Are Mexicans the most hypocritical people on earth?
A strong case can be made for YES.
Consider a recent question from a hispanic immigration attorney to the “Ask a Mexican” columnist. Many Mexicans claim they leave the dear homeland because of crime and corruption, but see no problem in lying to get American legalization. Are they too morally bereft to see that the misconduct in their own behavior mirrors exactly what they say they want to escape, or are the Mexes simply stupid? Or knowing hypocrites?
Dear Mexican: I’m a pocha immigration attorney. I have so many questions for you I’m thinking I should just hire you as a consultant. Why do Mexicans seem to want me to lie to them and steal their money, and tell them they can become residents even when it’s hopeless? Why can’t Mexicans answer yes or no questions, with a yes or no? Why do they have to give me long narratives that make no sense? If Mexicans claim that part of the reason they don’t want to be in Mexico is because of government corruption, then why do they ask me to lie for them, and help them to lie? Why are polleros the rudest, most aggressive clients a lawyer could ever have?
Interestingly, this individual observation lines up with recent polling from Pew. Law and order are important issues for Mexicans, according to the mainstream pollster — who knew!?
The Mexican public’s concern for crime translates to real fear. A majority of Mexicans (63%) say they are afraid to walk alone at night within a kilometer of their home. This marks a seven percentage point increase compared with last year and a 13 point increase since 2007. Both women (65%) and men (60%) express similar levels of unease regarding their safety. Mexicans in urban areas (70%), however, are much more likely to express concern about their safety than those in rural areas (43%).
That’s funny — I am afraid to walk alone at night in any area populated by Mexicans. Many a nice American neighborhood has been turned into a crime-ridden barrio with the immigration influx of Mexicans. Ask Los Angeles.
Many Mexicans are affected directly by corruption in the form of bribery. Nearly a third of all Mexicans (32%) say they have had to do a favor, give a gift or pay a bribe to a government official in exchange for services or official documents in the past year.
Bribery is most commonplace in the north of Mexico. About half of Mexicans in the North (51%) say they often have had to pay a bribe for government services or documents. This affects less people in the South (37%) and Central (26%) regions of Mexico. Those who live in the Mexico City area cite the lowest instances of corruption, with only 18% saying they have had to pay a bribe in the past year.
Law and Order a Priority
Given the Mexican public’s concern with crime and violence, it comes as no surprise that roughly two-thirds (68%) say it is more important for the government to maintain law and order than to protect personal freedoms at this time. Only 18% cite the protection of personal freedoms as more important, while 11% volunteer that both are equally important.
Mexicans of all political stripes prioritize law and order in their country. Clear majorities of Institutional Revolutionary Party supporters (70%), National Action Party supporters (69%) and Party of the Democratic Revolution supporters (66%) say that maintaining law and order is more important than personal freedoms.
Mexicans have brought all these problems and more to America wherever they congregate in large numbers. For example, kidnapping for ransom (common in Mexico) had been unknown in this country until the crime arrived with Mexicans, but it’s here now.
The Mexican way of crime is deeply embedded in the culture, and millions of legal and illegal Mexo-immigrants are importing it to America along with the tasty enchiladas so beloved by diversity advocates.
Dennis Michael Lynch is a filmmaker and concerned citizen who produced the documentaries They Come To America, I and II. He has passionately warned that open borders is a danger to America, and thinks that Obama regards nation-altering immigration as his legacy, not Obamacare: “You give amnesty to 20-30-40 million people, that changes the country forever. That is a legacy.”
Lynch appeared Friday on Fox’s Kelly File program with some new footage from the border, including interviews with rancher John Ladd and Cochise County Sheriff Mark Danells who both reported the same old chaos despite claims of the Obama administration that the place is under control.
Drug and alien smuggling continue as ever because the border is “wide open” according to the sheriff. Danells further notes that “Every time the federal government talks about amnesty, it goes up 70 percent, to the point they can’t even control it.”
Over in the Republican House, the establishment leaders have been quietly huddling to crank out measures of immigration non-enforcement that they hope will be attractive to the highly sought hispanic voter. The new thing is the Kid Act, a downsized DREAM Act, which would amnesty the kiddies but would not allow the young newbies to sponsor their lawbreaking parents, thereby breaking the line of chain migration based on illegality.
Remember the main argument of DREAMers has been that they are guiltless little victims, dragged as children against their will to the USA by adults. When the young foreigners arrive, however, they just happen to get a raft of benefits like free K-college education on the back of the unwilling taxpayer.
Unsurprisingly, the anti-borders zealots aren’t interested in an unduly generous amnesty for the innocent children: the leading raza types want the whole enchilada or nothing. Anti-borders forces are fully subscribed to the marxist globalist agenda, which includes extra permissiveness for designated victim classes, with special attention given to illegal alien criminals. Equality under law is not what they want, quite the opposite.
And anyway, why are Republicans bent on handing out rewards to lawbreakers just because of their age? Kids suffer all the time because of their parents’ bad choices, like the 2.7 million children with a parent in prison. Amnesty for the moppets would mean the adults had been successful in grabbing American benefits for their family through breaking the law.
The House Republicans’ Kids Act—a path to citizenship for undocumented youth brought here as children—has hit a stumbling block over whether those “kids” would be able to sponsor their undocumented parents for green cards after they become citizens themselves, according to people close to the negotiations. How the GOP sponsors, led by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, come down on the question could affect whether the legislation is taken seriously by Democrats and the immigrant community.
The Kids Act is viewed by many lawmakers involved in immigration talks as the fulcrum on which the entire House negotiation turns. The bill addresses the dicey question of legalization for at least one group of undocumented immigrants, and it has Republican support from rank-and-file members and party leaders. The Kids Act, combined with a border security/enforcement measure and a narrow work-visa proposal, could form the three pillars of an immigration package that would signal to Latino voters in particular that House Republicans aren’t ignoring the issue.
The problem comes when lawmakers start asking what happens to the children who eventually become citizens under the bill. Under current law, they would be allowed to sponsor family members, including parents, for green cards. That worries some Republicans who have long questioned the utility of family-based immigration in the United States. It also is of concern to any member who justifies support by saying that unauthorized immigrants brought here as children were not at fault, their parents were. Continue reading this article
The junior class of Cosumnes Oaks High School in Elk Grove, California, ordered up some special sweatshirts to mark their year of graduation, 2014. The design they chose was a Roman numeral of the number 14, which is also associated with the Mexican Norteno gang, a fact the kids did not know.
So now local police have warned the students that wearing the sweatshirts in the wrong neighborhood could get them assaulted.
Below, the school sweatshirt shown can be hazardous to a student’s health because of the diverse immigration of criminals from Mexico.
Diversity is our strength (or so liberals say), except when foreign gangsters violently object to American kids showing their school spirit.
California students cannot safely wear high school gear of their choosing because doing so might offend Mexican gang culture now implanted here. It’s another lost freedom due to diverse immigration.
Russia is an interesting place to watch regarding immigration diversity, because the Russian people seem less inclined to embrace the lunacy of political correctness. They believe that their government should respond to the needs of the Russian citizens, not put out the welcome mat for unfriendly Muslims who want to claim the territory for Allah, a sentiment that showed up in a recent rally.
Below, demonstrators carry a banner reading “Today a Mosque – Tomorrow Jihad” and showing a mosque image with a line through it in a march to mark National Unity Day, in Moscow on November 4. (The mayor of Moscow decreed in March that no more mosques would be built in the city.)
It’s likely the recent murder of an ethnic Russian man by a Muslim was strong in the minds of demonstrators. A TV news report noted at the time that “An uncontrolled flow of illegal migrants has turned the neighborhood into a crime center.”
And in daily life, Muslims have not been good neighbors, sometimes behaving as if they aimed to impose sharia. A young Russian woman explained her fears about pushy Muslims to a CBN reporter: “I am scared. They come into our neighborhood and begin to tell us things we can and cannot do. We like to walk our dogs here and have outdoor barbecues, but the Muslims can say you cannot cook pork or walk your dog around here.”
Here’s more about Monday’s demonstration. Media reports routinely characterize the participants as being “right wing” without explaining the reasons for the anger. Some rough characters show up at such events to be sure, but their opposition to immigration chaos is a widely held view, as shown by polling.
MOSCOW – Thousands of Russian nationalists rallied across the country on National Unity Day on Monday, in a sign of the growing strength of far-right political forces galvanized by an anti-immigrant agenda.
Hard-line nationalists have adopted the holiday, which commemorates the liberation of Moscow from Polish invaders in 1612, as an occasion to hold annual “Russian Marches”.
This year’s rallies were larger and more numerous than in previous years, in a headache for Russian authorities who worry that rising ethnic tensions pose a threat to public order.
At the largest rally, around 8,000 people assembled in an working-class neighborhood on the outskirts of Moscow, police said. Organizers’ requests to hold the rally closer to the city center have repeatedly been denied.
“Moscow has only just woken up, and Russians have only just started to recognize their identity,” said Alexander Belov, a nationalist leader and an organizer of the march. “With every day Russian nationalists are gaining more and more support across the country.”
Police said they detained around 30 marchers for wearing masks or forbidden Nazi symbols, and for other minor public order offences. No serious disturbances were reported.
Smaller demonstrations, attracting hundreds or dozens of participants, were held in towns and cities across Russia.
Although nationalist organizations attract the active support of only a small minority of Russians, they tap into widespread public concerns over immigration and disenchantment among Russian youths.
Many ordinary Russians are deeply hostile to immigrants from the largely Muslim regions of Central Asia and the Caucasus, blaming them for problems such as crime and unemployment.
A recent survey by the Levada Center polling agency, taken on the eve of Moscow’s mayoral election in September, showed that immigration topped voters’ concerns. More than half of respondents said it worried them more than any other problem. Continue reading this article
The Refugee Industrial Complex wants us to believe that asylum seekers are poor little waifs who need the help of the too-rich West. But some of the demanding refugee crowd are dangerous characters, as was demonstrated recently in rural Norway, where a knife-wielding Sudanese man murdered three on a bus after he had been refused asylum.
The name of the killer has not yet been released, so we don’t know whether he is a Mohammed, and the religious identity remains to be seen. The killer is reportedly from South Sudan, which is more Christian than Muslim. Perhaps he was just homicidally angry in the style of African refugees, who appears to feel particularly entitled to European wealth. One thinks of the 2011 Lampedusa riot in this regard, where men fleeing the Arab Spring burned down the refugee center and rampaged through the town because of their dissatisfaction with treatment.
Below, Margaret Molland Sanden, a 19-year-old biotechnology student at the Oslo and Akerhus University College of Applied Sciences, was one of the three victims knifed to death.
There were only three persons on the bus, so the refugee killed all of the riders on board.
The man accused of stabbing to death a woman and two men on an express bus in western Norway was an asylum seeker from South Sudan who was due to be deported from Norway on Tuesday, VG has reported.
The 31-year-old, who was living at an asylum reception centre in Årdal, was due to be deported to Spain on Tuesday, after having his application rejected in June.
“This person had applied for asylum, and come to Norway in April,” a spokesman for Norway’s immigration directorate said. “He was rejected in June, and was supposed to be returned to Spain under the so-called Dublin Regulation.”
The man is accused of killing the bus driver, Arve Haug Bagn (55) and Margaret Molland Sanden, a 19-year-old biotechnology student at the Oslo and Akerhus University College of Applied Sciences. The third victim, a Swedish man in his 50s, has not been named.
Following the Boston Marathon bombing in which three were killed and hundreds injured, iconic footraces have come to be seen as major targets for jihadist Muslims. As a result, events like the New York City Marathon now require a huge investment of extra money and police resources to protect the occasion from terrorism. The NYC marathon is no longer a simple celebration of individual athletic excellence, but now is another victim of diverse Muslim immigration.
New restrictions were in place. Runners may no longer wear vests with large pockets, or carry backpacks or even CamelBak bags holding water. The meandering route of the Sunday event was designed to showcase the city, running through all of the five boroughs. Sunday’s runners may not have noticed the city sights, though, preoccupied as they were with security visible along 26 miles. The extra protection measures included surveillance from helicopters and 1400 cameras located along the route, plus bomb-sniffing dogs and scuba divers checking out the waterways.
The dollar cost for security was $1 million, money that could have been used far more productively, but at least the race went off safely and that’s the important thing. Congratulations to organizers and the NYPD.
Nicolai Sennels is a Danish psychologist who writes about Muslim culture. His observations come from a background of having worked among Muslims held in prison, where he noticed “certain antisocial patterns.”
His current piece explains the idea that followers of Islam have remained backward for its 1400-year history by creating a culture of isolation and rejection of any influence deemed non-Islamic.
The topic of immigration is not mentioned per se in Sennels’ article, but the social directives that make Islam a fortress against outside ideas also mean that Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate. He has noted elsewhere that “the integration of Muslims will never happen” and is an effective voice against Muslim immigration because of his professional expertise.
Muslim immigration acts as a form of colonization, since they have no intention of integrating into the receiving nation. In fact, as soon as Muslims congregate in sufficient numbers in a neighborhood, they may turn it into a “no go zone” for westerners where sharia law is recommended, and may be violently enforced. A recent example of this territoriality was the brutal beating of American student Francesco Hounye by a Muslim gang in London angered at his drinking a beer in their sharia zone.
Muslims live by the millions in the West, yet they don’t see the connection between individual freedom and reason for creating progress. They are content to purchase western-built technology their culture in incapable of creating, from cell phones to advanced weapons, to use to destroy the civilization that produced them. Plus, as the author notes, widespread cousin-marriage inbreeding doesn’t help to alleviate the negative attitude toward knowledge in general.
While almost all other cultures changed from primitive and medieval to democratic and egalitarian societies, one culture managed to keep even its most brutal and backward traditions and values for 1,400 years until today. Still today, the majority of Muslims prefer to live by values that can be traced all the way back to the desert tribes in which the founder of their religion lived. Getting to know life in Muslim families and societies is like traveling back in time to the time of Muhammad. Here one finds shocking laws and traditions that are obviously criminal and inhumane — but for some reason accepted — in our otherwise humanistic culture.
While non-Muslim scientists invent new fantastic medicines and technologies daily, discover the most amazing things about the universe, its building blocks and inhabitants, and Western voters and politicians have created the most humane, rich and free societies in world history, most Islamic countries are still amputating limbs for theft, stoning women and homosexuals, heavily inbred, denying people free speech and democracy, and contributing absolutely nothing when it comes to science, human rights or peace.
What are the cultural psychological factors making Islam able to stay medieval for 1,400 years?
One main factor is that while all other religions allow their followers to interpret their holy scriptures, thereby making them relatively adaptable to secular law, human rights and individual needs, Islam categorizes Muslims who do not take the Quran literally as apostates. And according to Islamic law, the sharia, apostasy is to be punished with death. The sharia thus makes it impossible for Islamic societies ever to develop into modern, humanistic civilisations.
The fact that Muslims deviating from the Quranic world view are to be punished has the direct consequence that scientific facts conflicting with the naive and childish world view held in pre-Enlightenment cultures are suppressed. Together with massive inbreeding — 70 percent of Pakistanis, 45 percent of Arabs and at least 30 percent of Turks are from first cousin-marriages (often through many generations) — this has resulted in the embarrassing fact that the Muslim world produces only one tenth of the world average when it comes to scientific research, and are dramatically under-represented among Nobel Prize winners. Fewer books have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year. Continue reading this article
REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WIS.): Not now, but in the future we’re going to have labor shortages. We have 10,000 people retiring each and everyday in America when the Baby Boomers retire. We are not like Europe, we’re not like Japan in that our birthrates are really low, but they’re not high enough. Immigration, in a decade or so, can help us. That means we need to get an immigration system that works. We need an immigration system that works to bring people to this country who want to contribute. (The Laura Ingraham Show, June 19, 2013)
Could someone please tell these oblivious Republicans that America’s need for more workers in coming decades will be substantially reduced by automation and robotics? We don’t need tens of millions of additional workers imported from abroad.
A new trend is brewing in the coffee world: coffee prepared by a robot, able to be preordered via cellphone and picked up at an unmanned kiosk, perfectly adjusted to your taste and ready to go.
To some, this might seem lamentable: the beginning of the end of coffee shops as we know them. No more huddling around warm cups of coffee with friends or sipping a refreshing iced latte while reading.
But to others, this might be just what they’ve waited for: no lines when you’re in a rush, and coffee prepared by a machine that is programmed to make it perfectly time and time again.
The latest company to present such a coffee kiosk is Austin-based Briggo. As Quartz recently reported, Briggo opened its first kiosk on the University of Texas’ Austin campus in July of this year. The kiosk — dubbed “The Coffee Haus” — takes up about 50 square feet of space, has a nice exterior wood design, and accepts orders either on-site or across campus via a website, informing the customer precisely when the drink will be ready. Continue reading this article
When Janet Napolitano was in charge of the Department of Homeland Security, the illegal alien hacks thought she deported too many of them. (However, it has been known for some time that the deportation figures of the current administration were inflated — Obama admitted the numbers were “deceptive” back in 2011.)
In her first major address in her new gig as head of the University of California system, she made a point of plopping down some serious cash for illegal alien students who want a free ride to UC — $5 million, at a time when the university has been struggling with its budget and tuition has been marching ever upward.
Yet Janet Napolitano can find $5 million in loose change to make the lives of foreign lawbreakers still easier as they take college slots that should go to California young people. Illegal alien students already get taxpayer-subsidized tuition and financial aid, but apparently that red carpet treatment was not enough and now they must have special advisors.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — University of California President Janet Napolitano said Wednesday she is devoting $5 million to provide special counseling and financial aid for students living in the U.S. illegally, a move aimed at disarming critics who worried she would be hostile to the small but vocal student population.
The former Homeland Security Secretary announced the initiative in her first public address since she became head of the 10-campus university system a month ago — an evening appearance in San Francisco organized by the Commonwealth Club. She also pledged $10 million for recruiting and training graduate students and post-doctoral research fellows.
“Let me be clear. UC welcomes all students who qualify academically, whether they are documented or undocumented,” she told an audience of several hundred people. “Consider this a down payment — one more piece of evidence of our commitment to all Californians.”
Napolitano said the money earmarked for immigrant students would be used for financial aid and to hire advisers at each campus who could provide guidance on matters ranging from how to pursue legal U.S. residency to applying for graduate school.
“They do merit special attention,” she said. “Oftentimes they are from families who are very poor and first-generation, so have no one out there to talk to them about student life.”
University officials estimate that out of a student population of 239,000, the UC system enrolls about 900 students who were brought into the country illegally as children, a group of immigrants known as “dreamers” because of the stalled U.S. DREAM Act that would give certain youth a path to permanent residency.
As part of a bill signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, California this year started allowing students who are not legal U.S. residents and are therefore ineligible for most types of federal financial aid to apply for state grants and scholarships.
UC spokeswoman Dianne Klein said later that the $15 million Napolitano pledged in her remarks — $5 million for immigrant student support and $10 million for graduate students and research fellows — would not come from tuition or the university’s state-funded operating budget. It will be drawn from reserves in accounts the system has used to help finance faculty mortgages and campus efficiency projects, Klein said. Continue reading this article
Texas Congressman Mike McCaul (R-TX) appeared on the Laura Ingraham radio show Wednesday and was refreshingly clear in denouncing the idea of House members conferencing with the Senate to legalize millions of illegal aliens.
Ingraham: Should the Republicans in the House go to conference on the issue of immigration this year?
McCaul: No. The answer is No. I talked to Speaker Boehner directly about this. I have a border security bill, I’ve been trying to get that border secure for the entire time I’ve been up here, for ten years, and as chairman I want to get this thing finally done and that’s what my constituents want, but I am not gonna go down the road of conferencing with the Senate CIR bill and I told Boehner that he needed to stand up and make that very clear that we are not going to conference with the Senate on this. We are not going to conference with the Senate, period.
Laura, I was invited to the White House yesterday, and I refused to meet with the president because I saw it as a political trap.
I am not pushing for immigration reform, I’ve been against amnesty my entire career. I’m simply interested in getting the security piece done. And we have to do that, first and foremost.
If only the rest of the House Repubs were so forthright in denouncing open borders. The 1986 amnesty was a complete failure, all carrot and no stick. But instead of learning from past mistakes, too many Republicans want to repeat the mistake only on steroids. And double legal immigration during a jobs depression of five years duration.
MR. DRISCOLL: This is Ed Driscoll for PJ Media.com, and we’re talking today with Heather Mac Donald, a contributing editor of City Journal magazine, and the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. She’s also one of several contributors, including PJ Media’s own Andrew Klavan and Victor Davis Hanson, to the new publication by City Journal magazine titled, The Beholden State: California’s Lost Promise and How to Recapture It. And Heather, thanks for stopping by today.
MS. MAC DONALD: Thanks, Ed.
MR. DRISCOLL: Heather, perhaps the best place to start is with the most open-ended question. California — how did it all go so wrong?
MS. MAC DONALD: Well, Ed, there’s still much that’s right, of course. I mean, it is one — I think it is one — I think it’s the most beautiful state in the country; as a native, I’m obviously a little prejudiced, but I think it is a exemplar of identity politics, for one thing. There’s too many institutions that are convinced that the most important thing about its residents is their racial or ethnic national origin identity and — and increasingly, of course, gender and sexual identity. And we see that playing out in university admissions, in ideas about crime and policing and immigration policy, and I think that’s a betrayal of what California used to mean, which was a real meritocratic ideal, that anybody who came, through hard work could really move ahead and the — the state welcomed talent and achievement and did not worry about disparate impact or racial proportionality. 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.