Screen Shot 2015-10-06 at 9.55.47 AM


A new report shows that languages spoken in Muslim countries are surging into U.S. households, thanks in large part to immigration from Muslim nations.

2014 data from the American Community Survey reveals that Arabic and Urdu – Pakistan’s national language – are the fastest-growing foreign languages spoken at home, according to a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies.

A record 63.2 million U.S. residents, or more than one-in-five, speak a language other than English when at home, after five decades of large-scale immigration, according to Census Bureau data authored by the Center for Immigration Studies. The data also shows that 41 percent– or 25.6 million– of the residents have difficulty speaking English.

Previous reports have shown that the United States is now the second largest Spanish speaking country in the world.

But the new census study shows that the fastest-growing foreign languages, in percentage terms, are languages spoken by immigrants from Muslim-majority countries.

Between 2010 and 2014, there was a 29 percent increase in Arabic, a 23 percent increase in Urdu, and a 9 percent in Persian, which is spoken in Iran.

The findings of this report reinforce other studies, which show that Muslim immigration is the fastest growing bloc of new immigrants. Every year the United States voluntarily imports more than a quarter of a million– or 280,000– Muslim migrants (this figure includes permanently resettled immigrants, guest workers, refugees and foreign students). All of these arrivals are invited in the U.S. on visas can  collect welfare, eventually apply for citizenship, voting rights, and the ability to bring in extended-family members via visa-sponsorships and other legal means.

Arabic is now the most common language spoken by refugees, and 91.4 percent of recent refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.

The report’s author, Steve Camarota, told Breitbart News:

“Immigration is not just an economic issue. English as our common language is part of the glue that holds our country together. These numbers suggest that the levels of immigration are so high that it may strain that. After the last great wave of immigration more than a century ago, the level of immigration was reduced and remained low for half a century, which helped with assimilation. With no pause in immigration levels in sight, the nation is headed into uncharted territory.”

Since 1980, the share of the population that speaks a foreign language at home more than doubled in Nebraska, more than tripled in Virginia, and more than quadrupled in North Carolina, says the report.

Nearly one in seven school-aged children in Minnesota, Georgia, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia speak a language other than English at home. In California, nearly one in every two school children, or 43.9 percent, speak a language other than English at home.

The number of people in America who speak a language other than English at home is now larger than the populations of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada combined

Mass Muslim migration has posed unique challenges to assimilation. Equality Now recently issued a report documenting how half a million U.S. girls are at-risk of the gruesome practice of female genital mutilation.

The cost that non-English speakers are imposing on American communities has been well documented in Dearborn, Michigan– which has been called the “Arab capitol of North America.

For example, in 2014, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice pressured the Crestwood School District in Dearborn Heights to “’take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal and meaningful participation by’ students with limited English skills.” The DOJ required that the school district, “provide ESL (English as a Second Language) instruction to all students who do not receive proficient (test) scores, USA Today reported.

“The agreement also says the district must hire sufficient interpreters and translators so that all letters, notices, and other documents are available in languages needed. The agreement doesn’t specify Arabic, but given that the agreement centered around complaints from Arab-Americans, it will probably include that… Other requirements of the agreement include increased community outreach, more diversity in hiring, and developing anti-retaliation program,”  USA Today said,

Donald Trump has made English language patriotism part of his candidacy, but

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 80%

has traveled in the opposite direction– conducting numerous interviews in Spanish including an interview in which he said he would not rescind the President’s executive amnesty pending some kind of “immigration reform” or amnesty.

Rubio has been one of the most aggressive of the Republican hopefuls to offer ideas that would increase the pace of Muslim immigration. Both his “Gang of Eight” immigration plan and his newly introduced I-Squared bill, which would essentially lift the caps on university green cards and triple the number of guest worker admissions, would substantially boost Muslim immigration.

Rubio has also joined Democrats in expressing his desire to expand the resettlement of Muslim refugees above the annual intake of the 280,000 temporary and permanent Muslim migrants the U.S. admits each year. This is part of Rubio’s campaign theme to create a “New American Century.”

While it might seem curious that progressive Democratic politicians like

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) 4%


Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) 2%

would join Republican Sen. Marco Rubio in welcoming a wave of migrants who engage in brutalities against women into their state, the answer may lie in a finding from the Pew Research Center.

Pew found that only 11% of U.S. Muslims identify as Republicans or lean-Republican. Al Franken, whose nail-biter recount allowed him to cast the critical vote for Obamacare’s passage, made an impassioned plea during last week’s refugee hearing for the U.S. to admit even more Muslim migrants.

A separate recent Pew report demonstrated that post-1965 immigrants and their children added 72 million people to the U.S. population.

This means that immigration between 1965 and 2015 added one new resident to the population for every one net birth to the preexisting population– a ratio of one-to-one. AsBreitbart News exclusively reported based on analysis from the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, between 2015 and 2065, immigration will add seven new people for every one net U.S. birth produced by today’s population– a ratio of seven-to-one.

While U.S. ‘can’t afford’ protection for Marines, look what incoming refugees are getting..

Written by Ashley Edwardson


While many of our military families must rely on food stamps and the United States Marine Corps claims itcan’t afford bullet proof glass to protect its rifle-less riflemen, President Obama is offering piles of cash to “refugees” coming to America. Yep, that’d be YOUR tax dollars.

And the tax dollars required to support these “refugees” — many of whom, it’s turning out, are actually NOT coming from war-torn Syria — are about to explode, given new directives from the Obama administration.

According to Yahoo! News, the administration is now saying that what was supposed to be 10,000 refugee settlers has now mushroomed into a reported 100,000 newcomers to the U.S. by 2017.

“We will now go up to 85,000 with at least 10,000 over the next year in Syria specifically. And in the next fiscal year we will target 100,000,” Kerry said.

As we reported last week, many of these desperate refugees are shopping around for the host country with the best benefits. So what will the United States be doing to “compete” in this market for refugees — some of whom may not be quite as tired and poor as they are portrayed to be?

The United Conference of Catholic Bishops recently posted the list of freebies President Obama’s offering to those thousands of “refugees” he and the United Nations are demanding America accept. The information came from our very own Government Accountability Office.

As reported by the Daily Caller:

Each refugee is offered a placement grant of $1,850 from the Department of State. This includes: pre-arrival, reception, initial housing food, clothing, referral services and social programs. The benefit eligibility are for those refugees who have been in the U.S. for up to three months.

Refugees needing cash assistance can get it through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). This is temporary financial assistance and social services for those eligible low-income refugees with dependent children. Cash assistance for refugees who do not qualify for TANF can also be obtained through Refugee Cash Assistance. This is available for those in U.S. for up to 8 months.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is also an option for incoming refugees and those who settled in the U.S. for up to nine years. This is cash is cash assistance for those low-income individuals who may be elderly, blind, or disabled.

Refugees who’ve been in the United States up to seven years are also offered medical financial assistance through Medicaid as well as through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Otherwise, Refugee Medical Assistance is available for up to eight months for those individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is made available to refugees for up to nine years while social services for refugees — including job training, placement, and retention for those settled in the U.S — are available for up to five years.

Ann Corcoran, founder of Refugee Resettlement Watch, first noticed the posting and comments, “At the top you will see that each refugee gets $1850 as a one time payment from the US Dept. of State (a family of 6 would receive $11,100). However, the contracting (non-profit) agency keeps about $750 of each refugee’s allotment for its own overhead.”

She later noted, “But, that is not all the contractor receives, most get tens of thousands of federal dollars to run myriad other programs through their offices including English language lessons, employment counseling, and even are granted federal dollars to develop community gardens for their refugee clients.”

You do the math. That means at least $342,250,000 of U.S. funds over the next couple of years.

Meanwhile, according to Marine Lt. Gen. Mark Brilakis, providing bullet-proof glass for Marine recruitment offices would cost about $100 million dollars the U.S. government just doesn’t have. General Brilakis, I think I just found your $100 million, even if it means that those refugees coming to America will have to suck it up and divide the remaining left over $243 million amongst themselves.

I don’t know about y’all, but Monday morning I’m going to light up the phone lines to my Congressmen to demand our Marines be taken care of before any refugee who sets foot on our soil. Be sure and contact us if you need any assistance contacting your representatives.


Published on Sep 18, 2015

Experts say looming debt could lead to a financial crisis

The federal debt held by the public totals more than $13 trillion, or about $107,000 per household in the United States, according to a report released this month by the Cato Institute.

How can the public have debt they did not spend,, politicians spent it without our consent, I owe nothing

Yes tax increases for workers not for hand out recipient’s who keep getting raises in their income when workers loss income and have to pay for them to survive. Wake up America we need jobs so everyone can contribute and not suck the blood out of workers who are losing everything and working hard in doing so. You want equality. Then everyone should work at least 8 hours and if you want ore in your live than 12-15 hour days as I have. While others sit at home and worry about nothing as our tax dollars are supporting their way of life. Very Unfair to workers

USA CHART: More Than 90% Of Recent Muslim Refugees On Food Stamps, Almost 70% On Cash Welfare

This in and of itself is a stunning indictment of the “migrants” Obama vows he will bring over in untold numbers to assist Europe in an ongoing Islamic invasion.

ISIS recruits are in and among these “migrants.” Jihad terror and jizya — Obama’s poison legacy.

Obama’s “radical transformation” of America.

“CHART: More Than 90% Of Recent Middle Eastern Refugees On Food Stamps, Almost 70% On Cash Welfare,” US Senator Jeff Sessions,  September 10, 2015


Immigration Subcommittee Background:

The statistics in the chart are provided by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The ORR figures defined refugees from the “Middle East” as being from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen.

During the time period referenced in the chart (FY2008 to FY2013), the United States admitted 115,617 refugees from the Middle East and granted asylum to another 10,026. Also during this 5-year time frame, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the United States granted permanent admission to a total of 308,805 individuals from these same 10 Middle Eastern countries (designated as refugee-sending nations) through the issuance of green cards.Those with green cards are Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) of the United States who may apply for citizenship after 5 years and bring their foreign relatives into the U.S. on green cards as well. Refugees are required to apply to adjust to LPR status within 1 year of their admission to the United States. The DHS 2013 report on Refugees and Asylees list the top ten countries, numerically, for refugee admission into the United States as: Iraq, Burma, Bhutan, Somalia, Cuba, Iran, Congo, Sudan, Eritrea, and Ethiopia. More broadly, concerning all immigration, the Migration Policy Institute notes that the U.S. has taken in “about 20 percent of the world’s international migrants, even as it represents less than 5 percent of the global population,” and that 1 in 4 U.S. residents is now either an immigrant or born to immigrant parents. The Census projects that another 14 million immigrants will arrive in the United States between now and 2025, easily eclipsing the highest previous historical watermark for foreign-born population share

– See more at:

Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare




More than half of the nation’s immigrants receive some kind of government welfare, a figure that’s far higher than the native-born population’s, according to a report to be released Wednesday.

About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households, according to the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for lower levels of immigration.

Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

The findings are sure to fuel debate on the presidential campaign trail as Republican candidates focus on changing the nation’s immigration laws, from calls for mass deportations to ending birthright citizenship.

Steven Camarota, director of research at the center and author of the report, said that’s a much-needed conversation to make the country’s immigration system more “selective.”

“This should not be understood as some kind of defect or moral failing on the part of immigrants,” Camarota said about the findings. “Rather, what it represents is a system that allows a lot of less-educated immigrants to settle in the country, who then earn modest wages and are eligible for a very generous welfare system.”

Linda Chavez agrees with Camarota that the country’s welfare system is too large and too costly. But Chavez, a self-professed conservative who worked in President Reagan’s administration, said it’s irresponsible to say immigrants are taking advantage of the country’s welfare system any more than native-born Americans.

Chavez said today’s immigrants, like all other immigrant waves in the country’s history, start off poorer and have lower levels of education, making it unfair to compare their welfare use to the long-established native-born population. She said immigrants have larger households, making it more likely that one person in that household will receive some kind of welfare benefit. And she said many benefits counted in the study are going to U.S.-born children of immigrants, skewing the findings even more.

“When you take all of those issues into account, (the report) is less worrisome,” she said.

Chavez, president of the Becoming American Institute, a conservative group that advocates for higher levels of legal immigration to reduce illegal immigration, said politicians should be careful about using the data. Rather than focus on the fact that immigrants are initially more dependent on welfare than the U.S.-born, she said they should focus on studies that show what happens to the children of those immigrants.

“These kids who get subsidized school lunches today will go on to graduate high school … will go on to college and move up to the middle class of America,” Chavez said. “Every time we have a nativist backlash in our history, we forget that we see immigrants change very rapidly in the second generation.”

The center’s report is based on 2012 data from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation. It includes immigrants who have become naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, those on short-term visas and undocumented immigrants.

Camarota said one of the most shocking findings from the report was the high number of native-born Americans also on welfare. About 76% of immigrant households with children are on welfare, but so are 52% of native-born households with children.

“Most people have a sense that if you were to work for $10 an hour, 40 hours a week, you couldn’t be receiving welfare, could you? You couldn’t be living in public housing, could you?” he said. “The answer is yes, you can. That’s one of the most surprising things about this study.”

Other findings in the report:

  • Immigrants are more likely to be working than their native-born neighbors. The report found that 87% of immigrant households had at least one worker, compared to 76% for native households.
  • The majority of immigrants using welfare come from Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean. The use of welfare is lower for immigrants from East Asia (32%), Europe (26%) and South Asia (17%).
  • Immigrants who have been in the U.S. more than 20 years use welfare less often, but their rates remain higher than native-born households.