Recent News

Illegals protesting enforcement, Chicago 2006: Their children are Americans?

What appears to be a concerted effort by Establishment Republicans to bully GOP Presidential nominee-apparent Mitt Romney into choosing, on (probably fallacious) Hispandering grounds, Florida Senator Marco Rubio as his Vice Presidential running mate is culminating in a new (deeply flawed) DREAM Act proposal. This is apparently planned to showcase Rubio.

But instead, it may give immigration patriots a magnificent opportunity. The Hill reports:

Rubio’s bill could give a small group of conservative colleagues a chance to force a vote on ending birthright citizenship.

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) has sponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act, which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the U.S. a citizen only if his or her parent is a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident or an alien serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Republican Sens. John Boozman (Ark.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jerry Moran (Kan.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) have co-sponsored Vitter’s bill.

Rubio’s effort to reach out to Hispanic voters could backfire on Senate floor, by Alexander Hill, June 10, 2012

The Birthright Citizenship/Anchor Baby issue is the jugular of the Treason Lobby’s attempt to swamp the historic American nation and convert the country onto a Minority/Majority footing. Without the current practice of giving citizenship to all babies born on American soil (unless of diplomatic families), the political transformation of the country would be drastically slowed.As a result, needless to say, any discussion

Almost 10 years ago, I wrote on VDARE.com

“The refugee program is bringing in ever more real refugees, from ever more unassimilable backgrounds. Officials are forced to spread them over ever more American communities. The program will lose what is left of its apple pie appeal and finally become a political issue.”

Well, the Refugee Industry is still in the saddle—owing to the general uselessness of Congress; and to the Main Stream Media’s systematic failure to report the issue. (Antidote: read VDARE.com and, specifically, Resettlement Watch!)

But the Refugee Industry is clearly having an increasingly hard time.  

Of course, it can count on the support of the interest groups profiting from the refugee trade—both the government-addicted “charity” refugee contractors like the Episcopalian Migration Ministries,, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service  and Catholic Charities. (And also the cheap-labor addicted Slave Power. )But there is clearly concern in government circles that the refugee business is not faring as well among those who are forced to pay for it.

As part of a Spring PR offensive, accordingly, the Obama Administration’s then-Acting Assistant Secretary of State, David M Robinson wrote a puff piece for Huffpo: Three Million: Changing Lives One Refugee at a Time, February 24, 2012.

 (Robinson’s propaganda is particularly problematic given that current law prohibits the U.S. government from propagandizing American audiences. A recent bill before Congress would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda produced by the State Department and the Pentagon, but it has not passed—yet. Voice of America, and more, might someday be beamed at Americans. But right now, it’s illegal—or supposed to be.) [Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, By  Amy Sly, BuzzFeed,May 18, 2012]

At an April press conference at New York’s Foreign Press Center in April, Robinson and Larry Bartlett, Director of the Office of Refugee Admissions, were asked by a reporter about the mayor of Manchester NH’s appeal (“please halt the program; we cannot take any more”). [Refugee Resettlement and the U.S. State Department's Role in the U.S. Refugee Admission Program, Transcript, April 11, 2012]

The State Department officials conceded that these concerns were not isolated—and that the Feds recently had to send officials to Tennessee and Georgia, which had “expressed concerns about resettlement”.

But Robinson insisted arrogantly:

“[T]his remains a federal program. It’s not limited by the activity of an individual mayor…we have reduced the number of refugees being settled in Manchester, in part because of the mayor’s concerns. But we are still resettling refugees there.” [Emphasis added].

Tennessee, which, thanks in part to the refugee influx now has a Muslim Advisory Council shadowing

Recently, I attended the Center for Immigration’s highly useful annual luncheon at which is presented the 2012 Eugene Katz Award For Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration. (This year’s winner: The Daily’s reporter Sarah Ryley).[See articles, videos,  and a  transcript of the awards ceremony, including Ms.

This daily cartoon contributed to VDARE.com by Baloo. His site is HERE

That crime in America is decreasing is a critical Main Stream Media meme. Many factors are at work. One of them is that official statistics have become, to a significant but undetermined extent, a manufactured illusion.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, urban crime was momentarily beyond the Establishment’s ability to

Should non-citizens be eligible to vote?

Outlandish!—especially in a presidential election year. (Isn’t epidemic fraud bad enough?) Yet a movement to grant the vote to all immigrants, even illegal immigrants, has been gathering steam for more than two decades. And it looks likely to grow more as America’s immigrant population grows.

Typical of the Treason Lobby, immigrant voting is justified in the language of Americanism—“rights,” “justice,” “democracy,” “no taxation without representation,” “tradition”—to disguise the concept’s underlying radicalism.

Example: American University law professor Jamin "Jamie" Raskin's seminal 1993 article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, “Legal Aliens, Local Citizens: The Historical, Constitutional and Theoretical Meanings of Alien Suffrage”. Raskin [Email him] argued the idea is simply a restoration of common sense and civic virtue:

Today, with the extraordinary, though still largely unwritten, history of alien suffrage safely hidden from view, the U.S. citizenship voting qualification ropes off the franchise in every American state from participation by non-U.S. citizens. As a marker at the perimeter of the American body politic, the citizenship qualification carries the aura of inevitability that once attached to property, race, and gender qualifications…

[T]he current blanket exclusion of noncitizens from the ballot is neither constitutionally required nor historically normal. Moreover, the disenfranchisement of aliens at the local level is vulnerable to deep theoretical objections since resident aliens—who are governed, taxed and often drafted just like citizens—have a strong democratic claim to being considered members, indeed citizens, of their local communities.

The campaign to give non-citizens voting rights thus far has attained only local success. But, like mass immigration itself, this is a long-range program marked by unrelenting activism.

Consider a pair of defeated ballot measures in November 2010:

• In San Francisco, voters rejected by 55 percent to 45 percent “Proposition D,” an initiative to create a pilot program allowing noncitizen residents of the city, aged 18 and over, and with one or more children attending school in the San Francisco Unified School District, to vote in Board of Education elections.

But this was the second time around. In 2004, local voters turned down, by a mere 51 to 49 percent margin, a similar measure called Proposition F.

And neither measure should have appeared on the ballot.  City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued an opinion that Proposition D conflicted with Article 2, Section 2 of the California constitution, which clearly defines voter eligibility and had been upheld by a state Superior Court in 1996.

• In Portland, ME, voters rejected, by a 51.5 to 48.5 percent margin, “Question 4”, would have gone further and granted to lawful aliens the right to vote in all municipal elections.

Portland might seem like an odd focal point for a campaign to redefine U.S. citizenship. Yet like most of Maine (and for that matter, most of New England), the city’s traditional Yankee Republicanism has decayed into the sentimental “inclusiveness” prized by progressives. (Not unrelated, Maine and New England have experienced a recent immigration explosion from Latin America and Africa, particularly Somalia. Portland, population 65,000, is now home to an estimated 5,000 to 7,500 first-generation immigrants.)

During the campaign, Claude Rwaganje, [Email him] an immigrant from the Republic of the Congo who had lived in Portland for 13 years, put the standard case:

“Noncitizens hold down jobs, pay taxes, own businesses, volunteer in the community and serve in the military, and it’s only fair they be allowed to vote.”[Cities Weigh Letting Noncitizens Vote, Associated Press, October 25, 2010]

But what kept Rwaganje from becoming a citizen? A legal resident alien can apply for U.S. citizenship after only five years.

Note that Portland voters rejected Question 4 only by three percentage points. Note also that the City’s Charter Commission had voted 7-5 that March against putting the issue on the ballot at all. [Immigrant vote goes to referendum, By Dennis Hoey, Portland Press-Herald, August 12, 2010]

And, as in San Francisco, Portland’s measure was in violation of the state constitution and likely would not have survived a court challenge. It’s an indicator of the fanaticism of Question 4’s supporters that they collected enough signatures to override the Commission via petition.

Public officials elsewhere in the U.S. are warming up to noncitizen voting:

• San Francisco City Board of Supervisors President David Chiu was the driving force behind 2010’s Proposition D. The Taiwanese-born Chiu argued that, since about a third of local public school students had immigrant parents or guardians, those adults should be able to vote on who runs the schools.
• New Haven CT Mayor John DeStefano [Email him] announced his support for granting “undocumented” a.k.a. illegal immigrants the right to vote last December: “We’re a place of differences…We’re a place that sees a strength and places a value on welcoming folks from all over.”  He dismissed critics as demagogues trying to scapegoat immigrants. [Conn. mayor seeks to let illegal immigrants vote,  AP, December 20 2011]

DeStefano made a national reputation for himself as an affirmative-action booster (on the losing side) in the 2009 U. S. Supreme Court decision, Ricci v. DeStefano.

A number of U.S. localities already have succeeded in making immigrant voting rights a reality.

• Takoma Park, MD, was first out of the starting gate. In November 1991 local voters