An MSNBC talking head, Richard Lui, has outed himself as a grandson of illegal aliens of the Paper Son variety, an odd category that occurred through an accident of history.
As it happened, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire destroyed the city’s hall of records (shown below), including birth and immigration records. Conveniently, the disaster allowed Chinese to claim they were born here or were related to citizens (so-called Paper Sons), and there was no way to prove them liars. Later research revealed that every Chinese woman in the city would had to have given birth to 800 sons to account for the number of claimants.
The main point of Richard Lui’s little essay here, however, is to normalize lawbreaking in immigration: he is saying that millions came to America however they could, even illegally, so what’s the big deal? Latter day unlawful arrivers are just as good as the descendants of founders.
Plenty of Asians are illegal aliens or descendants of lawbreakers, Lui declared. To say that about a model minority is to raise up hispanics by denigrating his own people, not to mention the rule of law. He probably won’t be criticized by his tribe though, since the effort is a political statement in the service of expanding diverse immigration and the task of de-whitening America.
I am the grandson of illegal immigrants. My father’s parents came here as Paper Son and Paper Daughter. The “Paper” system involved buying real U.S. identities, sold by international agents, and then assumed, in this case, by my grandparents when they arrived in California. My real last name is Wong, not the name they bought - Lui.
They were “illegals,” and they weren’t Latinos.
Lui Lee (grandpa) and Quock Yuen Jow (grandma) took their illegal immigration secret to their grave. Their tombstone was the only place with their real name. They were scared their children would face the threat modern-day Dream-ers did – being sent back because of their illegal immigrant path.
Judy Yung, co-author of “Angel Island – Immigrant Gateway to America,” says my background is not uncommon. She estimates 1 million Chinese Americans either came here illegally or are descendants of illegal immigrants. The Pew Research Center more broadly estimates up to 15 percent of Asian American immigrants could be illegal. Of those 1.3 million illegal Asian immigrants, more than 100,000 are Dream-ers, says the Asian American Justice Center.
The point – despite immigration reform often being framed as a Latino issue, it’s also an Asian issue. And most importantly, it’s a uniting, American issue. For instance, the data shows Latino and Asian American communities share a surprising simpatico. Continue reading this article
A recent poll of Latin America shows that the traditional practice of mordida — bribery — is alive and well. Twenty percent of the region’s population say that they have been hit on by a public official for a little “tip” for services in the last year. The Mexican rate is considerably worse, at 31 percent.
Such is the cultural norm of tens of millions of the United States’ new immigrants, legal and illegal.
Who would choose a group with ingrained corruption of this level to admit as immigrants and share one’s society? Not this tribe, certainly.
America is unlucky in geography to border the hispanic third world, plus we have a government unserious about keeping them out. As a result, we are being Mexicanized, to the detriment of our national future.
As Samuel Huntington remarked in his book “Who Are We” (pg 59), “… if America had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish, or Portuguese Catholics, it would not be America; it would be Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil.”
In a 2004 article in Foreign Policy, The Hispanic Challenge, Huntington warned that Mexicans and other latinos were “rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream.”
A new study on corruption in Latin America contains some alarming figures — an average of about 20 percent of the region’s people say they have been asked to pay a bribe by a policeman or another public official in the past year, compared with 5 percent in the United States and 3 percent in Canada.
The Americas Barometer poll by Vanderbilt University, whose full findings are to be released Thursday at the University of Miami’s Center for Latin American Studies, shows that in some Latin American countries like Haiti, Bolivia and Ecuador, the number of people who say they were asked to pay bribes last year surpasses 40 percent.
These three regional champions of corruption are followed not far behind by Mexico, Peru and Honduras, where the percentage of people who say they were asked to pay bribes by public servants is 31 percent, 28 percent and 26 percent respectively, according to the poll of 40,000 people in 26 countries.
The new poll is one of the most valuable tools to measure countries’ corruption levels. Unlike other surveys that ask people whether their countries are corrupt — something that can be easily influenced by the media headlines of the day — this one asked about their personal experiences of corruption. Continue reading this article
Among the raza gang, excitement seems to be building over the President’s State of the Union speech that comprehensive amnesty will be a major policy point. But whatever Obama precious utterances, open-borders enthusiasts intend to mount a massive mobilization against US sovereignty.
The work permit IS amnesty; “normalizing status” IS amnesty.
All the chatter about a “path to citizenship” is designed as a distraction, and is working so far.
Like the other failed amnesty of 1986, the current version promises enforcement in return for a trough of goodies for illegals. But Obama has already ended border security according to recent Congressional testimony and cannot be trusted to require even rudimentary policing.
Back to the SOTU amnesty mobilization. Notice the emphasis on citizenship — unlike the illegal aliens themselves, the raza elites want them as voters to gain political power. (One example: of the 5.4 million legal Mexican immigrants, only 36 percent of the eligible have become naturalized, much lower than other groups.)
A pathway to citizenship will be at the forefront of several mobilization efforts being launched in the coming months as the president and Congress engage in moving forward on immigration reform.
Days before the president is expected to deliver his State of the Union (SOTU) speech, supporters for immigration reform have already begun announcing their campaigns. The administration took steps this week to assure the community they’re committed in ensuring the 11 million persons who are undocumented that there will be immigration reform.
“We expect him to lay out a range of priorities including immigration reform,” said Frank Sharry of America’s Voice during a conference call in expectation of SOTU.
“Sometimes, in the past we breathlessly counted the number of words and where it was in his speech—to be honest the fact that he went to Las Vegas and threw down the way he did has really mobilized and motivated many of us in the immigration reform movement.”
Said Sharry, “He has already proved that this is going to be his top legislative priority for the first six months of this year.” Continue reading this article
Byron York reported on a new study from Rutgers University that found the recession has deeply affected many Americans, more than economists and other pundits have thought. In addition, globalization in the forms of outsourcing (factories sent abroad) and insourcing (immigration) was blamed for the painful loss of jobs.
Yet imperial Washington insists on plunging forward with its plans to screw Americans even further by dumping 11 million additional workers into an already flooded labor pool with its amnesty scheme.
Fox News’ Eric Bolling interviewed York, and both agreed that Congress’ pursuing the legalization of millions of illegal aliens showed bad timing and was out of touch with the continuing unemployment crisis. York noted that 23 percent of Americans had lost a job during the last four years and an additional 11 percent said someone in their household become unemployed in that time.
A new survey on the effects of the economic downturn shows many more Americans than previously reported have been profoundly touched by joblessness and its related hardships.
In addition, the survey, by scholars at Rutgers University, shows more Americans than previously thought blame illegal immigration for the problem of unemployment — more than blame Wall Street bankers, or George W. Bush, or Barack Obama.
So what is Washington doing amid these deep economic anxieties? Working on a bipartisan plan that would begin with the mass, immediate legalization of illegal immigrants, before any border security or enforcement measures.
That those two facts exist simultaneously — deep fears about the economy and a political fixation on immigration reform — is just one illustration of a disconnect between national political leaders and the people who elected them. Continue reading this article
On the contrary, the fact that at least 6.9 million (63% of the official 11 million) have resided here longer than a decade shows how they have thrived without green cards and other legal niceties. Lawbreaking foreigners apparently get along just fine “in the shadows” otherwise more of them would go home.
Illegal immigration is a rational act, based on the foreigners’ notion that they will have a materially better life in the United States compared with their dirtbag homeland. And most do, as a result of readily available forged documents enabling them to steal American jobs, plus easily obtained free-to-them deluxe healthcare and other government benefits that multiply their often low wages.
Therefore the government should shelve plans for a massive amnesty that will only incentivize future lawbreaking. The illegals don’t need it, and the taxpayers will be much better off without mass legalization.
The sensible folks in the editorial office of Investors Business Daily have compiled a useful list of recent assaults by Muslims on free speech in America. It’s a disturbing trend that needs to be watched and resisted.
Using intimidation to eliminate criticism of Islam is a big part of stealthy incremental sharia implementation. The imagined future America of Muslims is one where citizens can gripe about Congress but no dissenting word may be said about Mohammed, Islam or burqas.
Islamofascism: Islamists have launched a hostile takeover of American language through an increasingly aggressive and organized censorship campaign that threatens free speech.
Over the past few weeks, there have been an alarming number of cases of Muslim pressure groups trying to force Americans to conform to a pro-Islamic speech code.
They’ve insisted on censoring any speech or expression that offends them, including TV ads, Christian symbols, speeches and even parts of speech.
In some cases, the targets of their wrath have caved in to their demands.
• Last week, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester, Mass., canceled a talk on Islam by author Robert Spencer after local Muslim groups, egged on by Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, enlisted a sympathetic Boston Globe reporter to smear Spencer as a “bigot.”
“We applaud the diocese’s decision,” CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper gloated.
• Last month, Hooper penned a column demanding the Associated Press drop from its new Stylebook the word “Islamist” to describe militant Muslims who support jihad and Islamizing the West, such as members of the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR itself. He doesn’t like the “pejorative” ring to it, accurate as it is.
Thanks to the Center for Immigration Studies for commissioning a realistic poll about what citizens want done about the millions of illegal aliens in our midst.
Immigration polls are easy to influence by the way the queries are worded, particularly when the liberal media asks questions on the order of, “Should undocumented valedictorians be flogged with a cat o’ nine tails, or should they be given a path to citizenship?”
But such loose questions — which includes two options, as well as a profusion of vague words, such as “undocumented,” “chance” and “certain requirements” — encourage Americans to express their normal sympathy for immigrants, said Steven Camarota, the research director at Center for Immigration Studies.
“Once you peel that stuff back,” he told The Daily Caller, “what the public generally wants is for illegals to go home and for the law to be enforced.”
The CIS poll was conducted in late January by Pulse Opinion Research. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents were Democrats, 32 percent were Republicans, and 72 percent were white.
Immigration is a “very difficult issue on which to measure public opinion,” said Glen Bolger, a pollster and co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies.
Pollsters should pick their words carefully, and ask a series of 15 or more questions, he said. [. . .]
Clearly, care must be taken in designing a poll on a subject as complex as immigration, which encompasses law, emotions, tribalism, sovereignty and the future of the nation. It sounds like the effort from CIS has accomplished that goal. And results indicate a clear majority of citizens prefers the repatriation option, not rewards for foreign lawbreakers.
A new poll using neutral language — and avoiding the false choice of conditional legalization vs. mass deportations — finds that most Americans want illegal immigrants to return to their home counties, rather than be given legal status. The findings also show a very large gap in intensity, with those who want illegal immigrants to head home feeling much stronger about that option than those who would like to see illegal immigrants receive legal status.
• Of likely voters, 52 percent responded that they preferred to see illegal immigrants in the United States go back to their home countries, compared to just 33 percent who would like them to be given legal status.
• There is an enormous gap in intensity between the two views on immigration. Of those who want illegal immigrants to head home, 73 percent indicated that they felt “very strongly” about that view, while just 35 percent of those who want illegal immigrants to get legal status said they felt very strongly about this view.
• One reason the public may prefer that illegals head home is a strong belief that efforts to enforce immigration laws have been inadequate — 64 percent said that enforcement of immigration laws has been “too little”, while just 10 percent said that it had been too much, and 15 percent said it was “just right”. Continue reading this article
Sean Hannity, one of Fox News’ top amnesty enthusiasts, appeared surprised by the testimony of former ICE director Julie Myers Wood and ICE union president Chris Crane about the Obama administration’s non-enforcement of America’s borders and sovereignty. Permissiveness in those areas makes the entry of terrorists easier — who knew?
“It kind of takes my breath away,” Hannity said during an interview with Crane after the agent reported that only convicted felons may now be deported under Obama’s directive, and agents who insist upon following the law are punished.
Does Hannity think the Obama’s henchmen will do enforcement any better under the amnesty the Fox broadcaster supports?
What’s somewhat more newsworthy is Crane’s statement that after Obama’s re-election, orders of non-enforcement went from verbal to written. The President doesn’t have to pretend any longer.
It’s dangerous to tell the truth about hostile Islam in Europe these days. Free speech campaigner Lars Hedegaard (pictured) had a close call on Tuesday when a man pretending to deliver a package tried to shoot the 70-year-old writer at his Copenhagen home. The intruder fired a shot but missed, and ran away after Hedegaard punched him in the face.
Muslim immigration has created a major threat to free speech and safety of western persons who wish to practice it. Probably the best known case was the 2004 murder of Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street, where he was killed by a Muslim angry about Submission, van Gogh’s film critical of Islam’s cruelty to women.
A writer and outspoken critic of Islam narrowly escaped being shot dead after he opened his door to a would-be assassin posing as a delivery man at his home in Denmark.
The gunman rang the doorbell of 70-year-old Lars Hedegaard’s apartment in Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, under the pretext of delivering a parcel, but when the writer opened his front door the hitman pulled out a weapon and fired a shot that just missed Mr Hedegaard’s head.
According to Mr Hedegaard, who described how the bullet ‘flew past’ his right ear, said the sniper fled after the writer punched him in the face causing him to drop his gun.
Mr Hedegaard, who heads up a group that claims press freedom is under threat from Islam, said the attack had left him shaken but not injured.
Police in Copenhagen confirmed they were searching for the suspect, described as a ‘foreign’ man aged between 20 and 25. Continue reading this article
The Republican Party’s designation of Sen Marco Rubio as its voice of the diverse future is looking worse all the time. Not only is he the crown prince of the Senate amnesty plot, er framework, but now he has been chosen to give the Republican response to the President’s State of the Union speech — in English and Spanish.
Memo to the Senator: Americans do not want to be a “bilingual” nation, with Spanish holding the same cultural and legal importance as English. We still expect immigrants to learn our language as well as embrace our national values. A 2010 Rasmussen poll found that 87 percent supported English as the official language. We still believe in assimilation as a necessary component to immigration, otherwise the nation breaks down into ethnic and linguistic ghettos, which is what has in fact happened under decades of lawlessness.
If Sen Rubio wants to be a conservative leader of America, then he should represent traditional values of sovereignty, the English language and American culture.
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio will deliver the GOP response in both English and Spanish following President Obama’s State of the Union Address￼ on Feb. 12.
House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced that they have selected the Florida￼ senator, considered a rising star in the Republican Party, Wednesday.
“He’ll deliver a GOP address that speaks from the heart to the hopes and dreams of the middle class; to our party’s commitment to life and liberty; and to the unlimited potential of America when government is limited and effective,” Boehner said in a statement.
Rubio has in recent weeks been at the forefront of the immigration debate, as one of the more vocal advocates for the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” proposal for immigration reform. Continue reading this article
The administration has done a successful job of spinning its proposed amnesty as focused on citizenship, something the illegal aliens care nothing about. An indication is contained in the video below, in which Rep Trey Gowdy reports that his conservative constituents would be open to an amnesty if the government could institute border and workplace security.
Do Gowdy’s South Carolina voters understand that illegals get the benefit they value the most, namely the ability to work legally, immediately following the bill’s signing?
The House Judiciary Committee has posted information about Tuesday’s immigration hearing, and the line-up of speakers is somewhat concerning. Usually the majority party gets to choose 3 out of 4 witnesses per panel, but the upcoming group appears unduly friendly to Obama’s amnesty and general immigration permissiveness, although I admit not every name is familiar to me. But there are hints, like job titles.
I phoned C-SPAN a little while ago and the fellow with whom I spoke said hearing coverage decisions are made late in the day before the event, but he thought they might cover it given the current interest about immigration in the news.
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.