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.
It’s disappointing to see smart people like Pat Buchanan misstate the point of the current amnesty dust-up by talking about a “path to citizenship,” a phrase he used twice in the brief clip below, as if that were the goal of unlawful foreigners.
Millions of illegals don’t endanger their lives crossing the hazardous Arizona desert so they can become American citizens and participate in our wonderful elections. They come for the immediate gratification of more money in the very near future.
Of course, the Democrat party and the raza bunch want the foreigners as voters ASAP in order to expand the political power of leftists and ethnic tribalists.
But the illegals themselves are here for the money, period. And any free stuff they can mooch from Uncle Sucker.
The promise of Marco Rubio and the Gang of Eight that illegals would get probationary legal status with an accompanying work permit on day one has been played expertly by raza propagandists, with help from naive triangulators like Senator Rubio.
The little migrants will have to wait years to get a real green card and be on the “path to citizenship” but meanwhile they can remain here and work legally. That’s hardly going to the real back of the line, like in Manila or Mexico City, where would-be legal immigrants continue to wait long years for entry.
But the public yammering is mostly about the “path to citizenship” not the immediate bonanza of the employment keys to the kingdom. (Although Ann Coulter commented that Rubio’s plan is a “wolf in wolf’s clothing” and assessed the ability to live and work legally in the US as “the Hope Diamond of the universe.”)
In addition, much discussion has also been conveniently funneled toward the border security tar baby, definitely a stubborn pustule in the national flesh, however workplace security is far more central to the employment magnet. No jobs, no mobs of illegal aliens here to steal them. We need to focus more on the central issues and not the extraneous.
For starters, repeat this phrase until it takes hold:
The one good thing about the firearms debate ginned up by Obama’s gun grabbers is the increased reporting of successful instances of self-defense showing up in the media. Most don’t get reported at all; the press prefers to broadcast the bad news that includes guns.
Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson of UCLA said, “We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year.” Other estimates put the number in the millions.
Today, for example, I saw two examples of armed self-defense that made me smile.
It is particularly sweet when a 70-year-old man, a high school basketball coach, can use his gun to protect himself and two young players. The criminals doubtless saw an old man and two teen girls as an easy mark, but the coach’s handgun reversed that scenario.
(WXYZ) – Police sources tell 7 Action News that a women’s basketball coach from Martin Luther King, Jr. Senior High School shot two men who attacked him as he was walking two basketball players to their cars in the school parking lot.
Police sources say the coach was walking the two girls to their cars when two men allegedly approached and one pulled out a gun and grabbed him by his chain necklace. The coach then pulled out his gun and shot both of them, according to sources.
The man who shot the attackers was 70 years old, according to police. [. . .]
Further south, a Magnolia, Texas, mom named Erin faced three Spanish-speaking thugs who broke into her house, where she managed to plunk one, though the other two escaped.
The wonders of firearms against diverse criminals!
In the video below at the 1:41 point, Erin says “They started talking to each other in Spanish. . .”
MAGNOLIA, Texas – A home invasion suspect was arrested at a hospital after a mother shot him during the crime at a Montgomery County home, deputies said Wednesday.
Erin, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told Local 2 she was putting her 6-year-old son to bed when she heard a loud noise coming from her bedroom on Mink Lake Drive Friday night.
“I threw the cover over my son and I took off running, screaming to the living room to let my dogs out,” she said.
Erin said she turned around and saw three masked men, pointing a gun right at her.
“When I saw three of them, I knew I was in a lot of trouble. I said, ‘The TV is the most expensive thing I own. You could take that through the front door and go with it,’ and they said, ‘No, the money, the money,’” said Erin.
Erin said she had to think fast as the men headed towards her son’s room. The mom said she distracted the men as she rushed to get her gun.
“Somehow the way it happened, as they were going down the hallway, I told them sometimes I keep money under the mattress, which is not true. But I needed to get to where my gun was,” she said.
The men followed her to her bedroom.
“I was pretending to move the mattress. It’s really heavy, so I was trying to move their attention to the mattress because they wouldn’t take their eyes off of me. I needed a split second for them to take their eyes off of me. I said, ‘It might be under here.’ They started talking to each other in Spanish and then a roll of duct tape came out,” said Erin. Continue reading this article
Last spring a force of jihadists and Tuaregs swept through northern Mali and pushed out government forces. They then set about instituting Islam’s cruel sharia law, using punishments like public executions, amputations and floggings.
North Africa is the newest hot spot in the fight against Islamic terrorism. The spread of radical Islamist groups has the United States and the West concerned it could become a base for terror networks.
That’s why French forces are in Mali, driving Islamic terrorists out of the northern towns they’ve occupied for more than a year.
Gao residents danced in the street, celebrating their town’s liberation from the intruders.
But their joy soon turned to anger, with Mali citizens looting Islamic police headquarters and lashing out against any sign of the 10 months of oppression they endured.
During that time, Islamists amputated the hands of two men for supporting the Malian government.
“Islamic police cut (off) my hand and showed it to the crowds,” one man said.
“Prosecutorial discretion for dreamers is solely based on the individual’s claims. Our orders are if an alien says they went to high school, then let them go,” [Border Patrol union leader Chis Crane] said at a press conference with GOP senators.
It wouldn’t be that hard for al Qaeda or similar jihadists to tutor some of their top bomb guys about how to act Mexican and say “I’m a Dreamer,” then funnel them across the southern border into the defenseless United States. The terrorists wouldn’t have to be convincing — as the Border Patrol complains, there is no requirement of any proof at all. All DREAMer claimers get in. Is that a welcome mat for enemies or what?
[. . .] Few Americans know that these threats on our doorstep can be traced back in large measure to the narco-state that has taken root in Venezuela under the reckless regime of Hugo Chavez.
This hostile government is managed by Cuba’s security apparatus, funded by China, armed by Russia, and partnered with Iran, Hezbollah, and Colombian and Mexican narco-traffickers.
U.S. authorities and prosecutors have gathered fresh, compelling evidence implicating senior Venezuelan officials — including Chavez himself — in the drug trade. Chavez has also forged an important strategic alliance with Iran to allow that radical regime to evade international sanctions and to advance its asymmetrical threat against the United States. Iran’s terror proxy, Hezbollah, is hosted in Venezuela, where it is actively engaged in narco-trafficking in the Americas. [. . .]
A reminder of the threat was underlined by a Wednesday item in security analyst Bill Gertz’ column:
A jihadist website posted a new threat by al Qaeda this week that promises to conduct “shocking” attacks on the United States and the West.
The posting appeared on the Ansar al Mujahidin network Sunday and carried the headline, “Map of al Qaeda and its future strikes.”
The message, in Arabic, asks: “Where will the next strike by al Qaeda be?” A translation was obtained by Inside the Ring.
“The answer for it, in short: The coming strikes by al Qaeda, with God’s Might, will be in the heart of the land of nonbelief, America, and in France, Denmark, other countries in Europe, in the countries that helped and are helping France, and in other places that shall be named by al Qaeda at other times,” the threat states.
The attacks will be “strong, serious, alarming, earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying.”
Under a section of the post on the method of the attacks, the unidentified writer said the strikes would be “group and lone-wolf operations, in addition to the use of booby-trapped vehicles.” 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.