Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Illegal Immegration’

Ann Coulter Letter: “‘Immigrant’: The New N-Word”


waving flag Ann Coulter 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/08/12/immigrant-the-new-n-word/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

'Immigrant': The New N-Word

Americans have got to drop their weird verbal tic of inserting “illegal” into any discussion of immigration. After I pointed out on “Fox News” that the dispute between Sen. Rand Paul and Gov. Chris Christie over spying on “Americans” was entirely a problem of immigration, “Fox Insiders” put these two sentences together: 

“[Coulter] explained that halting illegal immigration would help solve other key issues such as the economy and national security. ‘Don’t make terrorists citizens through immigration, and we’ll have a lot less of a national security problem,’ Coulter said, pointing to the attacks at the Boston Marathon and in Chattanooga.” (Emphasis added.)

Were those guys illegals? Did Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev swim across the Rio Grande to get to Boston? Did Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez hire coyotes to sneak him across the border so he could shoot four Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga?

No. Our government invited them in.

Some of our other beloved legal immigrants include:

– Anwar al-Awlaki, the man whose death in Afghanistan provoked Rand Paul to stage a 13-hour filibuster in opposition to the use of drones against — I quote — “American citizens”;

– the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan;

– the attempted Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad;

– all those Somali immigrants living in Minnesota, bloc-voting for Al Franken before flying to Syria to fight with ISIS;

– Sirhan Sirhan;

– the 9/11 hijackers;

– the Pakistani terrorist Daood Sayed Gilani, American anchor baby, responsible for four days of bombings in Mumbai in 2008;

– the New York subway bomb plotter, Najibullah Zazi;

– Pakistani terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, who shot a U.S. Army captain in 2010;

— the “local man” arrested this week for trying to organize an army of ISIS fighters in New York and New Jersey, Nader Saadeh — anchor baby “American citizen.”

ALL LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR CHILDREN! Why were any of them in this country? What are we getting out of this?

It’s not just the Fox website. Wherever I go on this book tour, I find people injecting “illegal” into the discussion, as if they’re being polite, like saying “Jewish” instead of “Jew.” But all these “homegrown,” “American” terrorists aren’t Americans, at all — except as a result of recent government policy.

This week, Sens. Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz have sent a letter to the Obama administration asking how many “non-citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens and natural-born U.S. citizens have been involved in terrorist-related activity since 1993.” National Review’s headline? “Cruz, Sessions: How Many ‘Homegrown’ Terrorists Were Illegal Immigrants?” (The headline was later changed, after complaints.)

It’s a national neurosis! People simply refuse to see what’s right in front of their faces.Illegal Immigration Giant

Admittedly, the media hide the evidence, but did anyone read this 2010 New York Times headline, “2 New Jersey Men in Terrorism Case Go Before a Judge,” and think, Oh my gosh! What is America coming to?

The “New Jersey men” were Mohamed Mahmood Alessa and Carlos Eduardo Almonte. Alessa, born to legal immigrants from Jordan and the Palestinian territories, told his Boy Scout troop, “Osama bin Laden is a hero in my family” and expressed a desire to mutilate homosexuals and subordinate women. (He was the first member of his troop to earn a merit badge in female circumcision.) Alessa’s co-conspirator, Almonte, is a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic. (Raising suspicions, he doesn’t play baseball.) He could be heard on a wiretap saying that he wanted U.S. troops to come home “in caskets.”

He also attended an anti-Israel rally with a large sign reading “DEATH TO ALL JUICE,” which he posted to his Facebook page — a social media platform created by a juice. (Naturalization officials must have high-fived one another when they got that guy.)

CNN was so relieved to have a “homegrown” terrorist who wasn’t a Muslim, the network abandoned its own rule book and identified Almonte as the child of “Latino immigrants” — amid fulsome descriptions of him as “an all-American kid” and an “all-American altar boy.”

So the good news is: Not all “American” terrorists are Muslim immigrants. Some are Latino immigrants — who typically become radicalized after coming into contact with one of our prized Muslim immigrants.

In addition to “DEATH TO ALL JUICE” Almonte, there was Bryant Neal Vinas, whose parents were legal immigrants from Argentina and Peru. Vinas fought with al-Qaida in Afghanistan and, in 2008, plotted to bomb New York’s Penn Station.

At least he’s not one of those icky illegal immigrants!

I have a word limit, so I’ve limited today’s discussion of legal immigrants to the terrorists. But I note that the big news this week is about an illegal immigrant, Victor Aureliano Martinez Ramirez, who raped, then murdered 64-year old Marilyn Pharis with a hammer at her home in Santa Maria, California. Has anyone noticed that Martinez Ramirez’s co-conspirator in the rape-torture-murder was legal immigrant Jose Fernando Villagomez?

It’s getting to the point where we’re going to need cattle prods and shock collars to break people of the neurotic compulsion to slip “ILLEGAL” in front of the word “immigrant.” The reality of legal immigration cannot make a dent in the elite’s make-believe world, where legal immigrants are only hot Swedish models, Rupert Murdoch and Sergey Brin.cause of death

Instead of Christie and Paul sparring over government policy on search warrants in a post-9/11 world, could we reconsider the government policy of admitting legal immigrants who need to be spied on?

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Amnesty Is The Knife That Killed Us


Last-Resistance-Header-5

www.lastresistance.com

http://lastresistance.com/4901/amnesty-knife-killed-us/#jubFxRFwBm4h1rjE.99

Posted By on Feb 28, 2014

no amnesty sign

“By polluting clear water with slime you will never find good drinking water.” – Aeschylus

Motives are often questioned in politics. In a sense, one cannot question motives, because there is no way to know with certainty what is going on inside the mind of another person. On the other hand, one can—with near certainty—understand motives by studying someone’s past actions. Additionally, motive can be uncovered by studying the nature of man.

The immigration debate has me questioning motives. The reasoning behind amnesty seems obvious to me. For many average American liberals, amnesty is fair. They actually believe that we should grant citizenship to those who have come here outside of the law. However, the elites in Washington know exactly what they want out of amnesty: votes. They want 11 million or so new Democrat voters.

For many countries, the path to citizenship is a difficult one, one that requires skill. These countries want the best and brightest. This makes sense. Allow me to make an analogy. Every year, Ivy League schools across the country wade through thousands of applications in order to decide whom they will allow into their school. They often set very high standards. Many times, not even a high GPA will guarantee a spot. Why do they do this? They do this to make sure that their school remains competitive, and is able to churn out graduates who will excel in their fields of study. If these schools didn’t set high standards, and as a result, admitted nearly anyone who applied, they would no longer remain competitive. Their quality would be greatly diminished. The same applies to citizenship.

The United States seems to be the only modern nation whose immigration policies are scrutinized, and we’re not even close to being the strictest in terms of whom we allow into our country. Why is it that conservatives are constantly being shamed for disagreeing with amnesty? Why is it that conservatives are beaten down for wanting to be competitive? There are a million possible answers, but by understanding past actions, and the nature of human behavior, those possibilities are significantly narrowed.

Democrats, as well as many, many Republicans are smitten with big government. I believe this is because with bigger government comes greater power. Combine a large, matriarchal government with an influx of millions of low-skill workers, and what do you get?

  • You get a recipe for dependency.
  • Low-skill individuals are much more likely to need government assistance, and a portion of those recipients will take advantage of that assistance.
  • Those who take advantage will continue to vote for those who gave them all the free stuff.
  • If this portion of people is large enough, we will forever fall under one Party rule.

We are already facing a crisis in terms of the percentage of Americans on government assistance. Over the last decade, the number of Americans on assistance has skyrocketed. There are those who deny this theory, who naively believe that very few would ever take advantage of the system. To those people, I say: take a look at the numbers.

  • Human nature is greedy.
  • Given this situation, adding millions of new people to the system who will very likely require government assistance,
  • we would be living in a country in which those who are contributing are outnumbered by those who are taking.

Once the contributors are outnumbered by the takers, we will have reached a tipping point at which time a conservative will never again win a national election. The Democrats want to keep a hold on their power, and the best way to do that is to make sure a conservative Republican never even has a chance. The magic weapon? Amnesty. A flood of low-skill workers. The most absurd part about it is that many Republicans will go along with the plan, because they are afraid of not being liked, or they mistakenly believe that the plan will benefit them as well. These Republicans are staggeringly naïve, and are contributing to the destruction of our country.

Could I be incorrect in my assessment of the motives of the Left? No. I know this because I’m not a moron, and I can see patterns, and I recognize the darkness of human nature. We are dying, and amnesty is the weapon that did us in. 2016 is our last chance to turn this ship around.

Resist Amnesty

Read more at

Ann Coulter Letter: “Did I move?”


http://www.humanevents.com/2014/02/13/did-i-move/

By: Ann Coulter   2/13/2014 01:51 AM

Did I move?With all the smirking on the left about their electoral victories, it’s important to remember that Democrats haven’t won the hearts and minds of the American people. They changed the people. If you pour vinegar into a bottle of wine, the wine didn’t turn, you poured vinegar into it. Similarly, liberals changed no minds. They added millions of new liberal voters through immigration.

So why are Republicans like Trey Gowdy, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and John Boehner making fools of themselves in order to spot the Democrats three more touchdowns?

The House Republicans’ “Standards for Immigration Reform,” for example, contains this fat, honking nonsense: “One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents.”

As the kids say: WTF?

That may be a pleasant-sounding sentiment, but it has absolutely nothing to do with our country’s history. Not the first thing. Did Republicans really think they could pawn off the idea that our forefathers fought and died at Valley Forge so that illegal aliens wouldn’t have to live in the shadows?

Yeah, it was a long shot. We didn’t know you guys had read the Constitution. We’ll be quiet now.

Apart from the fact that protecting children from the mistakes of their parents has not the slightest connection with the nation’s founding, it’s a ridiculous concept.

Yes, children suffer when their parents break the law. Also when their parents get divorced, become alcoholics, don’t read to them at night, feed them junk food and take them to Justin Bieber concerts. None of that is the child’s fault.

But it’s not the country’s fault either.

If we have to excuse lawbreaking so as not to “punish the children,” there’s no end to the crimes that have to be forgiven — insider trading, theft, rape, murder and so on.

How do you think kids feel when their father has to “live in the shadows” because he committed a rape? The kids did nothing wrong, but they have to go to bed every night wondering: Is tomorrow the day Dad is going to be caught?

How do you function like that? And how awful it must be when their dad is sent to prison! How do you think Jack Abramoff’s kids felt? What about Martha Stewart’s kid?

Why not just forgive the crimes of all perpetrators who have kids? At a minimum, shouldn’t we allow criminals to defer their sentences until their kids turn 26 so they can stay on Dad’s health insurance? Or at least until their kids have gone to college? Chris Christie can give them in-state tuition!

“It’s not the kids’ fault” proves too much. People can get away with anything if they’re willing to use their children as trump cards to avoid the force of law.

The once-respected Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., compared illegal aliens brought here as kids to children who steal a grape or scream in a restaurant:

“When children wander into neighborhood yards, we don’t call that trespassing. When children cry and yell and scream at restaurants or on airplanes, we don’t call that a violation of the noise ordinance. When children eat a grape at the grocery store or eat a piece of candy waiting in line before Mom or Dad pays for it, we don’t have them arrested for petty larceny.”

Yes, but in those cases, both the child and his parents had a right to be where they were — the yard, restaurant or grocery store — when the child suddenly behaved like a child. With illegal aliens, the parents are more like gypsies teaching their kids to beg and pick pockets. The parents forced the kids into being lawbreakers.

Similarly, Palestinians use their children to commit acts of terrorism against Israel, so that when Israel responds, the parents can wail, “They’re bombing children!”

(I thought only liberals couldn’t do analogies.)

Americans are under no moral obligation to admit huge numbers of people who have no particular right to be here just because the Democrats need 30 million new voters.

Why shouldn’t Republicans oppose mass immigration on the grounds that immigrants will vote Democratic? The only reason the Democrats want mass immigration is because they know immigrants will vote Democratic. (Also for the cheap nannies and gardeners.)

Immigration is the “single issue” that decides every other issue. If this country were the same demographically today as it was in 1980, Romney would have won a bigger victory in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter. And we wouldn’t have to hear about soccer all the time.

We’re living in a different country now, and I can’t recall moving! Had I wanted to live in Japan, I could have moved there. Had I had wanted to live in Mexico, Pakistan or Chechnya — I could have moved to those places, too.

(Although maybe not. They all have stricter immigration policies than we do.)

I’m sure they’re lovely, but I wanted to live in America. Now I can’t. At the current rate of immigration, it won’t exist anymore. The Democrats couldn’t win elections there, so they changed it.

With the repeal of Obamacare in the balance, I have argued that it’s insane for Republicans to waste resources primarying their own guys in 2014. Even the most heinous Republican can usually argue, “Would you really rather have a Democrat in this seat?”

But any Republican who supports mass immigration — whether with Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill, or idiotic arguments about “not punishing the children” — has forfeited that claim. If the country is going to be ruined anyway, it could not matter less who wins any particular seat on this Titanic.

Ann Coulter is author of the new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three – Especially a Republican (Regnery 2013).

Could we get some immigrants who can take a poll?


Ann Coulter Letter

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/01/08/could-we-get-some-immigrants-who-can-take-a-poll/

Could we get some immigrants who can take a poll?

By: Ann Coulter   1/8/2014 08:22 PM

With Republicans tying themselves in knots over the Democrats’ destructive, but superficially appealing, demand that unemployment benefits be extended to two and a half years, I return to my suggestion that Republicans stop playing defense and go on offense.

For every issue that MSNBC loves to prattle on about, gloating that it will cost Republicans this or that demographic, there’s an equivalent issue to use against the Democrats. (The difference is: Our proposals would actually be good for the country.)

In addition to my repeated suggestion that Republicans introduce bills to institutionalize the dangerous mentally ill and force the Democrats to defend the right of psychos to crap in libraries and shoot up schools, Republicans should take the public’s side on immigration.

Democrats love to pretend their sucking up to illegals is all upside for them, but that’s because they lie even when taking polls.Liberals will claim that 99 percent of Americans favor national health care after taking a poll that asks: “Do you support Americans being nice to one another?”

WAIT! THAT’S NOT A POLL ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTH CARE!

It’s the same thing. The government providing free health care to everyone is just being nice.

They’ll claim “90 percent of Americans favor banning most guns” based on a poll that asks, “Are you for common sense gun safety or are you against it?”

Similarly, the immigration polls triumphantly brandished by the media ask about positions no one holds, no politician has proposed and no bills would require. Polls are irrelevant if you lie to the people being polled.

Most immigration polls are variations on the one taken by the liberal Brookings Institution last March. Although it has been endlessly cited for allegedly showing that a majority of Americans support amnesty, the poll never asked about amnesty, or any real policy.

Rather, the poll gave respondents only two options, neither of which have been proposed by either political party or are up for a vote anywhere in America.

The options were: “The best way to solve the country’s illegal immigration problem is to secure our borders and arrest and deport all those who are here illegally”;Or:“The best way to solve the country’s illegal immigration problem is to both secure our borders and provide an earned path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the U.S.”

Neither of those choices describes the position of anyone on either side of the immigration debate. Amnesty proponents have no intention of either securing the border or making illegals do anything to “earn” citizenship. Meanwhile, not a single amnesty opponent has proposed any program to “arrest and deport” illegals.

But amnesty proponents turn around and cite this fraudulent poll as proof that a majority of Americans support “a path to legalization.”

This is how the left uses polls to manipulate public opinion, rather than find out what it is. They provide the ingredients for today’s political discussion and we’re not allowed to pick any items off the menu.

But can’t I be against amnesty without voting for rounding up illegals at gunpoint?

No substitutions! Look at the menu.

All the “path to legalization” polls play the same trick. Either armed men round up millions of women and children at midnight, put them in leg irons and immediately deport them on stinky buses; or we offer them a “path to legalization” after meeting all sorts of onerous requirements (none of which will ever materialize).

There were loads of promises surrounding Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty, too — such as securing the border, punishing employers who hire illegals and forcing illegals to pay back taxes. Sen. Teddy Kennedy vowed: “We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.” (Those were the good old days when they were willing to call it “amnesty.”)

Obviously, that promise ended up in the same place Mary Jo Kopechne did — underwater and unmentioned.

After the bill passed, then-Rep. Chuck Schumer (Gov. Chris Christie’s current immigration adviser) immediately introduced a bill excusing illegal aliens from having to pay any back taxes at all.

Now, instead of 3 million illegal aliens living here, we have 11 million, salsa is the best-selling condiment in America, and I have to press “one” for English.

We already tried this the nice way. The country gets one mulligan, not two.

An honest poll question would ask:

Do you think people who have knowingly broken our laws to come here illegally with their families since the last amnesty should be rewarded with citizenship, or should they voluntarily go back the same way they came?

An even more honest immigration poll question would ask:

At a time of massive unemployment, do you think people who have knowingly broken our laws and come here illegally with their families since the last amnesty should be rewarded with citizenship, or should they voluntarily go back the same way they came?

Even a poll question that simply omits the lies about the theoretical hurdles illegals will have to clear (which will never happen) produces a poll in which a majority of Americans support “deportation.”

Last year, the TechCrunch website polled this question: “Do you support or oppose deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S.?”

Again: NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT DEPORTATION. We didn’t round up 11 million foreigners to get them here, and we’re not going to round them up to send them home. They’ll leave the same way they came.

But even answering a stacked poll question asking about something no one has proposed — deportation — a majority of respondents, 53.4 percent, supported deportation, compared to 42 percent opposed. Among Republicans, 74.1 percent favored deportation, with only 22.3 percent opposed.

Not only that, but a Fox News poll last year showed that a majority of Americans would like to curtail legal immigration, with 55 percent supporting a decrease in legal immigrants and only 28 percent supporting an increase.

My thought is: Republicans should push policies that are popular.

But instead of proposing immigration reforms that are runaway hits with a majority of Americans — without anyone even having made the argument! — Republicans have been hoodwinked by Democrats into trying to outbid Democrats for the Hispanic vote. They still won’t win the Hispanic vote, but now the rest of the country will hate Republicans, too.

Ann Coulter is author of the new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three – Especially a Republican (Regnery 2013). 

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: