Letter To The Editor

 [Although the following letter published in the New York Times refers to U.S. immigration policies, it could be easily interpreted to represent Canada’s immigration fiasco, as well. I doubt whether this political-incorrect letter would pass inspection with the Toronto Star’s immigration cheerleaders.]

Photo: vlambi

To the Editor:

Family reunification is the single largest source of legal immigration to the United States and should be limited to spouses and minor children only for several reasons.

First, many immigrants bring in aged parents, at first promising to support them, and then later renege on their promises and place their aged parents, who never worked a day in the United States, on Social Security disability and other social services.

Second, by bringing in a sibling or an adult child, the sponsoring immigrant sets off chain migration, beginning with the sponsored immigrant’s immediate family. His spouse can then eventually bring in her parents and siblings, thus lengthening the chain.

Some of these siblings or children may have been brought in to work in small family businesses. Since these family members are dependent upon the good will of their sponsors, it is unlikely that they will complain about hours, wages and working conditions and may accept a room in the sponsor’s house as part of pay, adding to overcrowded housing.

Finally, by family reunification we are allowing people who have been in the United States for a relatively short amount of time and who may hold citizenship in their country of origin as well as the United States to have more say about whom we allow into this country than people whose ancestors fought and died in our wars, survived our tough economic times, built the United States into the world power that it is today, paid taxes for generations, and who owe allegiance to the United States alone. Is this wise?

Deena Flinchum
Blacksburg, Va., May 20, 2007

via http://isteve.blogspot.com/

Advertisements

More Assaults On Free Speech

By Elizabeth Wright

Unfortunately….. there are always more updates to be done on the victims of Europe’s “hate crime” laws. In the last Commentary, The insidious chilling of debate,thought criminalsDavid Irving and Ernst Zundel were awaiting their fates in German and Austrian jail cells. As you know, in December, Austria freed Irving, and in February, Germany sentenced Zundel to five years in prison. The 67-year-old Zundel has been incarcerated in Germany for almost four years for the “crime” of publicly disputing the official version of Holocaust history.

Also, in the grand democracy of Germany, Germar Rudolf is on trial for a report he authored in 1993 questioning, after his own examinations and research, the accepted, “official” account of the gas chambers in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Rudolf, a chemist and former doctoral candidate at the Max Planck Institute, in 2004, had all his property confiscated by the German government, which also demands he pay 55% of all money earned on the sale of his books about his research, since they are now considered “illegal.” He faces the possibility of spending five years in prison.

Here in Free Speech USA, New York University historian Tony Judt is getting his come-uppance for having the temerity to think he can give lectures and write articles about Middle East issues when his perspectives differ from those of The Lobby–that is, The Lobby that does not exist.

Like others, such as Amos Elon, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Richard Cohen, Tony Kushner and Israel Shamir–all of whom criticize the United States’ biased support of Israeli policies–Professor Judt is learning that there is a special hell reserved for his ilk. Representatives from that hell follow you around, hunt you down, and single-mindedly……… work to sabotage your every effort at dissent.

After Abraham Foxman of B’nai Brith’s Anti-Defamation League (ADL) got on the case, Judt’s scheduled talk last October at the Polish consulate in New York was canceled. The Washington Post quotes the Polish Consul General describing phone calls he received from the ADL and the American Jewish Committee: “The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure.” Another speech, scheduled at the Bronx’s Manhattan College, was also canceled under pressure. Explained the Hebrew Institute’s Rabbi Avi Weiss, who was responsible for bringing about the cancellation: “Being anti-Israel is essentially being anti-Jewish.” And that’s that! Subject closed.

As the issuers of death threats and the torchers of homes and libraries constantly remind us, when mocking the First Amendment, “You have the right to try to be heard, but you don’t have the right to be heard.”

It was encouraging, for a while, back in March 2006, just after publication of the paper, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, to experience a wave of hope. Even though the paper, authored by the two Americans, was published and placed online by a London magazine (an American magazine having chickened out), the knowledge that it was being distributed throughout the U.S., and could not be annihilated like Dixie Chicks CDs, made some of us feel like we lived in a free country, after all. (A working version of the paper is on the Harvard University website.)

But, let’s face it, we knew the light couldn’t last. When The Lobby (that does not exist) can interfere with the elections of members of Congress, can prevent books from being published, can directly intervene in the workings of governments in foreign countries, there is little hope that the light will last for long. Former President Jimmy Carter is learning about that right now. The publication of Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, brought the hounds running in his direction. Fortunately, the would-be censors could not prevent the book’s release.

However, the hounds have found other ways to “Get Carter,” as writer Chris Hedges titled an article on the subject. After Carter spoke in a forum about the Middle East, at Brandeis University, pressure by the Usual Suspects” was brought to bear on some of the University’s wealthiest donors, as implied in The Jewish Week (2/16/07). A current Brandeis trustee reported on “a fair number of donors who have indicated they will withhold contributions.” And, joining those with concerns, no doubt, for their future careers and/or financial welfare, 15 members of the Carter Center’s advisory board resigned.

Yet, as bad as it looks, what with people running to put distance between themselves and the ostracized Carter, author Philip Weiss, writing for The American Conservative magazine (2/26/07), sees a silver lining. He reports not only on the thousands of copies of the book that have been sold, but on the fact that many months after publication, it is still on the New York Times bestseller list. Weiss thinks that greater numbers of Americans finally are seeking to educate themselves on this hot topic, instead of depending on the usual media sources. (His article offers a first hand, eyewitness account on the forum at Brandeis University.)

[…]

Full Article here.

http://www.issues-views.com

Free Speech Under Attack

Mosque

 

By John LEO

Law professor Eugene Volokh calls it “censorship envy.” Muslims in Europe want the same sort of censorship that many nations now offer to other aggrieved groups. By law, 11 European nations can punish anyone who publicly denies the Holocaust. That’s why the strange British historian David Irving [went] to prison. Ken Livingstone, the madcap mayor of London, was suspended for four weeks for calling a Jewish reporter a Nazi. A Swedish pastor endured a long and harrowing prosecution for a sermon criticizing homosexuality, finally beating the rap in Sweden’s Supreme Court.

Much of Europe has painted itself into a corner on the censorship issue. What can Norway say to pro-censorship Muslims when it already has a hate speech law forbidding, among other things, “publicly stirring up one part of the population against another,” or any utterance that “threatens, insults or subjects to hatred, persecution or contempt any person or group of persons because of their creed, race, color or national or ethnic origin … or homosexual bent”? No insulting utterances at all? Since most strong opinions can be construed as insulting (hurting someone’s feelings), no insults means no free speech.

It’s not just Europe. In Canada, a teacher drew a suspension for a letter to a newspaper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation, but a condition that can be treated. He was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper. Another Canadian newspaper was fined 4,500 Canadian dollars for printing an ad giving the citations — but not the text — of four biblical quotations against homosexuality. As David Bernstein writes in his book “You Can’t Say That!“: “It has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex.”

Many nations have set themselves up for Muslim complaints by adopting the unofficial slogan of the West’s chattering classes: Multiculturalism trumps free speech. Sensitivity and equality are viewed as so important that the individual right to speak out is routinely eclipsed. Naturally enough, Muslims want to play the same victim game as other aggrieved groups. The French Council of Muslims says it is considering taking France Soir, which reprinted the Danish cartoons, to court for provocation.

In truth, Muslims have been playing the game for some time. Michel Houellebecq, a French novelist, said some derogatory things about the Quran. Muslim groups hauled him into court, but the novelist was eventually exonerated. Actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, criticized Muslim ritual slaughter and was fined 10,000 francs for the offense. Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci wrote an angry anti-Muslim book, meant to waken the West to the gravity of the threat posed by Islam. Muslims pressed for her prosecution in France. The case was thrown out of court on a technicality in 2002, but she [was] scheduled to go on trial again […].

In Australia, a state tribunal found two pastors guilty of vilification of Muslims. They had argued that Islam is inherently a violent religion, and that Islam plans to take over Australia. To avoid a fine of up to 7,000 Australian dollars or three months in jail, they were ordered to apologize and to promise not to repeat their remarks anywhere in Australia or over the Internet. The pastors refused to comply and are appealing to the Supreme Court. The case has become a major cause, with churches and Christian leaders fighting to overturn the law, and Muslims pushing for a broad hate-speech law.

An obvious thing to say about laws that limit speech is that we have no evidence that they work to meet their stated goal — reducing bigotry and increasing tolerance. Banning Holocaust denial, on grounds that it is inherently anti-Semitic, has no track record of improving respect for Jews. If anything, hatred of Jews appears to be on the rise in these nations. Setting up certain groups as beyond criticism is bound to increase resentment among those not similarly favored. (Yes, we know all groups are supposed to be treated alike, but that is not the way these laws work.) In real life, the creation of protected classes sharpens intergroup tensions and leads to competition for victim status.

An even more obvious point: We are very lucky to have the First Amendment. Without it, our chattering classes would be falling all over themselves to ban speech that offends sensitive groups, just like many Eurochatterers are doing now. We know this because our campus speech codes, the models for the disastrous hate-speech laws in Europe, Canada and Australia, were the inventions of our own elites. Without a First Amendment, the distortions and suppressions of campus life would likely have gone national. No more speech codes, please. In America, we get to throw rocks at all ideologies, religious and secular, and we get to debate issues, not have them declared off limits by sensitivity-prone agents of the state.

Illegal Aliens Kill Thousands Yearly

By Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, Ph.D.

Twelve (12) Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. That translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001

While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, [in addition] he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers,  for another annual death toll of 4,745.  That’s 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ia05_king/col_20060505_bite.html

In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:

* The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests,  some eight arrests per illegal alien;

* Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses,  some 13 offenses per illegal alien;

* 36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.

Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute concluded that, based on a figure of 12 million illegal immigrants and the fact that more of this population is male than average, sex offenders among illegals make up a higher percentage than offenders in the general population.

She arrives at the figure of 240,000 offenders  a conservative estimate, she says,  through public records showing about 2 percent of illegals apprehended are sex offenders.

“This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day,” she says.

She points out the 1,500 offenders in her study had a total of 5,999 victims, and each sex offender averaged four victims.

“This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study,” she declares.

Schurman-Kauflin breaks down the 1,500 cases reviewed this way:

* 525, or 35 percent, were child molestations

* 358, or 24 percent, were rapes

* 617, or 41 percent, were sexual homicides and serial murders

Of the child molestations, 47 percent of the victims were Hispanic, 36 percent Caucasian, 8 percent Asian, 6 percent African American and 3 percent other nationalities.

In 82 percent of the cases, she noted, the victims were known to their attackers.

“In those instances, the illegal immigrants typically gained access to the victims after having worked as a day laborer at or near the victims’ homes,” she says. “Victims ranged in age from 1 year old to 13 years old, with the average age being 6.”

In her examination of the sex-related homicides, Schurman-Kauflin found the most common method was for an offender to break into a residence and ambush his victims.

Not only were victims raped, she said, but some 6 percent  were mutilated.

“The crime scenes were very bloody, expressing intense, angry perpetrator personalities,” she said. “Specifically, most victims were blitzed, rendered incapable of fighting back, and then raped and murdered. The most common method of killing was bludgeoning, followed by stabbing.”

She found it especially disturbing that in 22 percent of all sex crimes committed by illegal immigrants, victims with physical and mental disabilities were targeted.

The highest number of sex offenders, according to the study, came from Mexico.

El Salvador was the original home to the next highest number.

Nearly 63 percent of the offenders had been deported on another offense prior to the sex crime, the study showed. There was an average of three years of committing crimes such as DUI, assault or drug related offenses prior to being apprehended for a sexual offense.

-Violent Crimes Institute

Immigrant Marriages Under False Pretenses

Indian Wedding

There is a desire in a number of immigrants to retain cultural purity. Immigrant parents try to achieve this goal for their children by seeking spouses in the immigrant parent’s country of origin (eg. Indiaeditor). This is a very common practice in Canada and in European immigrant-receiving countries. For the immigrant group, this action often means bringing in people who are unfamiliar with the immigrant-receiving country. As a result, it often results in continued lack of integration with the host population.
Fraud marriage is not an isolated practice. A large number of immigrants enter Canada every year as sponsored spouses. Some of this pactice is legitimate, but the law is abused in two ways: (A) Foreigners pay some Canadians to pretend they are marrying a Canadian. At an appropriate time, the so-called “marriage” ends. (B) Other Canadians genuinely enter a marriage agreement with a foreigner. In these cases, it is the foreigner who has done the pretending. In reality, the foreigner was interested only in obtaining Permanent Resident status. In both (A) and (B) cases, the minute the foreigner sets foot on Canadian soil, the foreigner has Permanent Resident status and is eligible to obtain Canadian citizenship in 3 years. In many cases, foreigners who have come as sponsored spouses literally disappear at the airport and the Canadians are left aghast at how they have been duped. The most galling of all realities is that little, if anything, is done to apprehend and to deport the foreigners either in situation (A) or (B) or to penalize the Canadians involved in the abuse in (A).

Sponsoring a spouse is a practice which is grossly abused by predators from other countries. According to several oprganizations trying to stop fraudulent marriages, there are literally thousands of Canadian citizens who have been victims of foreigners who, with malice aforethought, have used a Canadian spouse to enter Canada. Subsequently, these people have brought in their real spouses, their own parents, and as many other relatives who qualify for sponsorship. These new arrivals then sponsor others and the process goes on ad infinitum. It is a significant part of the process called “chain migration”.

…………………….the prey are not only naive and innocent Canadians, but also the country itself. It shows that these people do serious emotional injury to the people they prey on, but also that they are a criminal class whose aim is to abuse Canada’s immigration and legal systems as much as possible. Emboldened by how easy it was to get away with abuse of their spouses, these foreigners probably go on to other similar abuse. The extent of that abuse has not yet been uncovered.

Full article here.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/

Also, stop marriage fraud with this website:

http://www.stopmarriagefraud.ca/

“Tolerance” Game Explained

Identity.jpg
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
For centuries, the Masonic central bankers who control Western society and culture have been pushing “tolerance.” Why?

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is a notorious “forgery” (they say) that uncannily explains our predicament. It says the Illuminati bankers want to “dislocate all collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us.” (Protocols, Section 5)

The four major collective forces are: Race, Religion, Family and Nation. They are the four pillars of our human identity.

How do you undermine them? Certainly a frontal attack would meet with spirited resistance. Instead you promote “tolerance” which destroys these (above-mentioned) collective forces by erasing the differences between them.

Thus you have ecumenicalism in religion, miscegenation in race, and regionalism (i.e. EU, NAU) in nation states. You destroy family by erasing gender differences.

At this stage, the Masonic bankers perceive Christian and Islamic nations as their principal adversary. But eventually all national, racial and religious identity will come under their gun.

Tolerance” is applied selectively. We must tolerate what undermines these collective forces but have “zero tolerance” for efforts to resist or uphold them.

Thus Black rappers can trash Black females but Don Imus is fired for a passing remark. Zero tolerance for white heterosexual Christians.

[…]

In the one-race, one-religion, one-world government, we are to have one sex as well. The bankers are creating a homosexual society by blurring the line between masculine and feminine. (This uniformity is called “Diversity.” )

In 1973 the Rockefellers had the American Psychological Association change the definition of homosexual from a disorder to a normal lifestyle choice. If you google “Rockefeller Foundation” and the APA, you will get about 500,000 links, indicative of how the bankers buy “scientists” and other “professionals” by the tonne.

[…]

To understand our world, we must appreciate that we are frogs in a large pot, having our identities boiled and blended. Our culture — the pot and the stove — is largely a fraud.

The bankers want us to identify as consumers and producers only, and be amenable to guidance by their “experts”, presumably members of the APA. Let’s resist by strengthening our identities: sexual, national, religious and racial, respecting but not deferring to others.

Full article here.

Also read this.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: