Saturday, December 26, 2009

OBAMA'S SELLOUT OF BLACK AMERICANS - Will He NOT Sell Us Out To EVERYONE???

BLACKS UNDER MEXICAN OCCUPATION – WHO SELLS US OUT?

The greatest tragedy American faces is not the Bush – Feinstein – Clinton – Obama wars way over there for SAUDI BUSH CARLYLE GROUP BIG OIL INTERESTS, it is the invasion and occupation of 38 million illegals into this country, primarily from Mexico. This is why our own borders are maintained OPEN and UNDEFENDED with NARCOmex.

The New York Times is a LA RAZA MOUTH PIECE. It is substantially owned by Mexican billionaire CARLOS SLIM. This is undoubtedly why the Times preaches the LA RAZA PROGRAM for amnesty. What we won’t read in the Times is the staggering cost of all this “cheap” labor, the exploitation of illegals, or the welfare and prison costs associated with it.

THERE SHOULD BE NO PLACE IN AMERICAN WERE ANY WORKER, LEGAL OR OTHERWISE IS EXPLOITED. BUT THAT IS THE REAL REASON WE HAVE OPEN BORDERS AND A TORRENT OF ILLEGALS CLIMBING OUR BORDERS EVERY DAY!


It’s all about CHEAP LABOR! The La Raza dems, now once again working for another amnesty bailout for Wall Street, don’t give a fuck about poor Mexican illegals! They don’t give a fuck about poor Americans! Since the “amnesty” scham of 1986, there have been 1.5 million illegals walk over our borders and into our jobs, welfare lines, hospital emergency rooms for birthing, and frequently jails and prisons. While schools are being cut in CA, that state pays out one BILLION to house illegals in prisons! WE ARE MEXICO’S WELFARE SYSTEM! By dumping 38 million of Mexico’s poor, illiterate, criminal and frequently pregnant over our borders, Mexico has been enabled to maintain their economic monopolies in the hands of a few dozen Mexican families. The Mexican phone monopoly (Mex pay the highest phone rates in the hemisphere) is owned by one CARLOS SLIM. In fact, there are more BILLIONAIRES in Mexico (not even including the Mexican drug cartel lords) than in Saudi Arabia or Switzerland. While these illegals storm our borders, there are 1.5 million Americans that fall into poverty every year. In Mexican occupied Los Angeles, you are unlikely to get a job anywhere unless you’re a “cheap” labor Mexican with a stolen social security number. 47% of all employed in Los Angeles are illegals. This county also pays out $50 million in welfare to illegals, and Mexican gangs murder 500 – 1,000 people YEARLY. That “cheap” labor is not really so cheap!

Mexicans are the most racist people in the hemisphere. La Raza “The Race” doesn’t stand for anything but Mexican supremacy. Mexican gangs have murdered blacks in cold blood to “ethnically control” their gang districts. In California there have been more than 2,000 Americans murdered by illegals that fled back over the border to avoid prosecution.

We can continue to be political correct while La Raza, the Fortune 500 La Raza donors, and the LA RAZA DEMS with hispandering Obama talks about amnesty even with staggering unemployment. However, that unemployment COST BLACK AMERICANS THE MOST! The Mexican occupation depresses wages from $300 to $400 BILLION PER YEAR! You wondered why most of the FORTUNE 500 are generous LA RAZA donors?

Let’s send the illegals packing and let them impose their culture on their own lands!

*
ZOGBY POLL
“In Mexico, a recent Zogby poll declared that the vast majority of Mexican citizens hate Americans. [22.2] Mexico is a country saturated with racism, yet in denial, having never endured the social development of a Civil Rights movement like in the US--Blacks are harshly treated while foreign Whites are often seen as the enemy. [22.3] In fact, racism as workplace discrimination can be seen across the US anywhere the illegal alien Latino works--the vast majority of the workforce is usually strictly Latino, excluding Blacks, Whites, Asians, and others.”
*

December 26, 2009
ON RELIGION
Trying to Build Bonds With Immigrant Stories

By SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN

OAKLAND, Calif.
On the last Sunday before Christmas, from an altar flanked by Advent candles and potted poinsettias, the Rev. Clarence L. Johnson preached to the Mills Grove Christian Church about the Nativity. A precise and measured man, Mr. Johnson departed just once from his typewritten text.
In the midst of recounting a certain birth in ancient Judea, the minister placed his gaze a dozen rows back into the congregation and rested it on a dark-haired woman in a patterned blouse. He called her by name, Luz, and then he went back into his sermon, to words he had surely chosen with her in mind.
“Joseph was warned by an angel of the Lord that Herod, the king, was searching for the young child in order to destroy him,” Mr. Johnson said. “He was instructed to get up and take the baby and his mother, Mary, and flee into Egypt and remain there until it was safe to return. This, then, becomes a refugee story, a story of immigrants, a young family having to escape the dangers of their native land and relocate to a strange new place.”
Throughout the stucco church, among the hundred worshipers, nobody needed a concordance to grasp the minister’s meaning. Earlier in the morning service, they had heard from Luz Dominguez herself. Or, more accurately, they had heard her through the interpreter who translated the testimony of a Mexican immigrant to a congregation of African-Americans.
“I am a woman of faith,” Mrs. Dominguez, 45, had said from the pulpit, “and I am here to speak to you with my heart in my hands.”
Then she told a different kind of Christmas narrative, one about being suspended from her job as a hotel housekeeper 10 days before the holiday in 2006. Officially, the reason was that the Social Security number Mrs. Dominguez had provided to the hotel did not match federal records.
The timing of the suspension, which was followed two weeks later by her firing, also coincided with the efforts of Mrs. Dominguez and dozens of co-workers to have the hotel comply with a local living-wage law that would have reduced their workload.
Three years later, the dispute remains unresolved. Mrs. Dominguez now works at a different job and fears a return visit from immigration agents, who have surprised her at home once already. And while she said nothing overt about her immigration status, the audience could surmise that even after 15 years in America it fell somewhere short of legal.
Her testimony took just four or five minutes of the service, leaving plenty of time for hymns, poetry recitation by the children, collection of offerings and the distribution of the wine and wafer known in many Protestant churches as the Lord’s Supper. But when Mrs. Dominguez’s brief part ended, there was applause.
Applause was part of the point. So was the response at the congregational lunch after the service. Over rice and gumbo, about two dozen members of Mills Grove signed letters to Bay Area members of Congress endorsing immigration law change, an issue that President Obama is expected to revive in 2010. The letterhead, quite deliberately, consisted of a verse from Deuteronomy: “Therefore love the stranger, for you were once strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Mrs. Dominguez had spoken at Mills Grove as part of several related programs in the Oakland area intended to enlist African-American churches in support of immigration change and, at a more personal level, to neutralize the resistance many blacks have felt toward advocacy for immigrants, especially illegal ones, who are perceived as unfair competitors for manufacturing and service-industry jobs.
Over the past year, immigrant workers like Mrs. Dominguez have told their stories at 10 black churches in the Oakland area under a program called Labor in the Pulpit, overseen by the East Bay Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice. Another local advocacy group, the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, has held dialogues with members of 15 black churches over the past three years.
What underlies both of these initiatives has been the sense of disengagement, sometimes ranging to antipathy, on the immigration issue among African-American churches. In part, these churches see more than enough challenges meeting the needs of blacks during the severe economic downturn. In part, they see Latino immigrants as adversaries.
“We get ‘They’re taking our jobs,’ ” said Gerald Lenoir, director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, recalling his conversations at churches. “We get, ‘They’re overwhelming our social services, they’re taking over our communities, they’re calling it a civil rights struggle, and what about our struggle?’ ”
Black church leaders have come up with answers both idealistic and pragmatic. Brian K. Woodson Sr. pastors a church, the Bay Area Christian Connection, that is near Chinatown in Oakland and shares its building with a Vietnamese congregation. To him, the immigrants make more sense as allies on issues of economic justice than as rivals.
By bringing immigrants like Mrs. Dominguez into church, sympathetic blacks have been able not only to put a human face on the immigration issue but also a face that is brown-skinned and Christian, affirming two common bonds. The attacks on Latino immigrants on talk radio and cable TV have also encouraged a certain dynamic of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
“Whenever we see our brothers and sisters being treated wrongly,” Mr. Johnson said in an interview, “it’s incumbent on us to raise our voices. For those of us who’ve been involved in the struggle and have gained benefits from that struggle, we feel it’s right to pass the benefits along.”
*
from the March 30, 2006 edition –
MEXICO PREFERS TO EXPORT ITS POOR, NOT UPLIFT THEM


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p09s02-coop.html

Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them At this week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US actions.

By George W. Grayson

WILLIAMSBURG, VA. - At the parleys this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún, Mexican President Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his countrymen north of the Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional visas for Mexicans to enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of guest-worker schemes, and the "regularization" of illegal immigrants who reside throughout the continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the Mexican chief executive excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of a wall on the US-Mexico border and called for the "orderly, safe, and legal" northbound flow of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state of Guanajuato. Mexican legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández Enriquez, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America, recently emphasized that the solution to the "structural phenomenon" of unlawful migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but with "understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility." Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty. To his credit, Fox's "Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly the plight of the poorest of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers have advanced measures that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of the workforce, curb unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad. Indeed, Mexico's leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact science as they shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying efforts by the US senators and representatives to crack down on illegal immigration at the border and the workplace. Insufficient revenues mean that Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of social mobility: Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare only 6.10 percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study. Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian concerns require North America's neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not the least of which is immigration. However, Mexico's power brokers have failed to make the difficult decisions necessary to use their nation's bountiful wealth to benefit the masses. Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist that Mexico's pampered elite act responsibly, rather than expecting US and Canadian taxpayers to shoulder burdens Mexico should assume.
*
HERITAGE.org
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. Is your elected special interests pimp getting rich off elected office? CALIFORNIA’S SURE ARE!

No comments: