Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Secret INS report: Shocking details on amnesty

Unreleased document assembled during Clinton era

by Albert Thompson / WND
border_fence3
WASHINGTON – A report suppressed by the INS provides highly embarrassing and potentially politically explosive reading for current immigration reform advocates, concluding the 1986 amnesty actually caused an increase in illegal immigration.

The law failed, the report explains, because it offered an incentive for more illegal aliens to come and take advantage of a future amnesty.

Critics fear the current proposal by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and others would do the same.

The unreleased Clinton-era Immigration and Naturalization Service report shows the 1986 amnesty caused a rise in the number of unauthorized entries into the United States in the years immediately following.

However, the report also concludes that the “public expressions of opposition to immigration,” in particular the California Proposition 187 measure, likely were contributing factors in the decline in the rate of illegal entry after 1990.

In addition to the hope for a second amnesty, the INS drew another conclusion from the data as to why the rate of illegal entry increased.

It said the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was responsible for the increase in unauthorized entry to the U.S. in 1988-89 partly because during those years the rate of females entering illegally increased to twice the 1987 rate.

These women entered the U.S. to join their male partners and family members who had been granted amnesty, in many cases bringing children with them, the report said. The addition of the families increased the strain on limited American resources, the report said.

With U.S. unemployment still high and the shrinking of the GDP, immigration control advocates are concerned that the Rubio plan will lead to further budgetary hardship. The Rubio plan is consider by some to be Amnesty, Part 2.

The INS report also presents data that shed light on the apparent decrease in illegal entrants to the U.S. in the early 1990s. According the data, the illegal alien entry rate decreased because the IRCA made it easier for the spouses of Mexican-born residents to obtain immigrant visas.

As a result, they did not have to enter the U.S. illegally, though hundreds of thousands of others continued to do so. The Immigration Act of 1990 – passed under George H.W. Bush – increased the annual number of immigrant visas by more than 150,000 beginning in 1992.

The increase in visas also reduced the number of unauthorized entries; however it did not decrease the total number of persons entering the U.S. for those years due to continued illegal immigration. Based on this information, it appears that many who would have attempted to illegally enter were the immigrants who utilized the entry visas.





The INS also credited the American public’s expressions of opposition to mass migration with deterring unauthorized entries, specifically the passage of Proposition 187 in California in November 1994. Proposition 187 removed many of the incentives to illegally enter the United States.

Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, concurred with that conclusion.

“Look at the impact of [the] Arizona employer verification legislation; look at the government’s own assessment,” he said. “In 2008 DHS estimated that the unauthorized population in Arizona was 560,000, in January 2011 there were 360,000 unauthorized residents in Arizona. At the same time, estimates for the country as a whole stayed the same. This is strong indication that Arizona legislation played a role in decreasing the unauthorized population.”

Both the California and Arizona measures were challenged in federal court.

California Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, refused to defend Prop 187 in court. The Obama administration sued Arizona, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to partially block the enforcement of the SB 1070 law.

A national security concern is the Red Dawn scenario. It is unclear how the U.S. government could verify the identities of millions of unauthorized persons in the country.

Critics say the large, unauthorized population provides a hiding place for Mexican and Latin American intelligence agents and terrorists.

An additional danger comes from non-Latin American agents, which include members of Islamic terrorist organizations whose Middle Eastern operatives may attempt to pass for Latin Americans to evade U.S. security measures, the report said.

“You are dealing with bureaucratic incapacity; the immigration system is currently overwhelmed,” Camarota said. “There is no one to the verify millions of identities.

Do they know what the documents … from Mexico look like? Maybe. But do they know what documents from Guatemala look like? Twenty percent of the unauthorized population is not from Latin America.

Would the average immigration agent be able to verify document[s] from Poland? It’s a heads I win, tails you lose scenario because even when they identify fraud they will not go after the people who don’t qualify, those persons will continue to live in the U.S. illegally as they are doing now.”

Camarota said that like the 2007 legislation, “the new legislation will probably contain exemptions for prior fraud.”

Since 2001, foreign jihadist groups have increased their efforts to infiltrate the U.S. and avoid detection.

Camarota was also skeptical of measures to include the payment of back taxes and requirements to learn English.

“There is no record to make people pay taxes, or if there is a record the employer would have to provide that,” he said. “Even in those cases where you have the records the amount most unauthorized workers earn place them below the tax threshold so there no tax to pay back. The requirements to learn English are not meaningful. It’s something that will not happen. All that maybe required is that illegal immigrants sign up for an English class. There is no enforcement.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/secret-ins-report-has-details-on-amnesty/#EsCqveafIS2p7phY.99

Media, academics ignore Qur'anic roots of Morsi's Jew-hatred

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


In "Muhammad Morsi’s Islamic Jew-Hatred, Bernard Lewis’ Islamic Negationism" at PJ Media today, Andrew Bostom eviscerates the scholarly denial of Bernard Lewis regarding Islamic Jew-hatred and the system of dhimmitude, and asks why the media’s favored Middle East pundits ignore the Jew-hatred intrinsic to Islamic doctrine:
A month has passed since the Middle East Media Research Institute posted a 2010 video interview of Muslim Brotherhood leader, and now Egyptian president, Muhammad Morsi spewing Antisemitic vitriol. Morsi’s comments included a characterization of today’s Zionists — plainly Jews in his parlance — as “descendants of apes and pigs” — a specific invocation of Koran 5:60, which he had repeated, elsewhere, in print interviews, and commentaries
That this dehumanizing Koranic depiction was in reference to Jews has been validated by the most authoritative classical and modern exegeses* (“tafsir,” or commentaries) on the Koran, the words of Muhammad himself (as recorded in the sira, or pious Muslim biographies of Islam’s prophet), as well as a large corpus of Islamic theological writings which demonstrate the motif’s application by Muslims over a nearly 1400-year continuum.
Yet to this day, thousands of reports and opinion pieces later (search “Morsi” + “apes and pigs” using Google.com to estimate the vast output), only a handful have noted this irrefragable link to a Koranic verse (i.e., 5:60) declaring the Jews to be apes and pigs. The apotheosis of this negationist trend was captured in a January 27, 2013 Times of Israel interview of Charles Small, head of the itinerant Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP).
Small piously proclaimed that ISGAP was uniquely committed to addressing what was framed as “Islamic” Antisemitism, because,
There’s a reluctance among scholars to open up this subject [i.e., “Islamic” Antisemitism]. This subject is dangerous, embarrassing. It touches on various political interests in international relations that people don’t really want to engage with.
However, also ignoring Morsi’s repetition of the Koran 5:60 “apes and pigs” reference, Small made this pathognomonic assertion, “The danger does not come from Islam itself.”
What explains the almost uniform, egregious omission of Morsi’s Koranic reference, and Small’s broader see-no-Islam in “Islamic” Antisemitism mindset, displayed even by politically centrist or conservative Western media outlets, and the centrist or conservative “Middle East experts” opining for them? I argue that such willful blindness is rooted in the misrepresentation of Islamic Jew-hatred — indeed its frank denial as a coherent doctrine — by one of the leading contemporary scholars of Islam, turned late-blooming, ubiquitous public intellectual, whose limited, dogmatic investigation of the subject has smothered all such desperately required discussion. That scholar is Bernard Lewis.
Accrued over a distinguished career of more than six decades of serious scholarship, Bernard Lewis clearly possesses an enormous fund of knowledge regarding certain aspects of  classical Islamic civilization, as well as valuable insights on the early evolution of modern Turkey from the dismantled Ottoman Empire. A gifted linguist, non-fiction prose writer, and teacher, Lewis shares his understanding of Muslim societies in both written and oral presentations, with singular economy, eloquence, and wit. These are extraordinary attributes for which Lewis richly deserves the accolades lavished upon him.
But as I will demonstrate, Lewis’ remarkable contributions are diminished by yawning gaps in his expressed understanding of Islamic Jew-hatred, and the overall condition of non-Muslims vanquished by jihad, and living as so-called “dhimmis,” under the restrictive and humiliating mandates of the Sharia. Ultimately, Lewis takes the rather dogmatic (and apologetic) positions that Islam is devoid of theological Antisemitism, and dhimmitude has never existed as a Sharia-based Islamic institution. Lewis’s views on Islamic Jew-hatred and (for Jews, the conjoined institution of) dhimmitude are doctrinally and historically untenable, as the evidence I adduce will make clear. Moreover, Lewis’s apologetic tendencies must have been attractive to the Muslim Brotherhood/Saudi Wahhabi front Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, and its pseudo-academic Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs(JMMA), which has been an Abedin family enterprise since 1979.
Regardless of whether Lewis was a willing dupe, or not, he served on the editorial board of the JMMA for some 14-years, from 1996 to 2010, despite the fact this “academic” journal was, and remains, a thinly veiled mouthpiece for Sharia supremacism. These critical limitations of his scholarship and judgment have implications which must also be recognized by all those for whom Lewis remains an iconic source of information, and advice, especially policy advice.
The late Orientalist Maxime Rodinson (d. 2004), a contemporary of Bernard Lewis, warned forty years ago of misguided modern scholarship effectively “sanctifying” Islam:
Understanding has given away to apologetics pure and simple.
Ain't that the truth.

What Obama Does Best: Taunt Republicans 

What Obama Does Best: Taunt Republicans

By: Debra J. Saunders  / Townhall Columnist

 
 
President Barack Obama is not committed to fixing Washington's chronic budget woes or jump-starting an ailing an economy, but that doesn't mean this administration lacks focus. If there is one area in which this administration delivers, it is taunting Republicans.

Think Lucy teasing Charlie Brown with the football -- except in this case, Lucy is a twice-elected president who ought to have better things to do, such as getting Washington to work.

Three recent examples:

The White House released a photo of the president skeet shooting, in reaction to the press corps' skepticism of a recent Obama statement made during an interview with The New Republic. Obama said, "At Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."

It's a silly story. The White House press doesn't know exactly what the president did when he learned that four Americans were killed at the Benghazi, Libya, mission, but reporters had been demanding ocular proof that the president shot clay pigeons.

The photo came out Saturday, and Obama looked as contrived with a shotgun as former Democratic White House hopeful Michael Dukakis looked in a tank. Skeptics of various ideological stripes questioned the photo's authenticity. Conservatives got the blame.

This was exactly the reaction Obamaland had expected. In releasing the photo, Obama political guru David Plouffe tweeted, "Attn skeet birthers. Make our day -- let the photoshop conspiracies begin!"

Last week, the administration announced a reputed compromise on its rule that church-based institutions provide birth control benefits in violation of a religion's deeply held beliefs. The new rules make insurers provide and pay for contraception coverage.

To the extent that church fathers object, they remind young voters that they oppose contraception. The administration scores bonus points when a Republican anywhere in the world says something really stupid about rape or conception.

Given former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel's near endorsement of Obama in 2008 and his opposition to the Bush surge in Iraq, the president had to know that his decision to nominate Hagel to serve as his defense secretary would enrage the right. Clearly, the specter of Republicans bristling at the nomination of a highly decorated Vietnam veteran was the impetus behind the Hagel pick.

Still, the administration could not have suspected how muddled Hagel would appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. Hagel flubbed the administration's position on Iran -- twice. He had to distance himself from old comments he had made about Israel and Iran. Hagel was so mediocre that former Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs conceded on Sunday's "Meet the Press" that Hagel seemed "unimpressive and unprepared." Sometimes the football fumbles by itself.

Last week, White House press secretary Jay Carney said he "would be stunned if, in the end, Republican senators chose to try to block the nomination of a decorated war veteran who was once among their colleagues in the Senate as a Republican." This administration never passes up a chance to blame the Republicans.

5 Reasons 2/23/2013 is Going to Be a Day of Resistance

By : John Hawkins Townhall Columnist who runs Right Wing News
 
 
5 Reasons 2/23/2013 is Going to Be a Day of Resistance Last year, when a Republican candidate should have waltzed to victory, Mitt Romney got his teeth knocked in by a man who could fairly be called the single least competent American President in history. This beating had very real consequences.

1) Barack Obama feels empowered: Liberals are always vulgar in defeat and hubristic in victory, but Barack Obama has become so toweringly arrogant that it wouldn't be a surprise if he were getting himself fitted for a crown. He's acting as if he expects to have anything and everything he wants handed to him on a silver platter and if anything gets in his way, he'll simply shred the Constitution, ignore the law, or issue an executive order and dare the Republican Party to do something about it.

2) The Republicans In Congress have lost their nerve: Republicans on the Hill have turned into a pack of cringing dogs since the election. They've lost the will to fight on spending cuts, they're seriously considering an amnesty for illegal aliens and Karl Rove and his establishment pals at American Crossroads are now planning to target conservatives in Republican primaries. There's not a single issue where you can trust the Republicans in Congress to hold the line because they've lost confidence in themselves, the people who elected them, and conservatism.

3) The conservative grassroots is demoralized: Conservatives haven't lost faith in their principles, but they've started to wonder if the country has passed a tipping point. Do we have too many takers and not enough makers? Is the Republican Party so hopelessly incompetent that it's time to give in? What's the point of fighting to help the country when the Republicans we have in office are just going to let us down yet again? Are we fiscally doomed no matter what we do?

4) The Democrats want to take our guns away: The Democrats are following Rahm Emanuel's cynical advice to the hilt and are determined to "Never let a crisis go to waste." There's not a gun control bill on the table that would do anything to stop another Sandy Hook, but the point is disarming the American people, not stopping massacres. Since the Democrats can't get away with banning guns....yet, their goal is to limit the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding Americans as much as humanly possible.

5) The Democrats are overreaching: Less than three years after the worst defeat they’ve suffered in fifty years, the Democrats are acting like the whole country has become another San Francisco. Their message to Republicans? Go to hell! To Independents? We don't need you anymore! To even moderate Democrats? This isn't your party anymore. Meanwhile, "In nine of the ten sixth-year Congressional elections since 1910, the president’s party has lost seats in the Senate and in the House. The average loss in the Senate has been 8.6 seats and in the House it was 30 seats." In other words, if we play it smart, we are poised to have a monster year in 2014 that could increase our margin in the House and put the Senate back in Republican hands.

This is why we're organizing Day of Resistance rallies all across the country. Barack Obama, the Democrats, and even the Republicans in Congress need to be reminded that the Tea Party is still here and those of us in the grassroots are not sitting down, shutting up, or giving in. That goes double for Americans who care about their Second Amendment rights. The Democrats believe they can demonize gun owners and try to take your guns away without having to worry about any consequences at the ballot box. We need to show them that they're wrong.

We're off to a good start. This effort, which was begun by Dustin Stockton of Western Representation PAC and The Tea Party.net is less than two weeks old, but we're already getting close to the 100 rally mark and dozens of new protests are being added every day. Tiffiny Ruegner of Women Warrior's PAC has even done a press conference promoting the event in front of Diane Feinstein’s office.

Want more information? Keep an eye on Right Wing News and The Tea Party News Network. Want to help? Share the videos (here and here or the graphics), forward, tweet and email this column, volunteer to help, or sign up to organize a rally at Day of Resistance.com.

Folks, I am proud to be one of the people who has been helping to get these protests off the ground from the very beginning and I want you to be there with me because I absolutely believe that this will be the moment when the conservative comeback for 2014 begins. We're going to have hundreds of peaceful conservative rallies all across the country and unlike the Occupy movement, we'll be showered, we won't be breaking the law, and we won't need any "rape free zones" to make women feel safe at our rallies. This is going to be the moment when the conservative movement stops backing up. This will be the time when law abiding Americans send a resolute "No more" to the gun grabbers in Congress. This will be the day when the retreat that started with Mitt Romney's loss ends and the conservative movement once again starts to resist!
Op-ed:
Cut foreign aid to ALL Arab 

and muslim countries
By: Diane Sori

I don't know about you but I am just furious that in a few short weeks America's defense budget is scheduled to be cut by $45 BILLION dollars while Barack HUSSEIN Obama continues to fund those countries who are the antithesis of everything America stands for, believes in, and holds dear...countries that breed and support islamic terrorists...countries that bask in the killing of
Americans...countries that hate us...muslim countries...Arab
countries...countries of backwards perverted murderous barbarians.

And Obama continues to insist on giving these countries aid, our
defense budget be damned, aid derived from our taxpayer dollars, even
though Al Qaeda, still highly operational and a serious threat NO
matter how many times Obama says he has them on the run, has made a
major new threat against us and our allies.  The threat came through
the radical Islamist website, the Ansar al Mujahideen Network, in a
post titled 'Map of Al Qaeda and its future strikes'.

The threat warns of upcoming strikes that would target the 'heart of
the land of non-belief' as in America, and the threat alludes to
'group and lone-wolf operations,' in addition to the use of
booby-trapped vehicles.

A tangible, credible danger from barbaric killers who play by a
different set of rules than civilized men, and Obama insists on
defense budget cuts knowing we might very well need to protect our
country from another 9/11 type attack.

And here's something to raise your ire even more...of all the US
foreign aid that was given in 2012, almost two-thirds went to muslim
countries and one-third went to Arab countries and yet our defense
budget will be cut and our debt continues to rise.

And while foreign aid is NOT an issue that would balance the budget or
fully refund our defense budget, it is well past time to review the
who, what, when, why, and where our foreign aid dollars are going, if
for NO other reason than to prevent another $1.6 BILLION (plus F-16s
and Abrams tanks) going to countries like Egypt...Muslim Brotherhood
controlled Egypt...a country in enemy hands.

As with everything Obama does, he has deliberately forgotten the
original intentions for countries receiving US foreign aid, as in it
should be used to assist during crises, to assist with food, medicine,
clothing, and/or shelter, promoting democracy, and bolstering
strategic alliances.

But now most aid money provides nations with military support, such as
arms and training, in a misguided effort to discourage arms races
among countries in the region and promote stability.

Yeah right...real stability going on in the Middle East wouldn't you
say (insert sarcasm here).

As for the muslim countries...NOT a one promotes true democracy as the
Obama supported Arab Spring is nothing but a farce...NOT a fight for
democracy but for islamists to gain control...nor has any muslim
country wanted to ally with us on anything, let alone on terrorism.
Yet these are Obama's brethren and these killers get our taxpayer
dollars, when instead all monies used to aid to those countries that
hate us should be cut in full and be put back into our defense budget
to defend this country against the very countries Obama sends our
dollars to.

And by the way, why in the first place are we giving any aid monies at
all to oil producing countries that make large profits by selling
their oil to us...oh yeah, Obama is one of them.

So as Obama cuts our defense budget and leaves our country open to
terrorist attacks it might be up to America's militias, militias made
up of 'We the People' to defend this country against enemies both
foreign and domestic. And NO matter what Obama does with his Executive
Orders or ridiculous gun control measure's, at the end of the day the
fact remains NEVER surrender your weapons...we might very well need
them, especially if our defense budget truly is on the chopping block.