Category: Other Immigration

LA doctor accused of faking exams for immigrants

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Doesn’t this give you confidence in our immigration system? The Associated Press reports Officials: LA doctor faked immigrant medical exams: 

A Los Angeles doctor has been arrested for allegedly falsifying the results of medical exams for immigrants applying for visas.

Officials say 72-year-old Levon Tebelekian is charged with fraud and making false statements after a joint investigation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the California Medical Board.

ICE’s Miguel Unzueta says immigrants applying for permanent residency must undergo a medical exam to ensure they don’t have any medical conditions or diseases that could threaten public health.

Investigators say immigrants paid Tebelekian up to $150 to complete the medical examination form, but never saw the doctor.

If convicted, the physician faces up to 80 years in prison.

The local NBC station adds this charming anecdote:

In one case, he allegedly told an undercover ICE agent that he was not going to “disturb his blood” and that he “did not look like he had AIDS,” according to an affidavit.

But why should the doctor be prosecuted? Obama is lifting the ban on immigrants and travelers with HIV/AIDS anyway, as Ann reported last week.

Center for Immigration Studies report explains how the Sierra Club justifies more immigration

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

If you follow immigration issues generally, one of the most perplexing questions is how did it come about that the major environmental organizations (especially the Sierra Club) in the US don’t want to work to slow immigration when it is clear that more people means more environmental degradation.  Jerry Kammer has written a very detailed piece for the Center for Immigration Studies entitled, “Strategic Negligence: How the Sierra Club’s Distortions on Border and Immigration Policy Are Undermining its Environmental Legacy” that seeks to explain how this happened and tells us that some true conservationists are trying to turn that around.   Please read the report.

Mr. Kammer is just missing one key element in my opinion.

That key element is that Carl Pope, the Sierra Club’s long-time Executive Director, is more a Marxist than an environmentalist.   The new communist movement in this country has coalesced around the Apollo Alliance (Pope sits on its board of directors).   Pope is more comfortable with the far left labor unions, leftwing foundations, the big corporations and the likes of revolutionary Van Jones (be sure to watch the Pope/Jones interview linked in here) then he would be with David Brower.    The powerful alliance that helped elect Obama must have poor demanding immigrants to “change” our government—the goals of the “social justice movement” are more important to Pope and Jones than saving a little biodiversity.   

I only wonder that it took so long for people truly concerned about the environment to organize against open borders communists.  No, I don’t really, because they are mostly on the political left too and couldn’t begin to grasp that Far Left (communists!) had taken over the environmental movement that they began.

P.S. to all the environmentalists concerned with population growth generally, well-educated Americans have been having fewer children while the Somalis, Bosnians and other Muslims pouring into the US have no such concern—six kids and up is what they are aiming for—because they don’t give a damn about the environment!

Obama Administration to lift ban on immigrants/travelers with HIV/AIDS

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

President Obama, while signing legislation yesterday that extends taxpayer funding of medical care and treatment to people with HIV, announced the final steps to lifting a ban on those entering the US with HIV/AIDS.  Guess we will be taking care of more of the world’s HIV population right here.*   From the Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON – President Obama said yesterday that the United States will overturn a 22-year-old travel and immigration ban against people with HIV early next year.

The order will be finalized on Monday, Obama said, completing a process begun during the Bush administration. The United States has been among a dozen countries that bar entry to travelers with visas or anyone seeking a green card based on their HIV status.

This next section of the article is inaccurate because refugees with HIV have been allowed entry.  The reporter should have used the word ‘immigrants’ instead of ‘refugees.’

The law effectively has kept out thousands of students, tourists, and refugees and has complicated the adoption of children with HIV.

Those countries still banning people with HIV/AIDS are as follows.  I wonder at the accuracy of the list.   Do Iran and Syria, for example, let in people with the disease? 

The 11 other countries that ban HIV-positive travelers and immigrants are Armenia, Brunei, Iraq, Libya, Moldova, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Sudan, according to the advocacy group Immigration Equality.

I don’t have the time, but if you are interested you might want to visit Immigration Equality and see if you can find any mention of the list.

* The Bush Administration is credited with spending a lot of money in Africa to fight HIV/AIDS, but I just talked with a young man in my town who spent 2 years in Africa recently with the Peace Corps.  He said the Africans in his area of Africa refused the condoms because they believed they were contaminated with the AIDS virus and that it was a US plot to infect them.   Consequently, his Peace Corps compatriots who were assigned to work on HIV/AIDS had nothing to do.

Melanie Phillips: Labour plotted to transform Britain. Sound familiar?

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Melanie Phillips, courageous chronicler of the rise of Islam and anti-Semitism in the UK and the author of Londonistan, has a stunning piece in the Daily Mail. She writes:

For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.

Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?

The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate.

There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.

Since 2001, Britain has gained some 2.3 million immigrants. The total population is about 61 million. The U.S. population is about 308 million, or five times as many. So this would be equivalent to the U.S.  gaining about 11.5 million immigrants during the last nine years. And Britain’s immigrants include far more Muslims than ours.

Why was this done?

But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government’s ‘driving political purpose’, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’. 

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.

It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.

Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

This reminds me of the change in refugee policy during the Clinton years. Instead of bringing refugees into gateway cities like New York and Los Angeles, which are used to immigrants and usually have existing communities of those nationalities, the State Department decided to settle refugees in small cities all across America. They usually did this without the foreknowledge, agreement, or preparation of those cities and towns. I have no damning quote about their motivation, but when I heard this policy I immediately thought, “They want to rub ordinary Americans’ noses in multiculturalism and diversity, and show them up for the narrow-minded bigots they are.” And here’s another parallel:

But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the likes of Neather. It was to destroy Britain’s identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country’s.

A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.

It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 per cent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour.

That is a parallel to the Democrats’ wish to grant amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens living here, and to open our borders to further immigration from third-world countries. I don’t know the motivation of Republicans — I guess they’re just suicidal.  Poor immigrants here vote overwhelmingly Democrat. That’s the party that takes money from the productive citizens and gives it to the unproductive. Not that all poor immigrants are unproductive, but they are vastly undereducated for decent jobs and often require government support of one kind or another (like food stamps and Medicaid) during their entire lives. But the left apparently believes that bringing them here is worth it if in the process our unique culture and qualities can be destroyed, and the evil conservatives can be vanquished forever.