UNDERSTAND THE INVADERS.....BASIC FACTS ON LA RAZA:
La Raza is a fascist Mexican supremacy organization to keep the borders between Narco-Mex and your jobs OPEN! It’s all about the WALMARTing of America. Just look at what it has done to LA RAZA LAND NEVADA!
La Raza has total contempt for freedom of speech. Anyone that disagrees is a “racist”. La Raza means “the race”... the Mexican race! In sanctuary county of Los Angeles Mexican gangs are murdering African-AMERICANS to “cleanse” the communities they are taking over. Google it!
La Raza has endorsed and promotes illegals voting illegally. You’ve heard... “the Latino vote”... To understand the dynamics of La Raza you must understand that American laws and ordinances are like our borders; just stupid gringo jokes. Loretta Sanchez of Orange County, California didn’t win a gig in Congress because highly conservative Orange County republicans voted for her! This area is now virtually in the control of the illegals, and they’re voting for amnesty candidates.
La Raza has an operating budget of nearly 100 million per year. This comes from big business, such as La Raza donors Bank of America and Wells Fargo, both of which illegally open bank accounts for illegals and make billions off sub-prime mortgages to them. Another is La Raza donor Bill Gates, an advocate of open borders to depress wages for stupid gringos. La Raza also receives millions of dollars in your tax money. Yes, I repeat; your tax dollars go to support this racist party of the invaders. Harry Reid recently went to Congress and easily obtained another 5 million dollars for this racist organization. The Mexican government is obviously a major financier of La Raza and is spending 100 million in PR costs to keep the invasion in full momentum. Mexico has their surge as well. It’s on our undefended borders!
La Raza’s doctrine is that the American middle class should be Mexico’s welfare system. We pay for the free delivery of millions of illegals (now 1 in 5 in Los Angeles), educate their children, pay out welfare, which in Los Angeles County is 40 million per month, and house their criminal drug gangs in the largest prison system in the United States. The cost of depressed wages for Americans from the Mexican invasion and occupation is calculated to be 200 billion annually.
Mexico is listed by the Christian Science Monitor as one of the most corrupt nations in the world with more billionaires than even Saudi Arabia. To maintain the oligarchy’s control on their economy’s monopolies, they must dump their poor, pregnant and criminal classes over our border so we pick up their welfare and education costs. An example of Mexican economics is Carlos Slim. Slim controls Mexico’s phone monopoly. Mexicans pay the highest phone rates in the hemisphere. Carlos Slim has assets of over $70 billion.
While we are Mexico’s welfare system, the second biggest stream of money Mexico takes in is transfers from illegals working in the United States back to Mexico. This is another reason Bank of America and Wells Fargo violate Federal laws and illegally open bank accounts using fraudulent ID’s. The transfer fees are a huge cash cow for these La Raza donors. The government of Narco-Mex had set up nearly 50 Mexican consulates (compare to the UK which has 8) to hand out their phony consulate ID’s the banks are happy to pretend are legit.
“Wherever there’s a Mexican, there is Mexico!”... President Calderone.
LA RAZA SUPPORTERS INCLUDE:
Hillary Clinton.
Barack Obama
Ted Kennedy
Harry Reid, 25% of Nevada is illegal.
Nancy Pelosi, has long hired illegals at her Napa winery
Officers of the Bay Area Chapter of La Raza Whores are:
Dianne Feinstein ...... “Illegals are good citizens!” ---- Dianne Feinstein. Good enough that she has long hired illegals at her San Francisco Hotel
Barbara Boxer
Nancy Pelosi
Anna Eshoo
Zoe Lofgren
CALIFORNIA’S OTHER LA RAZA WHORES
Henry Waxman
Jane Harman
Loretta Sanchez
Joe Baca
Howard Berman
Sam Farr
CALIFORNIA’S LITTLE SHIT LA RAZA WHORES
Mike Feuer, backed by very Mexican supremacist organization in LaLaLando
**************************************************************************
The League of United Latin American Citizens, a front for the La Raza invasion have proclaimed California OCCUPIED.
California has the largest group of elected La Raza whores (see list below) who are actively working for the illegal’s interest even after you said NO FUCKING MAS ILLEGALS!
California has 13 million of the “12 million illegals” our government would have us believe.
The cost to California is staggering. Not just in the crime wave the Mexicans bring with them, but in out of (taxpayer’s) pockets the invasion cost. It is one of business’ largest source of welfare... all that “cheap” Mexican labor that you pick up the real cost for.
Los Angeles, substantially a Mexican city, has the largest army of Mexican gang members.
95% of the arrests in Los Angeles are illegals.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, February 11, 2008
In California, League of United Latin American Citizens has adopted a resolution to declare "California Del Norte" a sanctuary zone for immigrants. The declaration urges the Mexican government to invoke its rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo "to seek third-nation neutral arbitration of ....disputes concerning immigration laws and their enforcement." We’ll have the story. Last year, Prince William County, Virginia passed an initiative to allow local police to check the immigration status of anyone in police custody. The county recently held its first immigration training session for local police officers. We’ll have a look inside the training. Mexican President Felipe Calderon is in New York today on the first leg his five-day tour across America to meddle in immigration issues in the United States. This is his first visit to the U.S. since he became President in 2006, but he will not meet with President Bush or any of the presidential candidates, who he has accused of spewing anti-immigrant rhetoric. Join us for that report.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
In his first state of the union speech since becoming president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon criticized the U.S. government and its efforts to shut down illegal immigration. During the speech Calderon proclaimed that “Mexico does not end at its borders” and that “where there is a Mexican, there is a Mexico.” Tune in for a full report on Calderon’s vigorous fight to protect Mexican interests in the United States—even when they’re built on illegal immigration.
Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Mexican President Felipe Calderon Sunday demanded the United States surrender its sovereignty, abandon the rule of law and accede to Mexico's inherent supremacy.
Lou Dobbs says Mexican President Felipe Calderon is showing "blatant hypocrisy" on
immigration.
In his state of the union address to the Mexican nation, Calderon established his imperialistic imperatives: "I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico. And, for this reason, the government action on behalf of our countrymen is guided by principles, for the defense and protection of their rights."
Calderon protested the U.S. government's increased raids on illegal employers of illegal alien employees and work site enforcement. In what is little more than a faint nod to the Bush administration's responsibility to enforce U.S. immigration law, the Department of Homeland Security had planned to send out notices to employers from the Social Security Administration informing them of non-matching records between an employee's name and Social Security number. These employers would then be forced to resolve any discrepancy within 90 days or be required to dismiss the employee or face up to $10,000 in fines for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
But then, ethnocentric advocacy groups and some labor unions, trying to bolster their membership, sued to stop the crackdown on hiring illegal alien workers. A federal judge in California last week issued a temporary restraining order blocking the plan, giving a victory to the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center, all of which brought the suit alleging DHS exceeded its authority in making the rule.
That U.S. District Court judge ruled as if she were an employee of the Mexican government, rather than the U.S. government. Homeland Security was simply enforcing existing immigration laws. Are we not a nation that follows the rule of law? If not, we're no country at all.
Calderon must have been delighted by the judge's decision. Calderon, like his predecessors, Carlos Salinas and Vicente Fox, has failed miserably to establish policies that would create jobs for the Mexican people and to eliminate shameful, unchecked corruption and incompetence in the Mexican government.
Even by Mexico's standards, Calderon's blatant hypocrisy is breathtaking. Calderon told the Washington Post more than a year ago that he believes laws are not a relative concept, nor subject to a personal concept of justice. Calderon declared a big difference between himself and his rival for the Mexican presidency, Manuel Lopez Obrador, was this: "I believe in the rule of law." Obviously he does not believe in the rule of U.S. law on U.S. soil.
Calderon can't have it both ways. He cannot fail his citizens at home and then act as the Great Imperialist Protector of his citizens who are driven by poverty and corruption to enter the United States illegally. The United States provides Mexico with an annual surplus of $65 billion in trade, an estimated $25 billion in remittances from Mexican citizens living and working here illegally, and at least another $25 billion generated by the illegal drug trade across our southern border.
But it is President Bush and this Congress who should be most embarrassed, because they are failing to assert rights for Americans in their own country, rights far short of those demanded by Calderon for his citizens living illegally in our nation.
*********************************************************************** Unfettered Immigration = POVERTY FOR AMERICANS By Robert Rector .............Heritage.org | May 16, 2006 This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty. An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years. Immigration and Crime Historically, immigrant populations have had lower crime rates than native-born populations. For example, in 1991, the overall crime and incarceration rate for non-citizens was slightly lower than for citizens.[40] On the other hand, the crime rate among Hispanics in the U.S. is high. Age-specific incarceration rates (prisoners per 100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) among Hispanics in federal and state prisons are two to two-and-a-half times higher than among non-Hispanic whites.[41] Relatively little of this difference appears to be due to immigration violations.[42] Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly Hispanic. It is possible that, over time, Hispanic immigrants and their children may assimilate the higher crime rates that characterize the low-income Hispanic population in the U.S. as a whole.[43] If this were to occur, then policies that would give illegal immigrants permanent residence through amnesty, as well as policies which would permit a continuing influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, would increase crime in the long term. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration One important question is the fiscal impact of immigration (both legal and illegal). Policymakers must ensure that the interaction of welfare and immigration policy does not expand the welfare-dependent popula_?tion, which would hinder rather than help immi_?grants and impose large costs on American society. This means that immigrants should be net contributors to government: the taxes they pay should exceed the cost of the benefits they receive. In calculating the fiscal impact of an individual or family, it is necessary to distinguish between public goods and private goods. Public goods do not require additional spending to accommodate new residents.[44] The clearest examples of government public goods are national defense and medical and scientific research. The entry of millions of immigrants will not raise costs or diminish the value of these public goods to the general population. Other government services are private goods; use of these by one person precludes or limits use by another. Government private goods include direct personal benefits such as welfare, Social Security benefits, Medicare, and education. Other government private goods are “congestible” goods.[45] These are services that must be expanded in proportion to the population. Government congestible goods include police and fire protection, roads and sewers, parks, libraries, and courts. If these services do not expand as the population expands, there will be a decrease in the quality of service. An individual makes a positive fiscal contribution when his total taxes paid exceed the direct benefits and congestible goods received by himself and his family.[46] The Cost of Amnesty Federal and state governments currently spend over $500 billion per year on means-tested welfare benefits.[57] Illegal aliens are ineligible for most federal welfare benefits but can receive some assistance through programs such as Medicaid, In addition, native-born children of illegal immigrant parents are citizens and are eligible for all relevant federal welfare benefits. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens would have two opposing fiscal effects. On the one hand, it may raise wages and taxes paid by broadening the labor market individuals compete in; it would also increase tax compliance and tax receipts as more work would be performed “on the books,”[58] On the other hand, amnesty would greatly increase the receipt of welfare, government benefits, and social services. Because illegal immigrant households tend to be low-skill and low-wage, the cost to government could be considerable. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty.[59] This study found that illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and currently pay little in taxes. Illegal immigrant households also receive lower levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that, on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes.[60] Granting amnesty would render illegal immigrants eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payment among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic backgrounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around $5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per year.[61] Granting Amnesty is Likely to Further Increase Illegal Immigration The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens. The primary purpose of the act was to decrease the number of illegal immigrants by limiting their inflow and by legalizing the status of illegal immigrants already here.[63] In fact, the act did nothing to stem the tide of illegal entry. The number of illegal aliens entering the country increased five fold from around 140,000 per year in the 1980s to 700,000 per year today. Illegal entries increased dramatically shortly after IRCA went into effect. It seems plausible that the prospect of future amnesty and citizenship served as a magnet to draw even more illegal immigrants into the country. After all, if the nation granted amnesty once why wouldn’t it do so again? The Hagel/Martinez legislation would repeat IRCA on a much larger scale. This time, nine to ten million illegal immigrants would be granted amnesty. As with IRCA, the bill promises to reduce future illegal entry but contains little policy that would actually accomplish this. The granting of amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants is likely to serve as a magnet pulling even greater numbers of aliens into the country in the future. If enacted, the legislation would spur further increases in the future flow of low-skill migrants. This in turn would increase poverty in America, enlarge the welfare state, and increase social and political tensions. ..................................................
No comments:
Post a Comment