAVE,” was intended for use by government agencies verifying the immigration status of applicants for benefits and licenses – not to purge voter rolls. Continue reading this article
Talk about putting out the unwelcome mat — Mexico is being downright snotty to its returning citizens and their US-born jackpot kiddies by not providing basic paperwork to get them plugged into school and healthcare.
Wait, weren’t the remittance checks from Mexo-expats an important part of the country’s economy, amounting to tens of billions of dollars annually? Now that returnees need some simple services to get reintegrated, the authorities don’t want to bother with them.
We have certainly heard extreme nationalism from Mexican propagandists, like chatterbox Juan Hernandez’ proclamation on Nightline in 2001, “I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’ ”
So that would include Mexican anchor brats born in the USA, presumably. Where’s the reciprocal loyalty?
We’re all one big happy tribe, and Mexican identity survives abroad for generations — that’s the message from official Mexico — as long as the saps, er Mexican workers keep sending billions in remittance money home to the beloved homeland. But when they ask to be treated like citizens with rights in their own country, they get the cold shoulder.
MALINALCO, Mexico (AP) — As a cold drizzle washed over this town of narrow cobblestone streets in the forested highlands of central Mexico, mothers waiting outside the colonial-era cultural center wrapped wool blankets around the infants snuggled in their arms. Other parents tightened plastic bags around folders filled with U.S. passports and birth certificates from California, Ohio and Texas.
One by one, the parents filed inside, sat down before a Mexican government worker and told stories of lives that had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border twice. First, they crossed illegally into the United States for work, found jobs, and had children. Then, they were caught and deported, or left on their own as the work dried up with the U.S. economic slump. Now they are back in Mexico with children who are American citizens by virtue of being born on U.S. soil.
Because of the byzantine rules of Mexican and U.S. bureaucracies, tens of thousands of those children without Mexican citizenship now find themselves without access to basic services in Mexico — unable to officially register in school or sign up for health care at public hospitals and clinics that give free check-ups and medicines.
At issue is a Mexican government requirement that any official document from another country be certified inside that country with a seal known as an “apostille,” then be translated by a certified, and often expensive, translator in Mexico.
It’s a growing problem in Mexico as hundreds of thousands return home because of the sluggish U.S. job market and a record number of deportations. Illegal migration of Mexicans to the U.S. is at its lowest level in decades, with more Mexicans now leaving the United States than entering it each year.
More than 300,000 U.S.-born children have been brought to Mexico since 2005, out of a total of 1.4 million people who moved back from the U.S. during that period, according to the Washington-based Pew Hispanic Center. Continue reading this article
But big mushroom clouds aren’t necessary; hostile Muslims can go small ball and send in a few suicide bombers to explode infidel sports fans. That should mute Olympic enthusiasm considerably.
In short, this is a major European city after Muslim immigration, spending $2 billion on security for a two-week event and hoping to get through it without some Islam-based horror. Pre-Islam-London hosted the summer games in 1948, where spectators experienced world-class athletic excellence with no threat to safety.
Organizers of the 2012 London Olympics have said the games will be a “symphony of inspiration” — uplifting and unifying.
For Britain’s Islamic radicals, however, the Olympics are providing inspiration of a different sort.
During the past month, British authorities have made a series of arrests in connection with terror plots against the Olympics.
Others, like Islamic convert Richard Dart, were arrested for separate plots against London targets. Dart is reportedly a follower of London-based cleric Anjem Choudary, who leads frequent demonstrations calling for Great Britain to be ruled by Islamic Sharia law.
“The Olympics is about division. It’s about separation,” Choudary told CBN News.
When asked if he and his followers would have a presence at the games, Choudary answered, “We will have a huge presence, wherever the people are gathering for the celebrations or watching the events.”
Choudary said that true Muslims should oppose the Olympics. British authorities are concerned that some will do much more than that.
Among those they’ve been monitoring is a suspected al Qaeda terrorist who’s visited the Olympic site at least five times. Continue reading this article
On Tuesday Rep. King appeared on Fox News and explained that the court case was about the powers belonging to Congress should not be usurped by the President via executive order. King has argued that if the President is allowed to get away with this overreach then he may well act beyond his Constitutional powers in other areas as well.
Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King told The Daily Caller that the immigration lawsuit he is leading against President Barack Obama should be filed within weeks.
King’s lawsuit is a response to Obama’s new immigration policy announced in June under executive order, an order he believes is unconstitutional.
“If the president can just pick and choose the laws he wants to enforce, you get a breakdown in the constitutional order because he’s charged with enforcing the laws,” said Steven Camarota, Director of the Research Center for Immigration Studies, to Fox News in support of King’s argument.
Though Camarota said, “it’s very tough” to win – unless he can show that an act of Congress is being nullified by the president than you might have standing or the right to sue.
Obama laid out details of his new immigration policy that will stop deporting and will issue work permits to up to 800,000 young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children and have never committed a crime.
The congressman detailed a meeting held last Tuesday with “potential co-plaintiffs” interest in signing on to King’s lawsuit.
According to King, “If the case is heard on the merits, we’re in an excellent position to succeed.”
The House Republicans have been disappointing in various ways, but particularly regarding immigration enforcement and also Obama’s increasing encroachment into powers of the legislative branch. Certainly the do-nothing no-budget Democrat Senate is a daunting roadblock, but more can be done, and Congressman King is showing one way forward.
Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King says he expects that the immigration lawsuit he is spearheading against President Obama will be filed in a court within weeks.
“I think we’re talking weeks rather than months,” King told The Daily Caller in an interview Friday about the planned legal action against Obama.
King’s lawsuit is in response to the Obama administration’s divisive announcement last month that the government would stop deporting certain illegal immigrants who arrived in the United States as children.
The congressman said a meeting was held last Tuesday with potential co-plaintiffs interested in signing on to the lawsuit to prevent the Obama administration from going through with its plan.
King, who would likely be the lead plaintiff, would not specifically name who else attended, but he said one U.S. senator, four state executive offices and five non-governmental organizations were represented at the meeting. 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.