Displaying posts categorized under

IMMIGRATION

Cultivating a New Generation of Racists on Campus The hate-filed worldview and agendas of the student group MEChA. John Perazzo

The Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA), or “Chicano Student Movement,” describes itself as an organization that urges young Chicanos (people of Mexican ancestry living in the United States) to use “higher education” and “political involvement” to promote “cultural and historical pride,” “liberation,” and “self-determination” among their people. In practice, MEChA aggressively promotes anti-Americanism and anti-white hatred by relentlessly stoking the fires of racial and ethnic grievance among Latino students.

MEChA’s roots can be traced back to the Chicano Movement of the late 1960s, which emphasized “brown pride” while rejecting “acculturation and assimilation” into the American mainstream. In that milieu, the first National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference, organized by an entity called Crusade for Justice, was held in Denver, Colorado in March 1969. Participants in this conference drafted the basic premises for the “Chicana/Chicano Movement” in a seminal document titled El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán (EPEA), which today is required reading for all members of MEChA’s various chapters.

The term “Aztlán” refers to the territory in the Southwestern United States—including California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, as well as parts of Nevada, Utah, and Colorado—that Mexico ceded to the United States in 1848 via the Treaty of Guadalupe de Hidalgo. But Mexican separatists consider this region to be part of a mythical Aztec homeland that was stolen from its rightful owners. Proceeding from that premise, MEChA rejects the notion that any Chicano can be considered an illegal immigrant. A popular slogan that surfaces at many MEChA rallies is: “We didn’t cross the border. The border crossed us.”

Claiming that “Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans,” EPEA stipulates that the “Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán” are a “sovereign” and “indigenous people” who are “not subject to a foreign culture,” and are now “reclaiming the land of our birth (Chicana/Chicano Nation).” It sees the “bronze (Chicana/Chicano) Nation” as “a union of free pueblos” whose “cultural values strengthen our identity as La Familia de La Raza.

Following the tenets of EPEA, MEChA denounces “the brutal gringo invasion of our territories,” and it vows to “struggl[e] against the foreigner ‘gabacho’ [a pejorative term for an English-speaking, non-Hispanic] who exploits our riches and destroys our culture.” MEChA’s exclusionary racial attitudes are summarized in the organization’s slogan: “Por la Raza, todo. Fuera de La Raza, nada.” (“For the race, everything. Outside of the race, nothing.”)

SANCTUARY CITIES: EDWARD CLINE

A “sanctuary city” is no more than a haven for criminals and illegals. I don’t think we need to flaunt the definition of “criminal.” An illegal, however, is a person living in the U.S. who entered it illegally, and collects government benefits, may or may not hold a job, and may even “vote” because of chiefly democratic election rigging. If he’s found out, he can retreat to a “sanctuary city” where, presumably, the authorities cannot arrest him or detain him for deportation back to the pest hole he came from. He can be a murderer, but the authorities’ hands would be tied. He can commit the most horrendous crime, yet still be “untouchable.”

Coming across the border are countless illegals, many of them dangerous, many of them jihadists posing as Mexicans or South Americans. Aaron Bandler of the Daily Wire, in an undated report, outlines the essentials of a “sanctuary city”:

Sanctuary cities are a blatant violation of federal law. Some on the left have tried to claim that they’re perfectly legal, but this is clearly false.

Sanctuary cities undermine law enforcement. Not only do they refuse to cooperate with federal agents in deporting illegals, sanctuary cities make it more difficult for police officers to do their job.

Sanctuary cities are “akin to roulette.” For example, “Two-thirds of all outstanding felony warrants in the city of Los Angeles involved illegal aliens — as well as 95% of outstanding murder warrants.”

Crime has surged in sanctuary cities. The Daily Wire’s Hank Berrienreported on the following from Louisiana attorney general Jeff Landry:

Landry told the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, that sanctuary city policies “allow illegals to commit crimes, then roam free in our communities.” Landry’s appearance was prompted by the changed status of New Orleans, where city police are now banned from asking an individual’s immigration status.

Using recent statistics from Los Angeles, another sanctuary city, Landry asserted, “Los Angeles saw all crime rise in 2015: violent crime up 19.9 percent, homicides up 10.2 percent, shooting victims up 12.6 percent, rapes up 8.6 percent, robberies up 12.3 percent, and aggravated assault up 27.5 percent … (sanctuary cities) encourage further illegal immigration and promote an underground economy that sabotages the tax base.”

There are an estimated 300 sanctuary cities, counties, and states….

How Democrats Brought a Muslim Child Molester to America Another young victim of the Left’s war against common sense immigration security.Daniel Greenfield

When Tanveer Hussain and Abid Khan weren’t allowed into the United States, they blamed President Trump. So did the media outlets that covered the story. The controversial Democrat mayor of Saranac Lake reached out to fellow New York party members Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. They leaned on the local embassy and Hussain and Khan were waved through.

“Still a country that welcomes athletes from across the globe,” Senator Schumer’s statement read. The statement, shared on Hussain’s Facebook page, declared, “So proud of the town of Saranac Lake for their efforts and their open hearts.”

Below it was a photo of Tanveer Hussain surrounded by Saranac Lake Middle School students. The seventh graders had been drafted to write letters to Schumer and Gillibrand on Hussain’s behalf.

“We came in and talked to a small group of kids. I said, ‘This is bothering me. Is it bothering anyone else?’” Amy Jones, their teacher, had insisted.

There’s no way to know if it bothered the children, but it bothered Amy Jones. And before long the children were enlisted in the campaign to bring Hussain to America. The campaign worked. And now here he was. Mayor Clyde Rabideau moderated the session with the children and the accused abuser.

Abid Khan, Hussain’s coach, talked to them about Kashmir. He told them that Kashmir was just like Saranac Lake. “Pack your bags. Next year, you are coming to Kashmir,” he said.

Later Hussain’s brother would explain one difference between Saranac Lake and Kashmir. “In Kashmir, we have a tradition of showing love to children,” he said.

Kashmir’s idea of showing love to children was very different than that of Saranac Lake. Tanveer Hussain would be charged with molesting a 12-year-old girl who was a student at the school.

Why Israel’s Border Fence Worked The security barrier was key, but there’s more to the story. Gideon Israel

Reprinted from Mida.org.il.

From the outset of his campaign, President Trump declared that if elected he would construct a wall along the southern border of the United States to stop illegal immigration. While his intention to build a wall has elicited support, it has also generated criticism pertaining to its effectiveness and justification. Those who support construction of the wall and its effectiveness cite Israel’s example as proof. On the surface, the drastic decrease in illegal immigration to Israel after the security fence’s construction supports this assertion. However, a closer look at the situation shows that there were other factors in reducing illegal immigration which were equally important.

Illegal immigration to Israel from Africa became a major problem beginning in 2007. Until then, approximately 2,700 illegal immigrants had entered Israel through the Egyptian border in the previous decades. Between the years 2007-2012, approximately 61,000 illegal immigrants entered Israel through the Egyptian border, the overwhelming majority coming from Eritrea and Sudan. The border fence was completed in December 2012 and the numbers of illegal immigrants dropped from 10,431 in 2012 to less than 150 in 2013. Furthermore, illegal immigrants entering between 2013-2016 were consistently lower than 150, only with a slight rise in 2015 to 232.

The correlation between these statistics and construction of the border fence indicate that the fence has successfully done the job. However, experts on the subject comment that the other Israeli actions were just as important.

A major problem

The problem of illegal immigration is not only an economic issue but it has also had a devastating effect on some Israeli communities.

Arik Greenstein, deputy editor for MIDA, has written extensively about the negative impact that illegal immigrants have had on south Tel Aviv residents. The influx of illegal immigrants has changed the fabric of what was once a tight knit, warm community. Many residents have moved due to fear and lawlessness. In addition, fear of rape, assault, theft and other crimes have made mundane activities, such as teens walking around after dark, or adults going for a morning jog, nonexistent. Some residents, unable to move due to old age or cost, have become prisoners in their own homes. In these old apartment buildings where residents have lived for decades, illegal immigrants have opened up whorehouses and pirate alcohol factories resulting in constant noise and disruption with no recourse for the buildings’ residents. Additionally, residents have seen their electric and water bills skyrocket, at times, due to makeshift pipes that illegal immigrants have connected to the outside of residents’ homes, thereby stealing electricity and water.

In a 2015 survey conducted for the Israeli police, only 38% of South Tel Aviv residents felt secure when outside their homes after nightfall, only 43% felt safe to even leave their homes at night, and the overall feeling of personal security in the area was 53%. The number of criminal acts reported to the police involving foreigners in Israel has risen since 2006 from 1,779 to approximately 2,600-3,500 cases each year between the years 2011-2015. Foreigners in Israel include not only illegal immigrants, but also foreign workers, tourists and Palestinians.

Aliens Trespassing Sen. Schumer, his congressional cohorts, and leftist hypocrisy. Michael Cutler

In order to minimize the dangers posed by aliens who run our borders and evade the inspection process, open borders / immigration anarchists insist that such illegal aliens are simply entering “Undocumented.” However, the unmistakeable truth is that these aliens are, in the parlance of immigration enforcement personnel, “Entering Without Inspection” (EWI).

For decades, beginning with the duplicitous efforts of President Jimmy Carter: Originator Of The Orwellian Term ‘Undocomented Immigrant’ to blur the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens, globalists inside as well as outside our government, have sought to undermine the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Recently, many journalists have whined that illegal aliens who purportedly have no “serious criminal histories” have been arrested by ICE under the Trump administration, ignoring that aliens who enter the United States illegally or violate the terms of lawful admissions are subject to arrest and removal (deportation) irrespective of whether or not they violated any other laws.

An alien who enters without inspection violates Title 8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien and may face up to 2 years in prison if he/she has done this more than once.

Furthermore, an alien who has been previously deported and subsequently reenters without authority commits a felony that may, if the alien has a serious criminal history, carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison under Title 8 U.S. Code § 1326 – Reentry of removed aliens.

Congressional Democrats and some Republicans such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham have attacked President Trump for his plans to secure the U.S./Mexican border and effectively enforce our immigration laws.

McCain and Graham have aligned themselves with Senator Chuck Schumer likely because of their shared globalist views on immigration. They were, after all, members of the “Gang of Eight” or, as I have come to refer to them, “The Eight Gangsters.”

Trump’s Immigration Approach Is Less Draconian than Obama’s His proposed alien removals follow his predecessor’s legacy of mass deportations. By Deroy Murdock

If President Donald J. Trump’s critics are correct, he is arranging for illegal aliens — especially those with criminal convictions — something nearly as excruciating as the Bataan Death March.

“I.C.E. MEN COMETH,” warned the front page of Wednesday’s New York Daily News.

“New immigration guidelines are about cruelty, not safety,” the San Francisco Chronicle wept.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s Joanne Lin told the Associated Press that Trump’s immigration enforcement stance is one in which “due process, human decency, and common sense are treated as inconvenient obstacles on the path to mass deportations.”

But where were these trembling voices during the Obama years?

An official report from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) suggests that Trump will struggle to match the pace at which Obama booted immigrants.

According to a document titled “FY 2016 ICE Immigration Removals,” the federal government deported 2,749,706 aliens between fiscal years 2009 and 2016 — on Obama’s watch. This averaged 343,713 deportees annually.

In fiscal year 2016 alone, Obama’s ICE kicked out 240,255 aliens, including 136,669 criminal convicts. However, the report says, “101,586 aliens removed . . . had no criminal conviction.” Furthermore, “the leading countries of origin for removals were Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.” Obama’s disproportionately Hispanic deportees included 2,057 “suspected or confirmed gang members.”

“ICE also continues to focus on criminal aliens,” the report explains, “as 58 percent of overall ICE removals, including 92 percent of ICE removals initiated in the interior of the country, were of convicted criminals.” This echoes Trump’s promise to banish alien lawbreakers before others. “Our enforcement priorities will include removing criminals, gang members, security threats,” Trump said August 31.

Perhaps Trump echoes Obama.

America has no monopoly on deportation. Governments practice this basic function worldwide, even in countries that make American liberals swoon with social-justice fervor.

Take Mexico, a nation allegedly victimized by Trump and other gringos. It deported some 173,000 Central Americans in 2015, 70 percent more than in 2014, according to Mexico’s National Migration Institute. Why? “The government came under intense pressure from the U.S last year [2013] to crack down on migrants after waves of children from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala began arriving at the U.S.–Mexico border,” the Los Angeles Times observed.

Team Obama applied that pressure, and Mexican officials jumped.

Some 5,000 federales rolled into Chiapas, on the Guatemalan frontier. They opened border checkpoints, arrested migrants, and blocked them from a northbound train nicknamed “The Beast.”

What Is the Truth about Crime and Immigration in Sweden? The U.S. media debate has been misleading, but the biggest problem is that the Swedish political establishment doesn’t want to know the answer. By Tino Sanandaji

Last Saturday, another controversy erupted involving the now familiar mix of President Trump, the media, and immigration.

In a speech, Trump riffed on a Fox News segment he’d seen on immigration and crime in Sweden, causing much confusion. The situation hardly improved as journalists and pundits mostly unfamiliar with the topic rushed to explain the finer points of Swedish crime statistics.

So, what is the situation actually like? Nightmarish rape capital of Europe or a safe welfare state unfairly maligned by far-right agitators?

Sweden has a growing problem with crime that is linked to immigration, but the Fox News segment was sensationalistic. As with many exaggerated reports from Sweden in foreign right-wing outlets, the tone of the reporting implies there has been a large crime wave brought about by the recent migration crisis. This is misleading.

Refugees who arrived during the migration crisis are too few in number to explain much of Swedish crime trends. Sweden’s crime-heavy immigrant neighborhoods emerged gradually through the accumulated effects of many decades of immigration.

Several types of crimes such as gang shooting, arson, and sexual assault have increased in Sweden, but other categories such as assault, car thefts, and property crimes have decreased. The increase in sexual assault and violent crime is not as spectacular a development as the Fox News segment made it out to be. Even in Swedish immigrant enclaves, criminality is still fairly mild compared with U.S. crime hubs. Last year the famously multicultural Swedish city of Malmö had a homicide rate of 3 per 100,000, far lower than the 28 per 100,000 rate in Chicago.

In their response to Donald Trump, the Swedish government has pointed out that the homicide rate in Sweden is lower now than in 1990. We should nevertheless note that the homicide rate has decreased in almost every Western country since 1990, owing to social reasons, changes in attitudes, and, in part, medical advances that save the lives of more crime victims. The homicide rate in Sweden has declined less than in the United States, Western Europe, and other Nordic countries, and has increased again the last few years.

Extremist Muslims’ One-Way Street by Burak Bekdil

Extremist Muslims’ understanding of freedom is a one-way street: Freedoms, such as religious rights, are “good” and must be defended if they are intended for Muslims — often where Muslims are in minority. But they can simply be ignored if they are intended for non-Muslims — often in lands where Muslims make up the majority.

Many Muslim countries, apparently, already have travel bans against other Muslims, in addition to banning Israelis.

Look at Saudi Arabia. Deportation and a lifetime ban is the minimum penalty for non-Muslims trying to enter the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

Given the state of non-Muslim religious and human rights, and the sheer lack of religious pluralism in most Muslim countries, why do Muslim nations suddenly become human rights champions in the face of a ban on travel to the U.S.?

Meanwhile, Muslims will keep on loving the “infidels” who support Muslim rights in non-Muslim lands, while keeping up intimidation of the same “infidels” in their own lands.

President Donald Trump’s executive order of January 27, 2017, temporarily limiting entry from seven majority-Muslim countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — for 90 days, until vetting procedures can be put in place — has caused international controversy, sparking protests both in the Western and Islamic worlds, including in increasingly Islamist Turkey.

This article does not intend to discuss whether Trump’s ban is a racist, illegal order, or a perfectly justified action in light of threatened American interests. The ban, right or wrong, has once again unveiled the hypocrisy of extremist Muslims on civil liberties and on what is and what is NOT racist. Extremist Muslims’ understanding of freedom is a one-way street: Freedoms, such as religious rights, are “good” and must be defended if they are intended for Muslims — often where Muslims are in minority. But they can simply be ignored if they are intended for non-Muslims — often in lands where Muslims make up the majority.

Muslims have been in a rage across the world. Iran’s swift and sharp answer came in a Tweet from Foreign Minister Javad Zarif who said that the ban was “a great gift to extremists.” A government statement in Tehran said that the U.S. travel restrictions were an insult to the Muslim world, and threatened U.S. citizens with “reciprocal measures.” Many Muslim countries, apparently, already have travel bans against other Muslims, in addition to banning Israelis.

The Refugee Rape Gangs of Sweden A European nation becomes a rape capital — due to its immigration policies. Dawn Perlmutter

Sweden is the rape capital of the Western world. The general public is unaware of the epidemic of Swedish rapes because there has been an orchestrated effort by mainstream media and the Swedish government to deliberately mischaracterize offenders and downplay the number of incidents. The significant increase in rapes are the direct result of Sweden’s open door refugee policy and denial of Muslim culture.

Muslim immigrant rapists believe that all non-Muslim and uncovered women can be lawfully taken for sexual use; hence rape and sexual assaults are justified. Appearance, particularly for women, is an important aspect of Sharia Islamic law. Modesty is how women achieve honor and to appear in anything revealing brings shame not only for her but for the entire family. Almost all Muslim governments encourage and even legally obligate women to dress modestly: at a minimum to wear a headscarf, in some countries a veil and in others a full body covering.

Uncovered women are viewed as prostitutes and adulterers and the prevailing attitude is that if an uncovered woman is raped she asked for it. In September 2006 in a Ramadan sermon on adultery, Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric blamed immodestly dressed women who don’t wear hijab for being preyed on by men. Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes in 2000, committed by a group of fourteen Lebanese Australian men, and suggested the attackers were not entirely to blame. Sheik Hilali said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.” That is the psychology of Muslim refugees who have been welcomed into Sweden in extraordinary numbers.

Sweden prides itself on its humanitarianism that has accepted more refugees in proportion to size of population than any other nation in the developed world. Unfortunately, this humanitarianism has been at the expense of Swedish women and eventually Swedish culture. This is evident in the increasing mass sexual assaults and rapes committed by migrants at Swedish festivals. In July 2016 at Bravalla, Sweden’s largest music festival, there were nearly 40 assaults, including five rapes. A week earlier at Putte i Parken (Party in the Park), a free festival in Karlstad, there were 32 similar sexual attacks where the youngest victim was just twelve years old. The number of attacks is much higher as many women do not report them and there were multiple victims in most reports.

The Real American Majority Clear majority of Americans support President Trump’s policies against sanctuary cities. Joseph Klein

Americans overwhelmingly approve of President Trump’s efforts to clamp down on so-called sanctuary cities, according to the results of a Harvard–Harris poll. The Hillreported the poll’s finding that “80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.” One of the key measures that President Trump has directed his Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to explore is cutting off some federal funds to cities which continue to defy federal immigration laws. “The American people are no longer going to have to be forced to subsidize this disregard for our laws,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

There are at least 400 sanctuary cities and counties in the United States, which could lose some federal funding as President Trump’s executive order to withhold some federal funding from sanctuary localities is implemented. The nation’s 10 largest cities alone could lose as much as $2.27 billion in annual federal funds if they choose to remain sanctuary cities, according to a Reuters analysis of federal grants.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who is running for re-election this year, is among the bullheaded city leaders around the country who are willing to sacrifice the safety and welfare of their own citizens to protect illegal aliens – even some with criminal records. De Blasio threatened to take the Trump administration to court if the Trump administration follows through with funding cuts. And the mayor declared his intention to set aside $250 million a year in a reserve fund for four years because of the “huge amount of uncertainty” created by President Trump’s follow-through on one of his key campaign promises. This is money that should be used to pay for vital municipal services such as hiring more police, which would certainly come in handy if illegal aliens with criminal records continue to be allowed to roam the streets of the city.

Going back to the Harvard-Harris poll, its co-director Mark Penn explained, “The public wants honest immigrants treated fairly and those who commit crimes deported and that’s very clear from the data.” De Blasio and his cohorts, however, could not care less.

Illegal immigrants make up approximately 3.5 percent of the U.S.’s total population. A significant number of illegal aliens living in the United States have committed crimes while residing here unlawfully in the first place. Even the immigration friendly Migration Policy Institute estimated in a 2015 report that “about 690,000 (6.3 percent) of resident unauthorized immigrants have previously been convicted of a felony or a serious misdemeanor.” The number is probably considerably higher than that, but even 690,000 criminals remaining here illegally is bad enough. According to data compiled from the U.S. Sentencing Commission for fiscal year 2015, illegal immigrants were responsible for 30.2 percent of convictions for kidnapping/hostage taking, 17.8 percent of convictions for drug trafficking, 11.6 percent of convictions for fraud, 10.4 percent of convictions for money laundering, 6.1 percent of convictions for assault, and 5.5 percent of convictions for murder.