From the Right

Observing my upside down America

Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

Brussels Attacked by Islamic Fascists

leave a comment »

Islamic terrorists attacked Brussels Airport today in a series of blasts that have killed at least 34 people and injured 170 across the city. The attacks occurred blocks away from the headquarters of the European Union.

This is just one more in a long series of attacks that are now striking the soft underbelly of Europe

After following terrorism since the 1970 Palestinian hijackings of five commercial airliners to Jordan where they were eventually blown up, my observations to date follow.

Our politicians believe terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Some are still in denial about terrorism being a direct threat to their country, even after letting hordes of them in unchecked.

Our politicians will seize upon the “Let no crisis go to waste” policy and use it to militarize local LE. It’s already happening.

Policy makers will go into isolationist mode and draw down military forces in the battle zone.

We are heading toward a day when nations will cede sovereignty and security to a world security apparatus.

Why? Because it’s much easier for the politicians to do so.

With our current attitudes and policies, terrorists will eventually win.

Without a sea change in the way Americans view what we are up against, my advice is simple. Buy a rug, because eventually, you’ll be forced to face Mecca 4 to 5 times a day while giving praise to Allah.

In the meantime, ponder the following.

The talking heads and retired military are calling out the fact that our political and military leadership do not understand thd nature of Islam.

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters said, “It’s not about winning their hearts and minds, its about splattering their hearts and brains across the battlefield.”

suicideOfWest

Written by Ben

March 22, 2016 at 7:01 pm

Securing our Borders to Secure our Economy

leave a comment »


First, how crazy are you?

I doubt any sane person believes that sleeping with their home’s front and back door wide open is wise and it is certain they wouldn’t go to work the next morning leaving their garage door open. It’s not only dangerous, the thought process involved for someone to deliberately leave their home unsecured reflects an unhealthy mind. It’s certainly no way to run a home but without adequate borders, this is what we’ve been doing with our country.

A recap of our current effort to secure our home

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was first introduced on September 13 of 2006 by Peter T. King (R-NY). The bill called for the construction of 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border. Additionally, the law authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border.

Border barrier consisting of double chain link and barbed wire fences with light and infrared camera poles

The bill was passed by the House of Representatives with 283 voting “for” with 138 against. Days later, the Senate passed the bill with 80 voting “for” with 19 against. Most Republicans voted in support of the Fence Act while most Democrats voted against it. In October of 2006, President George W. Bush signed The Secure Fence Act of 2006 into law.

In January of 2008 the 110th Congress introduced Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008 (H.R. 5124). This bill called for Homeland Security to construct an additional 700 miles of two layered, 14 foot high fencing along the southwest border. The bill died in committee and was never voted upon.

By April 2009 Homeland Security had erected about 613 miles of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border from California to Texas.

In May 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) unsuccessfully reintroduced for the second time his “Finish the Fence” amendment which would require Homeland Security to construct an additional 353 miles (568 km) of fencing along the US-Mexico border.

Growing State Budget Deficits

The left continues to fail to understand that if our country does not get our borders secured, state budget deficits will continue to grow, threatening our economy and our ability to recover from the recession by further burdening taxpayers with more taxes.

For information regarding state costs of illegal immigrants and state education budget short-falls, see Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red.

The IRS is an Enabler of Illegal Immigrants

As for the left’s argument that illegal immigrants pay taxes, a recent audit by the Treasury Department found that $4.2 billion per year is handed out to illegal aliens from a program called the Child Tax Credit/Additional Child Tax Credit. The study found that the IRS did not require citizenship documentation for this tax credit. This study and others also pointed to widespread fraud involving other ‘refundable tax credits’ such as the ‘First Time Homebuyer Credit’ and the ‘Earned Income Tax Credit’ which is available to low income parents, as well as identity theft involving stolen Social Security numbers.

Illegal aliens use the IRS to collect additional money from the federal government, in additional to other programs they collect from including Obamacare. The IRS should not double as a welfare program and the ‘refundable tax credit’ program should be ended entirely, but it is even more absurd for the normally strict IRS to turn a blind eye to illegal aliens collecting welfare through this system.

Governor Perry’s view on a Border Fence for America

From Julia Preston, “Some Cheer Border Fence as Others Ponder the Cost”, “The New York Times”, October 18, 2011

Perry said that building a border-length fence would take “10 to 15 years and $30 billion” and would not be cost-effective.

In 2009, the Congressional Search Service reported that the Department of Homeland Security had spent roughly up to $21 million per mile to build a primary fence near San Diego. The cost had ballooned as the fence extended into hills and gullies along the line.

The same year, Customs and Border Protection estimated costs of building an additional 3.5 miles of fence near San Diego at $16 million per mile. Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today.

Imagine, 22.4 billion to secure America. Contrasting this against the $787 billion Stimulus bill, which analysts are saying (as predicted) hasn’t stimulated squat, we then see we could have built a border around America just over 40 times. We don’t hear much of an outrage about the wasteful failure of the so-called “stimulus” but you will always hear the left whine over 22 billion because it’s too much money to spend to protect America.

San Francisco Protects Illegal Immigrants

leave a comment »

The Board of Supervisors gave final approval to a measure that would keep law enforcement from turning over minors to immigration authorities unless they have been found guilty of a felony.

San Francisco. It’s a city infamous for its liberal policies. It is known for tackling issues ranging from gay marriage to universal health care. Now, it is wrestling with another divisive issue.

The Board of Supervisors gave final approval Tuesday to a measure that would keep law enforcement from turning over minors to immigration authorities unless they have been found guilty of a felony.

The move pits the panel against Mayor Gavin Newsom and law enforcement by reversing his policy of turning over youths to Immigration and Customs Enforcement after their arrest.

Newsom took the stance in 2008 after the city was accused of protecting young offenders such as Edwin Ramos from deportation.

Ramos, an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador, was charged with felonies as a minor, but the sanctuary policy allowed the suspected gang member to stay in the U.S.

Now 22, Ramos is awaiting trial in the shooting death of a man and his two sons in San Francisco as they headed home from a barbecue.

Since the mayor changed the policy, 149 undocumented juveniles charged with felonies have been referred to immigration officials, ICE said.

The newly approved measure is supported by civil rights groups, immigrant advocates and the Juvenile Division of the Public Defender’s Office, who contend it restores the right of minors to due process and gives them a chance to defend themselves before facing possible deportation and separation from their families.

“We need to treat children as children — they are vulnerable and they are different from adults,” said Patricia Lee, head attorney with the Juvenile Division of the Public Defender’s Office.
Newsom’s policy, she said, “flies in the face of any code in the nation that provides for the protection of the child and reunification with the family.”

Those siding with the mayor — the police chief and district attorney, among others — argue the new ordinance will force officers to go against federal law by shielding undocumented immigrants and exposing the city to lawsuits.

“The mayor is not going to force his own law enforcement officials to break state and federal law just because supervisors have made this Quixotic gesture,” said Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for Newsom. “If you have committed a serious crime, there is no sanctuary for you.”

The measure must now go to Newsom, who has said he would veto it. Supervisors have said they would overturn his veto, a move likely to touch off a legal fight.

“The mayor does not have the authority to disregard it unilaterally,” said David Campos, the supervisor who initiated the measure. “If the law is challenged, it will be up to the courts to decide its legality.”

Other cities are watching San Francisco to see how it decides to handle undocumented minors. Requiring due process for children before they are referred to ICE is an innovative strategy and could be implemented elsewhere, said Angela Chan, staff attorney with the Asian Law Caucus, a legal and civil rights group that has worked closely with youth affected by the city rule.

At the heart of the issue is San Francisco’s City of Refuge ordinance, adopted in 1989 as part of a national sanctuary movement intended to help refugees from Central American civil wars. Dozens of cities across the country adopted similar sanctuary policies.

The sanctuary policy allows officials who encounter undocumented immigrants not to report them to federal officials. It’s credited with improving law enforcement relationships with the city’s large immigrant community.

Adults who commit crimes are completely exempted from protection, but the situation of minors was unclear under the rule. Instead of turning juveniles suspects over to immigration officers, San Francisco was housing them or flying them back to their home countries at city expense.

Bill Ong Hing, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who testified in favor of San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance when it was first proposed, said federal law does not require officers to turn over undocumented immigrants.

“Every day across the country, local law enforcement officials often do not turn over undocumented immigrants that they come across,” he said. “They want to maintain a good, trusting relationship with immigrant communities because that is better for public safety.”

Deputy probation officers, who would be responsible for taking youths from police and deciding whether to hand them over to ICE, are afraid that obeying the new measure would mean violating federal law. They have vowed not to follow the new rule, said Gabriel Calvillo, head of the San Francisco Deputy Probation Officers Association.

“We just want to be safe, to make sure our officers are not put in the cross hairs of federal officials,” Calvillo said. “We’re going to continue to follow the mayor’s direction.”

Written by Ben

October 27, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Posted in Immigration, Liberals, Politics

Tagged with

An unjust exercise of authority or power

leave a comment »

On the evening of April 14, 2009, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill police released pepper spray and threatened to use a Taser on student protesters when a crowd disrupted a speech by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo opposing in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.

Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.

Tancredo was brought to campus by a UNC chapter of Youth for Western Civilization, a national organization of students who oppose mass immigration, multiculturalism and affirmative action.

Inside the classroom, several student protesters screamed curses at Tancredo and Riley Matheson, president of the UNC-Chapel Hill chapter of Youth for Western Civilization.

“This is the free speech crowd, right?” Tancredo joked.

“Fascists are fascists,” Tancredo said. “Their actions were probably the best speech I could ever give. They are what’s wrong with America today. … When all you can do is yell epithets, that means you are intellectually bankrupt.”

UNC graduate student Tyler Oakley, who had organized the protest, said he regretted the broken window but not silencing Tancredo. “He was not able to practice his hate speech,” said Oakley. “You have to respect the right of people to assemble and collectively speak.”

ED:
A former congressman is invited to speak on a very important topic for all of us only to be shouted down by oppressive, emotionally immature, idealistic youth agitated by their professors to disrupt. Very nice.

Tancredo spoke about the shout-down on Fox News and said their professors were in the audience and incited and participated in the ensuing mini-riot.

So what are our professors teaching our youth? Is it that it’s acceptable to oppress free speech? Or perhaps it is to use emotion and violence as a tool of debate instead of engaging in intellectually driven dialog and – oh God – usher in real and meaningful change?

Folks, we are at a cross roads here. These kids – these morons taught by intellectually lazy professors bent on saving their tuition-driven salaries are our future. Some of them will even find their way into politics. These are our future leaders.

To know what this brings, we only have to look at the White House.

Mexican Immigration policy is built into their Constitution!

leave a comment »

Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico’s constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.

Summary

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

  • – Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
  • – Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
  • – Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
  • – Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
  • – Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
  • – Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
  • – Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
  • – Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

The whole thing can be read here.

Written by Ben

November 5, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Posted in Immigration

Tagged with