When the Iraqi tried to obtain permanent residency in 2011, his request was denied “pursuant to the terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility” under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Yet as a part of the current sentence, Aldosary is required to have three years supervised probation plus mental health treatment upon release, as explained in the following article. Wait, what about the murder and bombing?
And what does it take to deport a dangerous foreigner these days?
A Coolidge man awaiting prosecution in state court for murder and attempted murder, among other charges, was sentenced Monday to five years in federal prison stemming from his Sept. 20 conviction of being a felon in possession of firearms and of ammunition.
Abdullatif Ali Aldosary, 48, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Monday morning in Phoenix. The judge combined his sentences, pointing out that he faced up to 10 years in prison on the three counts. Aldosary has 14 days to appeal his federal sentence.
Additionally, Aldosary was fined $7,500 and ordered to pay a $100 court fee. He was sentenced to three years supervised probation after he’s released from federal prison, ordered to participate in a mental health program and to have no contact with any employees of the Casa Grande Social Security office.
“The court believes the defendant presents an extreme danger to the community,” Bolton said during the sentencing hearing. Continue reading this article
Two small enclaves of Spain lie on the coast of Morocco and are a gateway to Europe for voracious African men anxious to reach the gravy train. Ceuta and Melilla, shown on the map, have increasingly been a magnet for Africans seeking free stuff in the European welfare states.
Spain has spent a lot of money to fortify the cities against the violent intruders, but they are insistent. Over 200 broke in on the night of February 28, a major assault numerically.
The invasion is another version of Camp of the Saints, only overland rather than using boats (an influx which is still happening through the southern Italy island of Lampedusa). Speaking of that prescient novel, its author, Jean Raspail, said in an interview last year that he felt that European civilization was being overwhelmed by millions of diverse foreigners who refuse to assimilate.
They keep coming, because culturally weakened Europe has no stomach to keep them out.
On the most recent JihadWatch segment on Canada’s SunTV, a major topic of Michael Coren and Robert Spencer was the sentencing of the two Islamic thugs to life in prison for the daytime slaughter of a British soldier on a London street.
On last May 22, two Africans ran down fusilier Lee Rigby as he walked on a street near the Royal Artillery Barracks, then they proceeded to hack the injured man to death with knives. (The loyal sons of Allah often shrink back from a fair fight, preferring uneven attacks.) While killer Michael Adebolajo (pictured) held a bloody meat cleaver, he lectured local passers-by about the Islamic principles for the cold-blooded murder.
As Judge Sweeney sentenced the two men, he took time to remark, “You each converted to Islam some years ago. Thereafter you were radicalised and each became an extremist, espousing views which, as has been said elsewhere, are a betrayal of Islam.”
Delusional politicians in thrall to diversity, from George Bush to Tony Blair, don’t want to admit the level to which they have endangered their nations by allowing Muslim immigration to continue, so they spout the lie that Islam is a “religion of peace.”
The administration wants the citizens to trust it to perform immigration enforcement, but it can’t even keep a convicted terrorist bomber from working in its signature social welfare program.
The government doesn’t do a good job screening new immigrants, as illustrated by the number of war criminals admitted over the years. And lately, the feds have decided to weaken screening standards so lots of Syrian Muslims can be received as refugees. Public safety and national security are not a high priority in Washington these days.
It can be hard to determine the backgrounds of people from dicey dirt-bag countries, but the terrorist in question was imprisoned in Israel, an ally which presumably has shareable accurate records of such things. Hopefully the perp, Rasmieh Yousef Odeh, will get maximum prosecution, but that is not a sure thing in today’s non-enforcement environment.
As shown by the photo of a rally in Odeh’s behalf, she has support among the anti-American Palestinian immigrants residing in the country. Why does Washington continue to admit enemies? How many lives is diversity worth?
A terrorist from Jordan briefly worked as an Obamacare navigator in Illinois while authorities remained unaware of her conviction for involvement in a deadly grocery store bombing and two other attacks.
Rasmieh Yousef Odeh was convicted in Israel for her role in several bombings, including the 1969 attack on an upscale Shufersol grocery store, which killed two Hebrew University students who had stopped in to buy groceries for a hiking trip in the Jerusalem hills. Leon Kanner and Eddie Joffe were killed by a bomb hidden in a candy box tucked on a shelf, which also injured nine or 10 others, according to a website maintained by the Israeli government to commemorate terror victims.
The Illinois Department of Insurance quietly revoked Odeh’s certification as a Navigator In-Person Counselor on November 24, explaining in a disciplinary report that the decision was “based on an investigation which revealed that she had been convicted in Israel for her role in the bombings of a supermarket and the British Consulate in Jerusalem and failed to reveal the conviction on her application.” Continue reading this article
It can be iffy to compare polling done by different companies, since the exact wording can affect outcome. Still, a recent Rasmussen survey may reflect considerable disillusion in government, perhaps as a result of the monumental failure of Obamacare.
Voters have a slightly more favorable view of the federal government this month, but they still want less of it. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 36% have a favorable opinion of the federal government. Most voters (59%) continue to view the federal government unfavorably. These findings include just six percent (6%) who have a Very Favorable impression of the federal government and 25% who view it Very Unfavorably. (To see survey question wording, click here.) [. . .]
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on February 20-21, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Compare this with a 2012 Pew poll, designed to show cultural diversity of hispanics, where just 48 percent of the general population would opt for smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes. Hispanic immigrants have a liking for big government that lasts generations even as they reside in America, as shown by the Pew investigation:
The good news is that American voters have gotten a big reminder in recent months from Obamacare of how smaller government works better, as the Constitution wisely designed. The bad news is that importing big-government hispanics via immigration will be even more desirable for Democrats who want to fundamentally change the country to a full-service liberal tyranny.
How stupid are judges to take the word of a stone-cold gangster that he has renounced a life of crime, particularly when the criminal gets a big payoff for the lie, er statement? But that’s what happened in a recent appeals court decision which could set a dangerous precedent.
Besides, if a gangster fears his MS-13 buddies, many of them reside in this country, so there would be no greater safety here than in the alien’s homeland.
KRIS KOBACH: “Once one case like this emerges, where an illegal alien is able to avoid deportation, particularly a criminal one like this guy, then the word spreads in the jails and in the prisons that to avoid being sent home you just have to renounce your gang membership like he did. I fear we’re going to see a lot of gang members all across the United States, illegal alien gang members, and these are very deadly gangs, doing what this guy did now and saying ‘you can’t deport me now.’
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Va.) today sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking what the Department of Justice plans to do in light of a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that could endanger our communities by allowing criminal gang members to receive asylum in the United States or withholding of removal by simply claiming that they have renounced their membership in the gang. In the case of Martinez v. Holder, the court ruled that Julio Martinez, an unlawful immigrant from El Salvador, could stay in the United States because he renounced his membership in the notoriously deadly MS-13 gang and returning to El Salvador could jeopardize his safety. This decision encourages fraud and creates a new loophole where gang members can simply claim that they are no longer a member of a gang in order to game the immigration system. This undermines the federal government’s ability to enforce our immigration laws and promote public safety.
Below are excerpts of the letter. To view the full letter, click here.
“We are concerned that based on this decision [by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit], gang members will be able to receive asylum or withholding in the U.S., simply by telling immigration authorities that they have renounced their membership in the gang. In the Martinez case, an MS-13 gang member did just that. Surely it is likely that when gang members are placed in removal proceedings, they will claim that they are no longer a member of a gang and have renounced gang membership in an attempt to circumvent removal. Even aliens who have in fact left gangs were members of criminal organizations and do not deserve the protections of asylum or withholding.
“We are deeply troubled by this decision as it interferes with the Federal Government’s ability to effectively enforce our immigration laws. Decisions such as this are serious impediments to both the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) ability to promote public safety through the removal of deportable aliens who may be involved with organized criminal activity.
“It is no secret that criminal gangs are a continuing national problem … Current and former gang members should not be shielded by our asylum or withholding system. Indeed, the Committee has already marked up legislation, HR. 2278 – the SAFE Act, which clarifies that anyone who is or has been a member of a gang may not receive asylum or withholding on any grounds … While the Committee has done its part, we would like to know what DOJ plans to do to address this problem.”
After the 2012 failure of the GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, there was plenty of anger, recrimination and fault-finding, but the Republican Party made no changes of personnel at the top. In March of the following year, Reince Preibus promised $10 million for diverse outreach, which seems only to have gone for the promotion of amnesty on behalf of the establishment.
Now, well over a year past a stunning loss, the GOP’s voters don’t see much has been learned from the debacle, given the Pew finding that only 28 percent of Republicans see party communication as adequate, 70 percent regard it as fair or poor.
The suits have lost faith in conservative principles and the leadership has attacked the Tea Party grassroots instead of embracing them. The Republicans should be using the failure of Obamacare as the teachable moment of the century, illustrating the danger of overgrown autocratic liberalism. But the lack of a clear voice for constitutional principles may make the party seem unreliable to independent voters.
The moment requires courage, but the Republicans are shrinking back in fear, hoping that they can win in November by keeping a low profile. It doesn’t help that the House leaders support open borders and need to be threatened with a revolution in the grassroots ranks to pull back on amnesty for the time being.
In short, the establishment Republican Party doesn’t articulate principles of limited government and national sovereignty well because it doesn’t believe in them. That’s hard to trust.
Congressional Republicans’ unhappiness with their party’s performance has been evident for months. Most recently, just 12 percent of House Republicans voted for a bill to raise the debt ceiling, whose scheduled vote resulted in at least one Tea Party group calling for Speaker John Boehner’s removal.
GOP members of Congress aren’t the only Republicans disappointed with the party’s policies. In January, even before the debt ceiling vote, just 28% of Republicans and Republican leaners said the GOP was doing a good or excellent job in standing up for its traditional positions of smaller government, tax-cutting and conservative social values, while seven-in-ten (70%) rated their party’s job as “only fair” or “poor.”
The percentage of Republicans and leaners who rate the party’s performance positively has fallen 12 points since the GOP took control of the House in November 2010, according to a Pew Research survey last month. Over the past decade, the only time Republicans have been more negative about their party was in April 2009 — in the wake of Barack Obama’s election victory — when 21% rated the job it was doing as excellent or good.
Democrats, on the other hand, have become more likely to say their party is standing up for its traditional positions. Roughly half of Democrats and those who lean Democratic (49%) rated their party as doing an excellent or good job on things such as protecting minorities’ interests, representing working people and helping the poor and needy. This is up 11 points from August 2011, but about the same as November 2010. Continue reading this article
With so much gibberish emanating from the White House and its willing stenographers on the topic of jobs and the economy, sometimes the rock-bottom basics need to be explained to those who may never have heard of them.
In a discussion of Obama’s pitch for government raising the minimum wage, Ann Coulter re-explained the concept of supply and demand, and how excessive immigration is mauling American workers. More immigration means additional competitors for every individual job, not very nice of our government at a time when more the 20 million citizens are jobless.
ANN COULTER: The reason the natural minimum wage, what people are being paid at the low end of the scale, is so low is because our immigration policies are dumping millions of low-wage workers on America, so I think Republicans should introduce a bill saying no more immigration until the minimum wage that employers need to pay through the laws of supply and demand just rises. A country like Australia, which has very restricted immigration policies, has an extremely low unemployment rate and a minimum wage that is just naturally about twice what ours is.
We Republicans believe in supply and demand, and Democrats believe in everything being a handout from government whether it’s because you lost your job because of the minimum wage, we’ll give you food stamps and unemployment insurance, or we, the beneficent government, will give you this minimum wage. That isn’t the way a natural market works. We need to cut off immigration until the minimum wage naturally rises. [. . .]
[Immigration] is part of what is leading to income inequality, and as a result of income inequality it is the people at the top of the income scale who want lots and lots of low-wage workers. They want enough to start building the pyramids. They want to have gardeners and nannies and maids and pay them less and less and less, so low-wage workers coming in through our immigration policy are fantastic for the ultra-rich; it’s very bad for the people who are competing for those jobs.
Just when you thought the crazies running the government couldn’t run any further off the rails, there’s this. The feds failed to convict a Somali pirate, whom they transported to the United States from Somalia for trial, and now he has applied for asylum and may well get it.
Good work, Eric Holder! He chose to try the pirate in federal court in the United States rather than in a military tribunal in Gitmo, and this travesty against national security is the result.
On Saturday, Tucker Carlson interviewed Berkeley law professor John Yoo about this horrifying case. (Spare link here.)
One of Obama’s big projects has been to close the Guantanamo prison, even after over $500 million has been spent to make life comfy for jihadist headchoppers. Apparently the idea was that if George Bush’s Gitmo were shut, then Muslims around the world would love America, or something. For a while, the administration planned to move the murderers to a spare prison near Chicago, but the scheme was too unpopular to force through.
The problem is that when foreign terrorists, or any criminals, are relocated to the US, they get a lot more legal rights. The open door for the Somali pirate could be a terrible precedent, a topic discussed in Politico.
The failed prosecution of an alleged Somali pirate — and the fact that that failure could leave him living freely, and permanently, inside U.S. borders — is highlighting anew the risks of trying terror suspects in American courts.
Just a few weeks ago, Ali Mohamed Ali was facing the possibility of a mandatory life sentence in a 2008 shipjacking off the coast of Yemen — an incident much like the one dramatized in the film “Captain Phillips.” Now, the Somali native is in immigration detention in Virginia and seeking permanent asylum in the United States.
Ali, who was accused of piracy for acting as a translator and negotiator for a crew of pirates, was partially acquitted by a jury in November after a trial in Washington. Prosecutors initially vowed a retrial but decided last month to drop the rest of the case against him.
That’s just the kind of situation that opponents of U.S. criminal trials for Al Qaeda suspects caught abroad have long feared: The government falls short at trial — and the courts eventually order an accused terror figure freed to live legally among Americans.
“It’s a trial, not a play. You don’t know how it’s going to end,” said Cully Stimson, a former military prosecutor and defense official now at The Heritage Foundation. “Justice has all sorts of twists and turns. … It really has to be thought through at the highest level of government before we take action to bring someone here.”
One current federal terrorism prosecutor said the Ali case and the potential for his eventual release is another reason why foreign Al Qaeda suspects picked up overseas should not be brought to the United States but should instead be detained at Guantánamo or some other facility.
“It’s a significant risk … to say, ‘Oh well, we’ll just turn him over to the immigration service’” if a criminal case falls apart, said the prosecutor, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly. “You can’t count on the justice system working out just the way you want it to.” Continue reading this article
Liberals think it’s just mean to insist that immigrants learn English; they would rather Americans be forced to speak Spanish. So in places like Mexifornia, powerful forces nudge the society toward acceptance of the invaders’ language (aka cultural surrender), maybe because bilingualism has been such a famous failure for Canada, and liberals like to employ chaos as a means to greater control.
In Sacramexico (the source of much evil), a busybody Democrat wants to erase Prop 227 which was essentially an effort to end “bilingual education” aka teaching diverse kiddies in Spanish. California’s earlier program of Spanish-language classrooms kept foreign kids balkanized and unassimilated, as well as providing lots of teaching jobs for Mexicans. The 1998 proposition passed 61% to 39%.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A state senator on Thursday proposed repealing Proposition 227, the 16-year-old law that banned most bilingual education in public schools.
Sen. Ricardo Lara introduced SB1174. If passed by the Legislature, it would place a measure on the November 2016 state ballot to repeal Proposition 227.
The ability to speak more than one language is an invaluable skill in the global economy but in California, most students don’t receive foreign language instruction until high school, the Long Beach Democrat said in a statement.
“English will always remain the official language of California, but we cannot ignore the growing need to have a multilingual workforce,” said Lara, whose district includes many Spanish-speaking immigrants. [. . .]
Indeed, English is the official language of California, not that it does much good. The growing presence of Spanish is another example that changing demography is a force of nature and hard to resist. Immigration should therefore be ZERO, for many reasons.
Closer to Mexico, UCLA is willing to pay taxpayer money for workers to become Spanish speaking. The policy is yet another push toward Spanish as a language equal to English in California. The steps may be gradual, but the goal is clear.
UCLA will foot the bill for its employees to learn to speak Spanish under a new program launched this month at the Southern California-based public university.
Employees can take the class during working hours as well as get the cost of the Spanish course – $177 – reimbursed by their department budgets, campus officials told The College Fix.
“It is important as a university and employer that we are on the cutting edge providing our staff with the necessary tools needed to meet the future,” Lee Walton, a UCLA diversity coordinator, said in an email to The College Fix. “The exciting opportunity for a staff employee to learn a language during working hours is priceless.” Continue reading this article
In a decision of the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court, judges allowed that an illegal alien MS-13 gangster could get on a path to citizenship because he had renounced his gang affiliation. A couple of Republican House members are upset at the precedent that decision would set, but perhaps the judges had merely absorbed the spirit of the immigration expansion bill passed by the Senate last year.
The National ICE Council, an organization of immigration enforcement officers, wrote a letter warning the Senate that the legislation was too permissive toward criminals:
[. . .] Section 3701 of S. 744 states that illegal immigrants who are members of street gangs – most of which are heavily involved in criminal activity and violent crimes in the communities and areas we police – simply have to claim that they renounce their gang affiliation in order to obtain a waiver that would make them admissible to the U.S., and potentially eligible for legalization and eventual citizenship. We anticipate, as should Congress, that many gang members will falsely claim to renounce their association with criminal street gangs to obtain legal status and continue engaging in unlawful conduct in the United States. [. . .]
I checked the final version of the bill which passed, and the forgiveness remains “if the alien has renounced all association with the criminal street gang.”
Could al Qaeda be considered a criminal gang? What if the remaining cutthroats being held at Gitmo claimed to renounce affiliation with their jihad gang — could they claim asylum in America?
In the wake of an appeals court ruling allowing an illegal immigrant gang member to remain in the country because he renounced his membership, a couple of GOP lawmakers are calling on the Justice Department to appeal.
On Jan. 23 in the matter of Martinez v. Holder, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Julio Martinez, an illegal immigrant MS-13 member from El Salvador, could remain in the U.S. because he renounced his membership and that gang members in El Salvador would kill him if he returns.
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Virginia Republican Rep. Randy Forbes pressed DOJ on next steps, given the grave precedent the ruling set. Continue reading this article
The awareness of officials that national security needs active protection has not been completely erased by the passage of time since the 9/11 attacks. One measure: a federal judge has rejected a lawsuit from unfriendlies that would have stopped police from surveilling mosques.
In fact, mosques are sometimes centers of murderous plots against non-Muslims, as expressed in the Islamic poem observing, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…”
Interestingly, the Associated Press story noted (in later paragraphs) that the judge scolded the AP for publishing confidential police documents in an attempt to thwart the protection of the citizens. In the liberal media universe, jihad diversity counts more than public safety.
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that the New York Police Department’s surveillance of Muslims in New Jersey was a lawful effort to prevent terrorism, not a civil rights violation.
In a decision filed Thursday in federal court in Newark, U.S. District Judge William Martini dismissed a lawsuit brought in 2012 by eight Muslims who alleged that the NYPD’s surveillance programs were unconstitutional because they focused on religion, national origin and race. The suit accused the department of spying on ordinary people at mosques, restaurants and schools in New Jersey since 2002.
Martini said he was not convinced that the plaintiffs were targeted solely because of their religion. “The more likely explanation for the surveillance was to locate budding terrorist conspiracies,” he wrote.
The judge added: “The police could not have monitored New Jersey for Muslim terrorist activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself.”
Farhaj Hassan, a plaintiff in the case and a U.S. soldier who served in Iraq, said he was disappointed by the ruling.
“I have dedicated my career to serving my country, and this just feels like a slap in the face — all because of the way I pray,” he said.
The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York and the California-based civil rights organization Muslim Advocates, which represented the plaintiffs, also called the decision troubling.
“In addition to willfully ignoring the harm that our innocent clients suffered from the NYPD’s illegal spying program, by upholding the NYPD’s blunderbuss Muslim surveillance practices, the court’s decision gives legal sanction to the targeted discrimination of Muslims anywhere and everywhere in this country, without limitation, for no other reason than their religion,” CCR Legal Director Baher Azmy said.
The lawsuit followed a series of stories by The Associated Press based on confidential NYPD documents that showed how the department sought to infiltrate dozens of mosques and Muslim student groups in New York and elsewhere.
Martini faulted the AP for its use of the documents.
“The Associated Press covertly obtained the materials and published them without authorization,” he wrote. “Thus the injury, if any existed, is not fairly traceable to the city.”
The AP declined to comment on the ruling.
The city’s Law Department also declined comment. Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had been staunch supporters of the surveillance programs, saying they were needed to protect the city from terrorist attacks.
A similar lawsuit filed in federal court in Brooklyn is still pending.
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.