I hate to be un-positive about anyone’s efforts against illegal alien amnesty, and genuinely hope the Texas senator has become more educated about immigration in the intervening year. Obama’s promised amnesty is an evil attack on foundational American principles about law and sovereignty. But radical changes to the jobs marketplace caused by smart machines mean that far fewer legal immigrants are needed for the economy of the near future.
The leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage, is a rare politician calling for a moratorium of immigration, because of the harm to society as he remarked: “Four million net migrants in the last 13 years to Britain represents an astonishing social change, and one that people simply don’t want.”
When the Swiss voted in a national referendum to limit immigration, Farage observed that the outcome was “wonderful news for national sovereignty and freedom lovers throughout Europe.”
Farage rues the lawlessness that immigration has brought, like polygamy and FGM which are not prosecuted in Britain. He believes preserving a nation’s cultural identity is more important than the economy.
When asked by Thomas for tips for Tea Party conservatives, Farage thought they might have to leave the Republican party to be more influential. The GOP has not been the voice of working people the way Reagan was. Most voters are not business owners or investors and those citizens are looking for a party that will represent their concerns.
Farage opposes gay marriage, but argues that the UK has effective civil partnerships. He fears the EU court may require churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies.
Although Democrats often play to their base, modern Republicans seem ashamed of the 40% of registered voters who support the tea party. Likewise, similar constituencies felt ignored in the United Kingdom — until Nigel Farage and the UK Independence Party (UKIP) entered the political realm.
Farage has been a Member of the European Parliament since 1999 and his party is now showing surprising growth as middle-class Britons rebel against the EU, open borders and an oppressive government.To put it simply, Farage wants to take his country back!
In an exclusive 24 minute video interview filmed on September 4 in Washington, D.C., Farage exudes self assurance, spunk and principle as a leader unafraid of the European Union “the emperor has no clothes.” From reading the tea leaves in Europe, Farage believes fewer people are enamored with the growing, centralized, bureaucratized state based out of Brussels.
Asked about his view of America’s stature in the world with President Obama, Farage said, “I’m a guest here and, don’t want to be rude, but it looks a little rudderless.” Referring to Obama as a “lame duck,” Farage said it “seems to me the chap is on the golf course every day. In terms of respect or fear of America, it is diminishing with this President.” Continue reading this article
What does it take to get a lawbreaking terror-connected foreigner deported these days? The question comes up regarding the case of Ailina Tsarnaev, a sister of the Boston Marathon bombing brothers. She was charged in August with aggravated harassment for threatening to “put a bomb on you” to an unnamed woman. Yet this stupid-generous country allows her to remain.
Judge Jeannine Piro probed the deportation question on Sunday. Unfortunately, the State Department has a lot to say about the deportation of people they admitted under asylum rules. Former U.S. Spokesman at the United Nations spokesman Rick Grenell observed that it would help if some member of Congress raised a stink about the case.
Below, Ailina Tsarnaev, making a court appearance.
A sister of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects was arrested in New York on Wednesday after allegedly threatening a woman in a domestic harassment case, saying, “I have people that can go over there and put a bomb on you.”
Ailina Tsarnaev of North Bergen, N.J., was arrested at a police station in New York City Wednesday afternoon, charged with one count of aggravated harassment. She was released with a summons to return to a criminal court in Manhattan on Sept. 3, said police Lieutenant John Grimpel.
Grimpel said the victim of Ailina Tsarnaev’s alleged threat has a child with the father of one of Tsarnaev’s children. Grimpel did not elaborate on the nature of the dispute.
Tsarnaev told police she is 21, though she is believed to be three years older.
Her brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 21, is awaiting trial in federal court, accused, along with his older brother, Tamerlan, of setting off the April 15, 2013, bombs at the Boston Marathon that killed three people and injured more than 260. Continue reading this article
It’s unfortunate that spying is necessary in a free country, but when the government admits enemies in the name of immigration diversity then snooping is needed to keep the public safe.
And why not chill on counter-terrorism, New York voters may have thought during the election. After all, bin Laden was dead and al Qaeda was defeated, according to Obama. It would be safe to have a far-left peacenik mayor, right? What could possibly go wrong?
Jihadis must be amazed at their luck: Obama has opened up America’s southern border so even little kids can break in and Mayor De Blasio has substantially dismantled New York City’s crack counter-terrorism system.
Now Baghdadi has an enthusiastic army of headchoppers armed with American military equipment, plus a bank balance of a couple billion dollars with an oil field income of $2 million per day. He’s got motivation, resources and a target, making ISIS a serious threat to America in general and New York City in particular.
Now former member of the 9/11 Commission John Lehman says de Blasio is “taking his eye off the ball” at the worst time — which is a kind assessment because it assumes the mayor’s eye was once on the ball of protecting the city.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey concurred that disbanding the existing effective counter-terrorism program is bad policy, noting “I think we’re all less safe.”
Both Lehman and Mukasey agreed that De Blasio’s subversion of the federal Real ID system (recommended by the 9/11 Commission) to a lower-scrutiny city ID program for illegal aliens was dangerous.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is coming under sharp criticism for making decisions that may have undermined the effectiveness of his police department’s counter-terrorism operations.
Thirteen years after the 9/11 attacks on Manhattan, prominent security experts say de Blasio has made fighting terrorism a lower priority in order to appease the communities that helped elect him.
“A classic case of taking your eye off the ball at the worst possible time is Mayor de Blasio in New York,” said John Lehman, a former member of the 9/11 Commission.
He said de Blasio is failing to take seriously enough the new threat posed to New York and other major American cities by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has reportedly trained dozens of American jihadists.
“At the very time when the threat suddenly emerges in a whole new additional form focused on the U.S., he decides to end some of the most effective programs in the country in the NYPD counterterrorism unit,” Lehman said.
“He has reassigned people and vehicles and special equipment to non-counterterrorist activities,” he added.
The liberal Democratic mayor has come under fire for several controversial decisions since succeeding Michael Bloomberg, who created a massive counterterrorism unit during his three terms as mayor.
In April, de Blasio disbanded a special unit tasked with conducting surveillance of mosques and Muslim groups suspected of radical ties.
Michael Mukasey, who served as U.S. attorney general from 2007 to 2009, said the unit was instrumental in mapping out possible terrorist ties within Muslim communities.
“They weren’t simply conducting surveillance of mosques and Muslims. They were mapping communities, figuring out where someone from Lebanon or Yemen or any of the other hot spots would go if they wanted to come to this country and find refuge,” he said. Continue reading this article
But lawbreakers mostly come for American jobs and more money (aka “a better life” in lib speak).
If illegals live in fear about being deported, they certainly don’t act like it. Illegals are busted for drunk driving all the time, so they can’t be too concerned about getting the hook. A Google search for Illegal Immigrant Drunk Driving Arrest found 3.7 million results. Case closed on the fear argument.
Illegals aren’t clamoring for citizenship or the vote — that noise is coming from the Democrat Party. An official work permit is the real amnesty, and illegals would like to have that very much, although clearly most are getting along fine without genuine “papers.”
If millions of unlawful foreigners weren’t making money and successfully coping with American society, they would leave. Their length of stay shows amnesty is not needed, and would only reward and incentivize lawbreaking.
The number of immigrants living illegally in the United States has leveled off in recent years, but those who remain are more likely to have far deeper ties to the country than they did a decade ago, according to a report released Wednesday.
The study from Pew Research Center found that half of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants have lived here for at least 13 years and as many as 4 million have U.S.-born children.
The findings offer the most detailed portrait yet of the undocumented population and come as President Obama is weighing options about how he could use executive authority to remake his administration’s deportation policies amid mounting pressure from advocates to stem the breakup of immigrant families.
“These new estimates show that today’s unauthorized immigrants have lengthier ties to the U.S. than those in the past,” said Mark Hugo Lopez, Pew’s director of Hispanic research.
Immigration advocates have said that the administration, which has deported more than 2 million immigrants, has contributed to millions of people living in constant fear of removal from communities in which they’ve lived for many years. Opponents of relaxed immigration policies say unauthorized immigrants broke the law to get here and compete for jobs with American workers in a still-weak economy. Continue reading this article
The newsprint title of Friday’s front-page Washington Times story is “Germans sell their own version of the American dream,” including a photo of the new diversity:
The narrative is a familiar one: many native Germans are retiring and business needs more worker bees to do the jobs. At least Germany is looking for skilled persons capable of contributing to a modern economy rather than admitting millions from the third world headed straight for the permanent underclass, as America is doing.
Still, Germany is not immune from technological progress and business must be undergoing the same transformation of robots and computers that’s happening in this country. Unemployment has increased in recent months, to the surprise of economists, which may be a hiccup or part of a trend affected by greater efficiency. So perhaps the optimum number of immigrant workers is fewer that elites imagine.
Even so, the German government preaches the gospel of Diversity Is Our Strength as it puts out the welcome mat for more immigrants, including a “Success Through Diversity” competition to recognize businesses that don’t hire Germans.
Immigration policies help counter aging population, low birthrate, declining workforce
BERLIN — When Marie Duness-Rose, 39, immigrated to Germany from Bulgaria 10 years ago, she left a lot behind, she says. But now she holds a management degree and runs a thriving bistro serving Balkan food in a popular neighborhood in Berlin.
She is one of about 6.2 million non-German citizens in the country and one of about 15 million — or 19 percent of the total population — who are not ethnically German.
That percentage is one of the highest proportions of immigrants in any European country, and it is not expected to decrease any time soon. Last month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development determined that Germany is the world’s second most popular destination for immigrants after the United States.
Unlike many other countries with large immigrant populations, Germany’s government and industry wants it to stay that way. Continue reading this article
When immigrants come to America, do they think that “freedom” means an absence of standards for behavior and employment? Or are they arrogantly seeking to impose their values on Americans in opposition to traditional assimilation?
An example of the latter is the squawking from the diverse cab-driving community around the issue of hygiene, specifically the foul odors emitting from foreign drivers in San Diego and beyond. The foreign drivers insist that a requirement that they don’t stink is discrimination.
Sacramento is not mentioned in today’s report, but passengers in that city have complained about smelly drivers as well as other examples of inadequate performance, like poor English skills and no knowledge of local streets. (See Sacramento: Diverse Cabbie Update for details.)
SAN DIEGO (AP) — Body odor is among 52 criteria that officials at San Diego International Airport use to judge taxi drivers. Cabbies say that smacks of prejudice and discrimination.
For years, inspectors with the San Diego Regional Airport Authority run down their checklist for each cabbie — proof of insurance, functioning windshield wipers, adequate tire treads, good brakes. Drivers are graded pass, fail or needs fixing.
Anyone who flunks the smell test is told to change before picking up another customer.
Leaders of the United Taxi Workers of San Diego union say the litmus perpetuates a stereotype that predominantly foreign-born taxi drivers smell bad. A 2013 survey of 331 drivers by San Diego State University and Center on Policy Initiatives found 94 percent were immigrants and 65 percent were from East Africa. Continue reading this article
Senator Jeff Sessions presented one of his well researched speeches on Wednesday, denouncing the “Masters of the Universe” (his term for powerful economic elites) who would put hard-working Americans into the unemployment line to save a few dollars.
Sessions’ continued sense of outrage about the threats on the Constitution by a lawless administration is unflagging and inspiring to citizens who are starved for principled leadership in Washington.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, delivered a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday evening about Senate Democrats’ refusal to support legislation to block the president’s proposed executive actions on immigration policy, and the interests supporting amnesty. Following is an adapted version of his remarks.
Earlier this week I spoke about the president’s promise that he would issue an executive amnesty to 5 or 6 million people. The planned amnesty would include work permits, photo IDs, and Social Security numbers for millions of people who illegally entered the U.S., illegally overstayed their visas, or defrauded U.S. immigration authorities.
The Senate Democratic conference has supported and enabled the president’s unlawful actions and blocked every effort to stop them. Not even one of our Democratic colleagues has backed the House legislation that would stop this planned executive amnesty or demanded that Senator Reid bring it up for a vote. Every Senate Democrat is therefore the president’s partner in his planned lawless acts.
Tonight I would like to talk about the influence of special interests on our nation’s immigration system. How did we get to the point where elected officials, activist groups, the ACLU, and global CEOs are openly working to deny American workers the immigration protections to which they are legally entitled? How did we get to the point where the Democratic party is prepared to nullify and wipe away the immigration laws of the United States of America?
Just yesterday Majority Leader Reid wrote in a tweet something that was shocking. He said: “Since House Republicans have failed to act on immigration, I know the President will. When he does, I hope he goes Real Big.”
Let this sink in for a moment. The majority leader of the Senate is bragging that he knows the president will circumvent Congress to issue executive amnesty to millions, and he is encouraging the president to ensure this amnesty includes as many people as possible. And the White House has acknowledged that 5 to 6 million is the number they are looking at.
Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to reject Mr. Reid’s statement? Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to say: I support the legislation passed by the House of Representatives that would secure the border and block this executive amnesty? Have they ever said they support that? Have they ever said: I will do everything in my power to see that the House legislation gets a vote in the Senate so the American people can know what is going on? No. All we hear is silence.
This body is not run by one man. We don’t have a dictator in the great Senate. Every member has a vote. And the only way Senator Reid can succeed in blocking this Senate from voting to stop the president’s executive actions is for members to stop supporting him.
Every senator needs to stand up and represent their constituents — not big business, not the ACLU, not activist groups, not political interests, but the American interests, the workers’ interests. That is what we need to expect from them, and we don’t have but a few weeks, it looks like, to get it done.
In effect, the entire Senate Democratic conference has surrendered the jobs, wages, and livelihoods of their constituents to a group of special interests meeting in secret at the White House. They are surrendering them to executive actions that will foist on the nation what Congress has refused to pass and the American people have rejected. They are plotting at the White House to move forward with executive action no matter what the people think and no matter what Congress — through the people’s House — has decided.
Politico reports that “White House officials conducted more than 20 meetings in July and August with legal experts, immigration advocates and business leaders to gather ideas on what should be included in the order.”
So who are these so-called expert advocates and business leaders? They are not the law-enforcement officers; they are not our ICE officers; they are not our Border Patrol officers; they are not the American working man and woman; they are not unemployed Americans. They weren’t in the room. You can be sure of that. Their opinions weren’t sought.
No, White House officials are meeting with the world’s most powerful corporate and immigration lobbyists and activists who think border controls are for the little people. The administration is meeting with the elite, the cosmopolitan set, who scorn and mock the concerns of everyday Americans who are concerned about their schools, jobs, wages, communities, and hospitals. These great and powerful citizens of the world don’t care much about old-fashioned things like national boundaries, national sovereignty, and immigration control — let alone the constitutional separation of powers. Continue reading this article
The only thing worse than an overgrown national government is a bloated transnational bureaucracy, and the European Union is indeed the unaccountable modern super-state run amok. The distant government is disliked by many Europeans, but remains stubbornly entrenched, passing ever more niggling laws to control behavior, not protect freedom.
Reporter Dale Hurd visited Brussels to check out the undemocratic regulation machine.
Another aspect of the EU is its effect on illegal immigration. The EU’s Dublin Regulation requires that the country in which refugees first enter Europe is where they must apply for asylum and remain, which is tough on countries like Italy, which is easily reached from Africa. But that rule isn’t enforced, and illegal aliens routinely travel to places known to have generous welfare benefits, particularly Britain.
In the CBN piece, Hurd interviewed filmmaker Peter Vlemmix who produced a documentary expressing his dismay with the EU’s lack of democratic input and the superstate’s overturning of national laws. The film is called Euromania:
BRUSSELS — The European Union has been called the most ambitious political project in history, but it faces a very troubled future. And in politics, as in boxing, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
While Russia was fighting Ukraine and the Middle East was in chaos, European Union leaders were tackling the really important issues, like banning powerful household vacuum cleaners.
EU bureaucrats made the heroic move to save the planet. Now whenever Europeans use their weaker vacuum cleaners, they’ll be reminded of how EU laws have taken over more and more of their lives.
The ‘Soviet’ EU In 2009, former leader of the Czech Republic Valcav Klaus came to Brussels and gave a speech in which he told EU lawmakers that the European Union reminded him of the Soviet Union. He was booed.
Klaus, who grew up under communism, saw in Brussels a Soviet-style group of elites deciding what they thought was good for Europeans and then ramming it down their throats.
But all of the new laws out of Brussels restricting everything from vacuum cleaners to the size of fruit have not made Europeans freer or more prosperous. Continue reading this article
The Los Angeles Times had an interesting front page graphic on Wednesday, showing that Beijing’s air pollution is many times that of the famously smoggy City of the Angels.
The chart goes with a news article about the struggle of Chinese people to convince their government to tackle cleaning up their nation’s air, a hugely expensive project, as we know from our own environmental regulations. We shall see whether reform happens, iffy given the stubbornness of the ChiCom leadership and the dependence of industry on old-fashioned coal-fueled energy.
A potential clean-up of Chinese air filth should be welcomed by environmentalists, if the greenies could unhinge briefly from their globalist perspective and celebrate an instance of national responsibility.
Unfortunately, what happens in China doesn’t stay in China. Airborne crud floats across the jet stream directly to the west coast of the United States.
BEIJING (Reuters) – Pollution from China travels in large quantities across the Pacific Ocean to the United States, a new study has found, making environmental and health problems unexpected side effects of U.S. demand for cheap China-manufactured goods.
On some days, acid rain-inducing sulfate from burning of fossil fuels in China can account for as much as a quarter of sulfate pollution in the western United States, a team of Chinese and American researchers said in the report published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, a non-profit society of scholars.
So the “cheap” manufactured products from Red China come with a hidden cost to Americans’ health and environmental safety.
China’s prolific pollution production makes another argument for returning outsourced industry to the United States, where manufacturing will be kinder to the planet.
And why is planet-fouling Red China a member of the World Trade Association where it is given a level playing field with environmentally responsible nations? China deserves a big pollution tariff, which would be good for all concerned, particularly the ChiCom leaders who need a strong reality check to get their act together.
Here’s the LA Times article, which doesn’t mention the effects of Chinese pollution on others, but focuses on the efforts of Chinese citizens to knock some sense into politicians, which is very laudable in an authoritarian state.
Last fall, 29-year-old Fang Da, an entrepreneur and cycling enthusiast, suddenly found himself in the midst of a coughing fit after biking near his home in Hangzhou, in eastern China.
So he went to the Internet and started learning just how serious the air pollution problem was. Fang’s curiosity quickly turned into an obsession. He created an environmental awareness group called the Survival Guide to Haze on the Chinese social media site WeChat; more than 50,000 people now subscribe. He engaged in a high-profile battle with a Chinese smog mask manufacturer, calling out the company’s products as useless.
“We need citizens to get involved with the environment,” said Fang. “People … think it’s just the government’s responsibility to clean up the air. But to be honest, it’s the government that made it this way.”
The growing anger from citizens such as Fang has garnered the government’s attention.
In March, Premier Li Keqiang said China would “declare war” on pollution, acknowledging growing public anger over unchecked industrialization that has defiled the country’s skies, water and soil. The government has outlined plans to spend $275 billion on efforts to reduce air pollution between 2013 and 2017.
But as the effort gets underway, a key question facing Communist Party leaders is whether imposing strict anti-pollution measures from the top down will be enough. Cities and nations that have made the greatest progress in tackling environmental crises have been open, pluralistic systems responsive to citizen demands for change.
The countries that have been successful “have all been democratic, constitution-based societies,” said Donald Worster, an environmental historian at the University of Kansas who is now helping establish an ecological history center at People’s University in Beijing.
Environmental advocates are closely watching to see whether China can become the first authoritarian country to make significant progress on a cleanup, or whether environmental degradation might become a formidable driver of political change.
China’s leaders, said Worster, seem to be demonstrating a sincere intention of making progress, knowing that they must respond to the increasing public frustration to maintain their legitimacy.
“The Chinese are caught … between their political institutions and the rising demands and concerns of a rising middle class,” Worster said. One of the factors in the collapse of the Soviet Union, he added, was growing dissatisfaction among satellite states in Eastern Europe with widespread environmental pollution.
The problems are vast: All 74 cities surveyed by the government last year exceeded World Health Organization air standards. A report released by the Ministry of Environmental Protection this spring said 19.4% of China’s arable land is contaminated. And a 2013 study by the Ministry of Land and Resources found that nearly 60% of China had “very poor” or “relatively poor” groundwater quality.
For the all-cultures-are-equal file, there’s this: in Pakistan, a substantial proportion of men believe having sex with little boys is normal and not abusive.
Ezra Levant had a brief segment on Canada’s Sun News about the normality of child rape in Pakistan, particularly of street boys. It sounds similar to the practice of grooming boys for sex in neighboring Afghanistan, called bacha bazi.
Levant cited a recent Daily Mail article describing a Pakistani bus driver who thought it was perfectly acceptable to rape little boys:
There are 1.5 million street kids in Pakistan — an estimated 90% of them have been sexually abused at some point in their lives.
Rape in Pakistan is so common, it’s barely taboo. Last week the Daily Mail interviewed a bus driver from Peshawar who says, after his shift is over, he likes to go into the slums and rape street kids. Sometimes he pays them a dollar. But often he doesn’t – he just joins in a big gang rape.
“Once, there was a boy on the bus and everyone had sex with him,” he told theDaily Mail. “I did it too but what else could I do? They invited me. And he was that kind of boy anyway.” He says he’s raped 12 different children.
This wasn’t a solitary rapist, hiding in the shadows, afraid of being seen or being caught. This was men joining together, unworried about social norms, unworried about someone stopping them.
A poll of 1,800 Pakistani men found that a third don’t think raping street kids is a crime – and they don’t even think it’s a bad thing to do.
And then there’s so-called honour killings – where families kill their own daughters for social improprieties, real or perceived. Continue reading this article
Unlike America, Israel never forgets that it has enemies. It even has an effective airport screening system based on profiling and behavior.
Below, African asylum seekers protested Israel’s policies earlier this year.
The latest proof of effectiveness is the complaints of a human rights group that Israel deported thousands of Africans and a handful may have been questioned at home. A couple might have been treated badly in Sudan (97% Muslim), where visiting Israel is a crime.
Still, they keep coming — 60,000 Africans since 2005 and Israel is a small country, slightly larger than New Jersey.
When thousands of hostile moochers show up on a nation’s doorstep and expect the red carpet, why should any country treat such people as well as citizens when there are millions more where the foreigners came from?
JERUSALEM — Thousands of Sudanese migrants to Israel and hundreds of Eritreans have returned to their home countries this year as a result of an Israeli policy that amounts to “unlawful coercion,” Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday. The group said the migrants had been left few other options even though they were at risk of imprisonment or abuse at the hands of repressive governments back home, and despite protections Israel is obligated to provide under international treaties.
The New York-based human rights group said in a lengthy report that it had documented seven cases in which citizens of Sudan were detained and interrogated in the capital, Khartoum, on their return.
While four of the seven were released after short periods, the report said, one was tortured, a second was put in solitary confinement and a third was charged with treason for visiting Israel, which does not maintain diplomatic relations with Sudan. The group said that under Sudanese law it is a crime to visit Israel, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and that at least 6,400 Sudanese had returned between January 2013 and the end of June 2014. Continue reading this article
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.