Monday, January 25, 2010

ARIZONA and INDIANA MOVE FORWARD WITH IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT BILLS

MOVE TO END MEXICAN OCCUPATION and WELFARE STATE

Arizona and Indiana Move Forward With Immigration Enforcement Bills
Faced with rising unemployment and the federal government’s refusal to enforce our immigration laws, state legislatures are moving to address these issues on their own. Last week, senate committees in Indiana and Arizona voted to move forward with two enforcement-oriented bills.
On January 20, 2010, the Indiana Senate Committee on Pensions and Labor passed Senate Bill (SB) 213 by a unanimous vote of nine to zero. (Roll Call Vote # 6791, January 20, 2010). Sponsored by State Senators Mike Delph (R-Carmel), Phil Boots (R-Crawfordsville), and Dennis Kruse (R-Auburn), SB 213 would require all state agencies, municipalities, and employers that contract with state and local government entities in Indiana to use E-Verify. SB 213 would also require the state’s Department of Labor to verify citizenship before determining eligibility for unemployment benefits and prohibit the enactment of sanctuary ordinances throughout the state. (Senate Bill No. 213; Bill Summary; and Press Release, January 6, 2010). The bill will now move before the Senate Committee on Appropriations for further consideration. (Committee Report, January 21, 2010).
Also on January 20, the Arizona Senate Committee on Public Safety and Human Services approved SB 1070 by a vote of four to three. (Committee Meeting Video, January 20, 2010). Entitled the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” SB 1070 would prohibit Arizona police departments from adopting sanctuary policies that prevent officers from asking individuals about their immigration status. SB 1070 would also establish a new state trespassing statute that would make it illegal for any person to be present on any public or private land in Arizona in violation of federal immigration law. The bill, which has drawn support from the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association and the Arizona Police Association, must now pass the State Senate’s Rules Committee before receiving consideration before the full Senate. (The Arizona Republic, January 21, 2010). A similar bill passed the Arizona State Senate last year, but stalled in the House. (KSWT, January 20, 2010).

FAIRUS.org - IMPACT OF SENATOR SCOTT BROWN on PUSH FOR AMNESTY

FAIR Legislative Update January 25, 2010

Scott Brown’s Victory in Massachusetts Demonstrates the American People Support Immigration Enforcement
All eyes were on Massachusetts last week as the highly publicized special election for the U.S. Senate seat came to an end. Scott Brown, the little-known Republican State Senator, defeated Democrat Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General, in an upset described as the second “shot heard ‘round the world.” (The Hill, January 19, 2010).
Although most consider health care to be the issue that nationalized this election, immigration was another reason 52% of voters in the Bay State supported Brown. Brown’s stance on immigration clearly set him apart from his opponent. Brown summarized his position as follows:
I recognize that our strength as a nation is built on the immigrant experience in America. I welcome legal immigration to this country. However, we are also a nation of laws and government should not adopt policies that encourage illegal immigration. Providing driver’s licenses and in-state tuition to illegal immigrant families will act as a magnet in drawing more people here in violation of the law and it will impose new costs on taxpayers. I oppose amnesty, and I believe we ought to strengthen our border enforcement and institute an employment verification system with penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants.
(Brown's Campaign Website). In contrast, Ms. Coakley supported amnesty for illegal aliens and, during an interview with WGBH-FM, stated “we will always have open borders.” (New York Post, January 20, 2010).
Brown’s win will make it harder for amnesty proponents to move their agenda forward, if for no other reason than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), a key amnesty proponent, no longer commands 60 votes needed to end a filibuster. Still, pro-amnesty forces claim that the Brown victory does not necessarily derail the President’s agenda, including “comprehensive” immigration reform. (Immigration Impact, Jan. 20, 2010). In fact, the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-amnesty advocacy group, claims that because Mr. Brown will face re-election in 2012 he will need to vote for amnesty in order to maintain support from Massachusetts voters. Meanwhile, FAIR president Dan Stein observed, "Tuesday's election was the political 'shot heard around the world,' and any politician, anywhere in the country, who ignores the public's unmistakable opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens, does so at his or her own peril." (FAIR Press Release, January 21, 2010).

CALIFORNIA IN MELTDOWN! ONE BILLION FOR ILLEGALS IN PRISON! Time To End Mex Occupation?

BOTH FEINSTEIN AND BOXER KNOW OF THE STAGGERING COST TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION HAS CAUSED. THE ONLY THING THESE TO LA RAZA ENDORSE LIFER-POLITICIANS CARE ABOUT IS GETTING RICH OFF ELECTED OFFICE. TO STAY IN ELECTED OFFICE THEY MUST SERVICE THE SPECIAL INTERESTS THAT FINDS THE NOTION OF A LIVING WAGE PAID TO A LEGAL OBSCENE. BOTH ARE FOR AMNESTY, SABOTAGE E-VERIFY, NO I.C.E. ENFORCEMENT, AND NO ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS.
BOTH HAVE WORKED FOR THE FEINSTEIN- BOXER “SPECIAL AMNESTY” FOR…. Get this…. 1.5 million MORE ILLEGAL FARM WORKERS FOR THEIR BIG AG BIZ DONORS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONE-THIRD OF ALL ILLEGAL FARM WORKERS END UP ON WELFARE.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN ILLEGALLY HIRES ILLEGALS AT HER S.F. HOTEL. HER LA RAZA SISTER, NANCY PELOSI HIRES ILLEGALS AT HER $20 MILLION NAPA WINERY. BOTH ARE FOR OBAMA’S LA RAZA AMNESTY = NEW DEM VOTERS!
WE CAN’T EVEN BEGIN TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY UNTIL WE RID OURSELVES OF THESE CORRUPT POLITICIANS!
BOXER IS NOW RUNNING FOR A THIRD 6 YEAR TERM, DESPITE THE FACT SHE HAS NEVER GOT A BILL THROUGH CONGRESS!
THE BELOW FIGURE OF $800 MILLION (ARNO SAYS A BILLION) DOES NOT INCLUDE THE COST OF WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, OR THE FACT THAT MEXICAN GANGS NOW COVER THE STATE. THANKS TO DIANNE FEINSTEIN AND BARBARA BOXER’S OPEN DOOR, NO LEGAL NEED APPLY POSITIONS!

“It's also true that the federal government doesn't come close to covering the local costs of illegal immigration. U.S. Sens. Boxer and Dianne Feinstein placed the cost just of incarcerating those caught committing crimes in California at more than $800 million last year, net a modest reimbursement from the federal government.”

FOR MORE IN THE EVER EXPANDING MEXICAN WELFARE STATE OF MEXIFORNIA, GO TO MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com and become a follower.

latimes.com
MICHAEL HILTZIK
Stop looking to feds to cure California's budget crisis
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says the state is running a budget deficit because we pay more in federal taxes than we get back in federal spending. The biggest cause of the deficit is the governor.
Michael Hiltzik
January 25, 2010

Our political leaders trot out new and more creative excuses for their failure to get the state's fiscal house in order every day, but one hardy perennial was recently aired again by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This is the notion that California is running a budget deficit because we pay more in federal taxes than we get back in federal spending.

Schwarzenegger and the legislative leaders made a pilgrimage to Washington on this theme last week. The governor's claim was that the state receives only 78 cents back for every dollar of federal tax we generate, so somehow we're "subsidizing" the states that get more and incurring red ink in Sacramento in the process. The economics of the state budget deficit being of great interest to individual taxpayers and business owners alike, it's proper to subject this claim to some scrutiny.

Whether there's even factual grounds for the governor's claim is subject to debate. His number dates from 2005, and the formula underlying it has been criticized for supposedly overestimating tax payments. (The Washington-based Tax Foundation, which created the formula, defends its methodology.)

Last week, U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer shot back that while California may indeed have been a "donor state" in the past, at the moment it's a recipient state to the tune of about $1.45 in inflow for every dollar in federal taxes paid.

The change is due to two factors, she contends: The recession has reduced the federal taxes owed by Californians, while the economic stimulus package is bringing a total of $85 billion in new federal funds to the state this year and next.

The real issue, however, is not the accuracy of Schwarzenegger's figure, but its relevance. Relevance to what, you ask? Well, relevance to anything. To begin with, in terms of political leadership, complaining that a state's return on federal taxes contributes to its fiscal deficit is the last resort of the spineless.

The biggest cause of the state deficit, currently about $20 billion, is Schwarzenegger, who hollowed out the revenue stream by $5 billion to $6 billion a year by cutting the car tax in 2003 without coming up with a substitute. His ideas for fixing the state's tax and budget process have been as bankrupt as, well, the state government.

In a letter to the state’s congressional delegation last week seeking a $6.9-billion federal handout, the governor said "California lawmakers have done nearly everything that can be done to address this historic fiscal crisis." This is true, if you define "nearly everything that can be done" as "almost nothing."

Obviously, suggesting that this state, or any state, be permanently guaranteed a positive return on federal taxes is not an adult approach to governing, as the basic math of a permanent net inflow for every state of the union doesn't exactly pencil out.

Schwarzenegger has been promising to collect our fair share since he took office -- he proclaimed himself "the Collectinator," remember -- so it's proper to examine why some states consistently collect more than others.

Two factors dominate, said Bill Ahern, director of policy at the Tax Foundation. These are, first, the progressive structure of federal tax and, second, the huge share of federal spending that goes to the poor, elderly and infirm. Safety net programs, Social Security, Medicare, and retiree and veterans payments accounted for 58% of the federal budget in fiscal 2008, according to the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

What this means, Ahern explains, is that states with relatively numerous high-income residents (California, for example) and relatively low percentages of poor and elderly residents (California, for example) will always tend toward a structural deficit in their federal yield.

"No number of military bases or other goodies is going to make up for having a disproportionately large number of high-income people," he told me last week. "And since most federal spending is demographically determined to favor the elderly and poor, wherever those populations are disproportionately large, federal spending flows will overwhelm tax payments."

Another important factor is the size of the state. The 3,000-employee FBI campus Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) snagged for his home state (population 1.8 million) tilts its federal balance of payments into the black -- the Tax Foundation pegged it at $1.76 in 2005 -- a lot more than it would have been if it were dropped into California (pop. 37 million).

One state Schwarzenegger whines about, New Mexico (supposed federal return per dollar of tax: $2.03; pop. 2 million), gets a huge bang for the buck from its two national laboratories, Sandia and Los Alamos. If the governor is so concerned about New Mexico, let's see him offer to move Los Alamos here -- wouldn't it be fun watching him try to find a California community willing to host a secret research program dealing with nuclear weapons?

The Tax Foundation has always been a bit "ambivalent" about its federal tax study, Ahern says, because once you get past the progressivity of federal tax and the demographic structure of government spending, "there are not that many implications for policymakers. . . . The 'Collectinator' idea, that Schwarzenegger was going to change this ratio, was always mistaken." The group hasn't produced the study since 2006, when the staff member who crunched the numbers moved on.

One point that Schwarzenegger didn't acknowledge in his letter is that California collects a healthy share of federal revenues in some categories, such as the military budget. While contributing about 12% of federal tax revenue, the state accounted for 13% of all military procurement contracts in 2005 and 12% of total military expenditures, ranking first in the nation on both counts.

This also reflects something of an immutable law. "No one's going to put a naval base in Kansas," Ahern observes.

It's certainly fair to say, as the governor does, that California gets shortchanged in some ways. The government's Medicaid reimbursement formula is widely considered a mess, although Schwarzenegger's claim that fixing it would give the state $1.8 billion more a year "to balance our budget" is, to say the least, real questionable.

It's also true that the federal government doesn't come close to covering the local costs of illegal immigration. U.S. Sens. Boxer and Dianne Feinstein placed the cost just of incarcerating those caught committing crimes in California at more than $800 million last year, net a modest reimbursement from the federal government.

Both these issues come under the heading of unfunded federal mandates. The problem with making a federal case out of them is that almost every state, county and city can cite its own. The cost of federal clean air regulations, or the minimum wage, or commuter train safety rules, or school desegregation orders might bite deeper in some places than in others. In Congress, all these complaints from the folks at home are likely to just cancel each other out.

Nor do they change the basic truth that Schwarzenegger and the legislative leaders tried to obscure in their Washington junket last week: The California budget crisis is home-grown, and it's up to them to solve it.

John McCain Country - UNDER MEX OCCUPATION

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com become a follower of the blog. It (was) your country!



McCAIN COUNTRY UNDER MEXICAN OCCUPATION

Few states are more overwhelmed with the MEX INVASION, OCCUPATION and ever expanding welfare state than OPEN-BORDERS ADVOCATE John McCain’s state of ARIZONA.

Next to MEXICO CITY, Phoenix has the most MEXICAN KIDNAPPINGS. Mexican gang related violence and the MEXICAN DRUG CARTEL have an advocate in McCain! He’s long HISPANDERED for the illegals’ votes, and to keep his CORPORATE PAYMASTERS happy. NO LEGAL NEED APPLY IN ARIZONA! NO LIVING WAGES FOR NO AMERICANS! THIS IS McCain country.

McCain and closet republican BARACK OBAMA has worked hard to keep our borders OPEN, UNDEFENDED, and harass SHERIFF JOE, an American that thinks American laws actually do apply to the MEXICAN INVADERS.

LA RAZA DEM NANCY PELOSI HAS VOWED NO (REAL) WALL WILL EVER BE BUILT. OBAMA HAS VOWED NO (REAL) E-VERIFY WILL EVER BE IMPLEMENTED, AFTER ALL, IN MEX OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES, A CITY OF 15 MILLION, 47% OF THE WORK FORCE ARE ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. THESE ILLEGALS MAKE UP FOR THEIR MISERABLE WAGES WITH WELFARE. LOS ANGELES COUNTY PAYS OUT $50 MILLION PER ! MONTH ! IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS. THIS COUNTY ALSO HAS A TAX-FREE MEXICAN UNDERGROUND ECONOMY CALCULATED TO BE $2 BILLION PER YEAR. THEN ADD THE 500 – 1,000 MEXICAN GANG RELATED MURDERS IN LOS ANGELES, AND YOU GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THESE LIFER-POLS LIKE McCAIN HAVE DONE TO US! VIVA MEXICO! VIVA LA RAZA!


LOS ANGELES TIMES

January 25, 2010
WAR WITHOUT BORDERS
In Drug War, Tribe Feels Invaded by Both Sides
By ERIK ECKHOLM
SELLS, Ariz. — An eerie hush settles in at sundown on the Tohono O’odham Nation, which straddles 75 miles of border with Mexico.
Few residents leave their homes. The roads crawl with the trucks of Border Patrol agents, who stop unfamiliar vehicles, scrutinize back roads for footprints and hike into the desert wilds to intercept smugglers carrying marijuana on their backs and droves of migrants trying to make it north.
By the bad luck of geography, the only large Indian reservation on the embattled border is caught in the middle, emerging as a major transit point for drugs as well as people.
A long-insular tribe of 28,000 people and its culture are paying a steep price: the land is swarming with outsiders, residents are afraid to walk in the hallowed desert, and some members, lured by drug cartel cash in a place with high unemployment, are ending up in prison.
“People will knock on your door, flash a wad of money and ask if you can drive this bale of marijuana up north,” said Marla Henry, 38, chairwoman of Chukut Kuk district, which covers much of the border zone.
The tightening of border security to the east and west, which started in the 1990s and intensified after the Sept. 11 attacks, funneled more drug traffic through the Tohono O’odham reservation, federal officials said, and especially more marijuana, which is hard to slip through vehicle crossings because of its bulk.
A record 319,000 pounds of marijuana were seized on the reservation in 2009, up from 201,000 pounds the previous year, along with small amounts of cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.
Hundreds of tribal members have been prosecuted in federal, state or tribal courts for smuggling drugs or humans, taking offers that reach $5,000 for storing marijuana or transporting it across the reservation. In a few families, both parents have been sent to prison, leaving grandparents to raise the children.
“People are afraid that if they say no, they’ll be threatened by the cartel,” Ms. Henry said.
If residents of remote villages tried to call the police, she said, help might not arrive for two hours or more.
At the same time, some residents are angry at the intrusion of hundreds of federal agents, including some who stay for a week at a time on bases in remote parts of the reservation. The surge in agents who cruise the roads has meant more checkpoints and tighter controls on a border that tribal members, 1,500 of whom live in Mexico, once freely crossed.
The once-placid reservation feels like a “militarized zone,” said Ned Norris Jr., the tribal chairman, who also says the tribe must cooperate to stem the cartels. “Drug smuggling is a problem we didn’t create, but now we’re having to deal with the consequences.”
Many residents say they live in fear of the smugglers and hordes of migrants who lurk around their homes, and also of being subjected to a humiliating search by federal agents.
The elderly avoid the desert, even in the daytime, because they might stumble upon a cache of marijuana or drug “mules” hiding in desert washes until dark.
“We can’t even go out to collect wood for the stove,” said Verna Miguel, 63, who was traumatized three years ago when a group of migrants forced her to stop on a road, beat her and stole her vehicle.
“We’ve always picked saguaro fruits and cholla buds,” Ms. Miguel said, using such desert products for consumption and rituals. “But now we don’t dare do that.”
Until recently, the reservation’s international border was porous, defended by three strands of barbed wire. Over the last two years, it has been lined with metal posts and Normandy-style barriers to stop the trucks that used to barrel through and head for Phoenix.
Federal officials describe the rise in drug seizures on the reservation as a sign of growing success on what had long been a vulnerable section of border. Barriers and surveillance have forced most of the smugglers to enter on foot rather than in vehicles and spend hours or days sneaking through the reservation, making them more vulnerable to detection, said Agent Robert Gilbert, chief of the Tucson sector of the Border Patrol.
But the large busts, here and elsewhere on the border, are also a measure of the continued trade and profits reaped by the cartels.
“The cartels use the profit from marijuana to purchase cocaine in Colombia and Peru and the ingredients for meth and heroin from other regions,” said Elizabeth W. Kempshall, special agent in charge of the Arizona office of the Drug Enforcement Administration. “So marijuana is the catalyst for the rest of the drug trade.”
The drug smugglers, mainly working for the Sinaloa Cartel, officials said, place scouts for days at a time on mountainsides, with night-vision goggles to monitor movements of the Border Patrol. The scouts communicate with Mexican or Indian guides using cellphones or two-way radios with rolling codes that cannot be intercepted, said Sgt. David Cray of the tribal police force, which has spent major amounts of money on border issues. During the day, the scouts hide in caves or under camouflage.
The Border Patrol has its own spotters and trucks with infrared video cameras that detect heat miles away. The tribe has agreed to electronic surveillance towers that in coming years will make a “virtual fence” across their lands.
Many agents spend their nights “cutting for sign,” a tracker’s term, making slow drives on dirt roads in search of footprints.
One recent chilly night, a Border Patrol spotter detected eight white dots on his screen moving steadily north, not meandering the way cows or wild mules do. With a laser beam he fixed their coordinates at a spot five miles from his mountaintop post.
Two agents in four-wheel-drive vehicles set out over a rutted ranch track, then hiked through half a mile of mesquite, cholla and prickly pear to intercept the group. Six escaped, but two Mexican men were captured with seven burlap packs, each filled with 50 pounds of marijuana that sells wholesale for $500 or more per pound.
For the agents, it was a good night’s work. “This is what we live for, stopping drugs,” said an agent who hiked in shortly after the bust to help bring in the smugglers and the contraband.
But many tribal members see the federal presence as a mixed blessing at best.
Ofelia Rivas, 53, of Meneger’s Dam Village is an Indian rights advocate and a rare border resident who agreed to speak to a reporter. She said that most families in border villages, including her own, had had a relative imprisoned for drug offenses, but that such individuals should not be blamed for the lack of legal jobs. Ms. Rivas has criticized tribal leaders for acquiescing to what she calls an oppressive federal occupation.
Federal law officials praise the tribe for its cooperation, and the Border Patrol has fielded community relations officers to minimize frictions.
Even Mr. Norris, the tribal chairman, said he had been stopped and questioned. “Quite frankly, the people are getting sick of it,” he said of the heavy outside presence. But he added that the smuggling was beyond the tribe’s ability to control.
“I hope in my lifetime we can go back to the way it used to be,” Mr. Norris said, “where people could go and walk in the daylight on our own land.”

ARIZONA UNDER MEX OCCUPATION: Immigration Law Ignites Fear

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

WHAT YOU WILL NEVER HEAR HISPANDERING BARACK OBAMA, OR HIS CORRUPT LA RAZA DEMS EVER, EVER, EVER TALK ABOUT IS THE END TO BEING MEXICO’S WELFARE SYSTEM! That’s all we are to these people! MEXICO’S WELFARE SYSTEM!

But then we also will not be hearing from the LA RAZA DEMS about the STAGGERING CRIME WAVE THAT ALWAYS COMES WITH THE MEXICAN INVASION and OCCUPATION. More than 2,000 Californians murdered by ILLEGALS THAT FLED BACK OVER THE BORDER TO AVOID PROSECUTION!

There are MORE billionaires in Mexico, not even including the MEXICAN DRUG CARTEL LORDS, than in Saudi American or Switzerland, and yet all the NARCOMEX gov does for their people is EXPORT them to America (see article by Christian Science Monitor on Mex exporting their poor at MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com)! They export their illiterate, poor, criminal, and frequently pregnant over our borders, and then in collusion with American banks such as La Raza donors WELLS FARGO and BANK of AMERICA tell them to send mucho money back home and complete Mexico’s welfare system there!
In Mexican occupied Los Angeles, where there are 40 large Mexican gangs that murder nearly 1,000 people YEARLY, the county pays out $50 million per year to illegals! Most of whom loathe this country, our culture, flag and language! Almost HALF of those employed in Los Angeles are ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS!!! You don’t think our gov knows that! It does, and refused to enforce the laws prohibiting the employment of illegals. Our own government sells us out to illegals like it does banksters!

CURRENTLY OBAMA IS WORKING FOR ANOTHER WALL STREET BAILOUT LIKE WHAT HE AND HIS LA RAZA DEMS DID FOR THE BANKSTERS THAT BANKROLLED HIM. IT’S AMNESTY! Wages for Wall Street cannot be depressed enough! There is a reason why most of the FORTUNE 500 are major donors to LA RAZA, The (Mexican) Race!
Even while Mexican gangs and the Mexican drug cartel have spread all over the country, OBAMA has taken 400 border patrol guards off our open and undefended borders even while he runs off at the mouth about TERRORISM. In fact his LA RAZA MINISTER FOR HOMELAND SECURITY is a major architect for PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP IS RIGHT OVER OUR BORDERS!

To REBUILD OUR COUNTRY AFTER TWO DECADES OF CORPORATE RAPE AND PILLAGE AND OPEN BORDERS, we need to dump ALL LIFER-POLITICIANS, AND ALL LA RAZA DEMS, AND FIGHT OBAMA’S NEWEST SELLOUT!

Immigration law ignites fear in Arizona

A new state law requires public workers to report illegal immigrants who apply for benefits they aren't entitled to. The attorney general will decide the law's scope.

By Nicholas Riccardi
January 1, 2010
Reporting from Tucson
Cristina, an illegal immigrant living in South Tucson, recently went to a government office to sign up her children for a state-run Medicaid program.

The boy and girl, ages 7 and 3, respectively, are U.S. citizens and entitled to the benefits. But Cristina, who spoke on condition her last name not be used, was fearful. She'd heard of a new state law requiring public workers to alert Immigration and Customs Enforcement when illegal immigrants apply for benefits they are not legally entitled to.

So when workers asked Cristina, 32, for identification, she fled. She now says she has no way to treat her daughter's liver problems or her son's asthma and impacted tooth.

Cristina, a single mother and part-time house cleaner, is even reluctant to take her children to a hospital emergency room. "I feel so alone," she said.

The new law has terrified the immigrant community here, leading to agonized discussions at schools, churches and community meetings about whether it is safe to get government help in Arizona. The author of the law, state Sen. Russell Pearce, is happy about that.

"I have a hard time having compassion for criminals," Pearce said. "It's about time people started being afraid."

Pearce contends that a large number of illegal immigrants improperly receive public benefits, and his law makes it a misdemeanor for a public worker to fail to report one. The law also allows citizens to sue public agencies if they believe immigrants are receiving improper benefits.

"I want the law enforced," he said. "Every time you pass something it becomes a toothless tiger." He acknowledged that his bill is not supposed to apply to people like Cristina's children, who are legally entitled to federal benefits.

The law took effect in late November, and it is not yet clear what government services it applies to. Some fear it could mean libraries and fire stations are obligated to report illegal immigrants, an interpretation Pearce said is silly.

He said the bill applies only to a range of welfare, Medicaid and other government aid programs that are not already guaranteed to illegal immigrants under federal law.

But many Arizonans are awaiting an opinion from the state's attorney general on the law's scope and which government workers are obligated to report illegal immigrants.

Critics of the law say it creates fear and uncertainty over a problem that doesn't exist.

"It's already the law in Arizona that we cannot give benefits to people who are in the country illegally," said Ken Strobeck, executive director of the Arizona League of Cities and Towns, which unsuccessfully sued to halt the law's implementation.

Experts on both sides of the immigration debate agree that illegal immigrants rarely receive government benefits illegally. Many economists have found that immigrants pay for benefits they receive through taxes, though some studies show a net loss to government.

The main cost to taxpayers comes from the use of public schools or emergency medical care -- benefits guaranteed illegal immigrants under federal law.

Also, children of illegal immigrants who are U.S. citizens are eligible for the same benefits as those of any other citizen, such as food stamps.

"There's not much that Arizona can do about it," said Steven A. Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which favors restrictions on immigration. "The only solution is for us to have fewer illegals and fewer U.S.-born children" of illegal immigrants, he added.

Camarota estimated that families headed by illegal immigrants receive public assistance at about the same rate as families of native-born citizens who lack a high school education. A 2002 study by the Urban Institute found that illegal-immigrant families used benefits at a far lower rate than native-born ones -- for example, 11% of illegal-immigrant families in Los Angeles County used food stamps, compared with 33% of low-income native-born ones.

Randy Capps, who worked on the Urban Institute study and is now at the Migration Policy Institute, said illegal immigrants shy away from government aid. "When you're in an anti-immigrant, hostile environment, like in Arizona, the message is clear that you put yourself at risk with any contact with the government," Capps said.

In 2004, Pearce, a Republican, helped write a ballot initiative that required state workers to report illegal immigrants who receive benefits. But Arizona Atty. Gen. Terry Goddard, a Democrat, interpreted the measure narrowly so the law applied to only a couple of obscure programs.

This year, as the state struggled to address its budget deficit, Pearce inserted language in the budget bill reiterating those requirements. Many immigrant advocates and local officials were unaware of the move until the law took effect. Its impact was swift.

Jennifer Allen, executive director of the Border Action Network here, said the group has been swamped with calls from terrified parents, like Cristina, fearful of seeking benefits for their U.S. citizen children.

"It's sent a shock wave of fear through immigrant communities," Allen said.

The state Department of Economic Services, which administers welfare benefits, has referred to federal authorities more than 750 people who applied for benefits without proof of legal residency. Officials at ICE have not said whether they have taken action on those cases, but stressed that their priorities in deportations lie with violent criminals.

On a recent morning, a group of immigrants sat in the modest offices of the Border Action Network, sharing stories of fearful trips to apply for benefits. Sofia Machado, an English teacher and volunteer at the group, said one of her neighbors had been deported after seeking Medicaid for her U.S.-born children.

Just as Machado finished telling the story, her cellphone rang. The caller's daughter was three months pregnant and had started bleeding, but the caller feared taking her to the hospital. Machado tried to reassure the caller that hospitals should not be checking immigration status.

"There's a lack of information and a panicked ignorance," she said afterward. "Look at the disaster these people have created."
*
AT WHAT POINT DID YOU THINK YOU WOULD FIGHT TO GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK? WHEN CA IS 75% ILLEGAL? IT ALREADY IS! WHEN YOU WERE ASLEEP, AN ILLEGAL CRAWLED OVER YOUR BORDER AND RIGHT INTO YOUR JOB!
*
“There are an estimated 1.5 million school-aged illegal immigrants in the United States and the government spends an estimated $12 billion annually to educate them. The biggest chunks are spent by California ($7.7 billion) and Texas ($3.9 billion), where the situation has become a public education crisis with no end in sight. The Lone Star State’s public schools have seen a huge increase in illegal immigrant Hispanic students with dismal Mexican and Central American education histories that are contributing to an overall lowering of academic standards across the board.”
*
You thought things couldn’t get much worse in CALIFORNIA… now MEXIFORNIA… then you don’t know how fast ILLEGALS are breeding. But then you probably didn’t know that YOU’RE PAYING FOR THE HOSPITAL COSTS OF ALL THESE ANCHORS!

POPULATION TO DOUBLE... LATINO THE DOMINANT ETHNIC GROUP.....double the deficits above! And double the crime, graffiti, anchor babies and homes foreclosed on with bars on the windows.
Riverside will become the second most populous county behind Los Angeles and Latinos the dominant ethnic group, study says. By Maria L. La Ganga and Sara Lin
Times Staff Writers
July 10, 2007
Over the next half-century, California's population will explode by nearly 75%, and Riverside will surpass its bigger neighbors to become the second most populous county after Los Angeles, according to state Department of Finance projections released Monday. California will near the 60-million mark in 2050, the study found, raising questions about how the state will look and function and where all the people and their cars will go. Dueling visions pit the iconic California building block of ranch house, big yard and two-car garage against more dense, high-rise development. But whether sprawl or skyscrapers win the day, the Golden State will probably be a far different and more complex place than it is today, as people live longer and Latinos become the dominant ethnic group, eclipsing all others combined. Some critics forecast disaster if gridlock and environmental impacts are not averted. Others see a possible economic boon, particularly for retailers and service industries with an eye on the state as a burgeoning market."It's opportunity with baggage," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in "a country masquerading as a state."Other demographers argue that the huge population increase the state predicts will occur only if officials complete major improvements to roads and other public infrastructure. Without that investment, they say, some Californians would flee the state. If the finance department's calculations hold, California's population will rise from 34.1 million in 2000 to 59.5 million at the mid-century point, about the same number of people as Italy has today. And its projected growth rate in those 50 years will outstrip the national rate — nearly 75% compared with less than 50% projected by the federal government. That could translate to increased political clout in Washington, D.C. Southern California's population is projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1 million over just seven counties. L.A. County alone will top 13 million by 2050, an increase of almost 3.5 million residents. And Riverside County — long among the fastest-growing in the state — will triple in population to 4.7 million by mid-century. Riverside County will add 3.1 million people, according to the new state figures, eclipsing Orange and San Diego to become the second most populous in the state. With less expensive housing than the coast, Riverside County has grown by more than 472,000 residents since 2000, according to state estimates. No matter how much local governments build in the way of public works and how many new jobs are attracted to the region — minimizing the need for long commutes — Husing figures that growth will still overwhelm the area's roads.USC Professor Genevieve Giuliano, an expert on land use and transportation, would probably agree. Such massive growth, if it occurs, she said, will require huge investment in the state's highways, schools, and energy and sewer systems at a "very formidable cost."If those things aren't built, Giuliano questioned whether the projected population increases will occur. "Sooner or later, the region will not be competitive and the growth is not going to happen," she said. If major problems like traffic congestion and housing costs aren't addressed, Giuliano warned, the middle class is going to exit California, leaving behind very high-income and very low-income residents. "It's a political question," said Martin Wachs, a transportation expert at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica. "Do we have the will, the consensus, the willingness to pay? If we did, I think we could manage the growth."The numbers released Monday underscore most demographers' view that the state's population is pushing east, from both Los Angeles and the Bay Area, to counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino as well as half a dozen or so smaller Central Valley counties. Sutter County, for example, is expected to be the fastest-growing on a percentage basis between 2000 and 2050, jumping 255% to a population of 282,894 , the state said. Kern County is expected to see its population more than triple to 2.1 million by mid-century. In Southern California, San Diego County is projected to grow by almost 1.7 million residents and Orange County by 1.1 million. Even Ventura County — where voters have imposed some limits on urban sprawl — will see its population jump 62% to more than 1.2 million if the projections hold. The Department of Finance releases long-term population projections every three years. Between the last two reports, number crunchers have taken a more detailed look at California's statistics and taken into account the likelihood that people will live longer, said chief demographer Mary Heim. The result? The latest numbers figure the state will be much more crowded than earlier estimates (by nearly 5 million) and that it will take a bit longer than previously thought for Latinos to become the majority of California's population: 2042, not 2038. The figures show that the majority of California's growth will be in the Latino population, said Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography at USC, adding that "68% of the growth this decade will be Latino, 75% next and 80% after that."That should be a wake-up call for voting Californians, Myers said, pointing out a critical disparity. Though the state's growth is young and Latino, the majority of voters will be older and white — at least for the next decade."The future of the state is Latino growth," Myers said. "We'd sure better invest in them and get them up to speed. Older white voters don't see it that way. They don't realize that someone has to replace them in the work force, pay for their benefits and buy their house."
*
Anchor Babies

Anchor Babies - In Conclusion...The Educational Chaos
Part 4 - Fomenting Failure In Our Educational Systems
http://www.rense.com/general87/anchorr.htm
In this final entry of this series on Anchor Babies in America, we shall investigate the unbelievable but verifiable costs to American citizens. Additionally, we will explore ancillary problems created by illegal alien children within our classrooms across the country.

Do we blame the children? No! Do we blame their parents? Yes! (They know they are illegal aliens!)

Who do we blame? Simple! Our U.S. Congress and U.S. presidents from Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and today, Obama! They must take responsibility for this fiscal/educational and linguistic fiasco. They failed to enforce our laws in the past 20 years, and Obama fails to enforce our immigration and labor laws in 2009. Thus, they allowed countless tens of thousands of employers within the United States to subvert our laws as to employment of unlawful immigrants. Our Congress allowed a new 21st century slave class to establish itself in excess of 20 million unlawful aliens-inside this country. The rich benefit and the rest of us subsidize and suffer from it.

While those 20 million enjoy employment, housing, welfare, food and medical care on U.S. taxpayer dollars, 15 million Americans cannot find a job. An astounding 32.2 million Americans subsist on food stamps. Our working poor and minorities languish in the streets and 13 million American children live below the poverty level.

EDUCATIONAL CHAOS:
Those 400,000 anchor babies cost taxpayers big time! At $6,000.00 per delivery in our hospitals where those pregnant alien mothers take themselves to birth their children X's 400,000 annually: $2.4 billion annually. Year after year after year! If the child suffers from autism, Down's Syndrome, myocardial septal defect (hole in heart), deformity, premature birth in ICU or other problems-the costs may hit $1 million and more.

Remember also, that the mother becomes a ward of the welfare rolls in assisted housing, food stamps, medical care, welfare payments-all on the taxpayer's dollar. Instead of 400,000 dependents, the actual number doubles to 900,000. Additionally, as that mother births more children, the costs rise dramatically.

Once the child reaches age five, it begins a 13 year educational journey that costs taxpayers on average $9,644.00 annually depending on school districts within the United States. When you add in 'free' breakfasts and lunches for those disadvantaged children, the costs rise into the billions of dollars. Finally, English as a Second Language costs taxpayers according to economist Edwin Rubenstein:

"The total additional per pupil costs for language assistance instruction was estimated to be in the range of $200 to $700 in 1981 dollars-equivalent to $460 to $1,600 in 2007 dollars. Using the average of the latter two amounts-$1,030-as our estimate of per pupil cost, the total cost of providing English Language Learning instruction to the 3.8 million students enrolled in those programs would equal about $3.9 billion. ($1,030 3.8 million.)." (Source: http://www.thesocialcontract.com , Department of Education - Immigration Fiscal Impact Statement, By Edwin S. Rubenstein
Volume 18, Number 2 (Winter 2007-2008) Issue theme: "What price mass immigration?"

With those figures of 3.8 million illegal immigrant children and children born as anchor babies X's a minimum figure of $5.00 for 'free' breakfasts and lunches X's 180 school days equals: $5.42 billion annually.

Talk about throwing U.S. taxpayer dollars down a rat hole, NBC's Brian Williams reported last June that high school graduation rates around the country suffered tremendously. Detroit public schools, loaded with Middle Eastern legal and illegal immigrants along with unlawful Mexican migrant children tallied an astounding 76 percent dropout/flunkout rate among potential graduating seniors. Other cities like L.A., Chicago and Houston hovered around 50 to 60 percent dropout rates.

Brian Williams reported that 1.2 million 'American' teens hit the streets annually "functionally illiterate."

In my city of Denver, 67 percent of the graduating class dropped out or flunked out before age eighteen. (Source: Rocky Mountain News, "What Happened?")

Dan Stein at http://www.fairus.org published a report titled: "Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools into the Red". Estimated costs of educating illegal migrant children and anchor babies: $7.5 billion annually.

The report said, in California, the $2.2 billion spent educating illegal alien immigrants for one year could:
• Pay the salaries for 41,764 teachers.
• CA schools are threatened with a $1.5 billion cut next year. Eliminating illegals would pay for all needs.
• Pay for CA's class sizes to remain capped at 20 students for a year, with $300 million to spare.
• Buy books and computers to equip 346,689 classrooms or 79 percent of classrooms in California.
• Fully fund the state's free lunch program for poor American students for two years.

Instead, California dropped from the top five top school systems in the United States to the bottom five states. Teaches struggle teaching with 113 different languages in their classrooms. As a teacher, I can tell you that more than one language in a classroom causes educational tension, ethnic tension from lack of ability to communicate and racial separation.

Students become angry, stubborn, and overwhelmed as they 'drop out' from sheer frustration and inability to perform academically. Violence ensues or complete withdrawal! Thousands join gangs for their identity.

Finally, what about U.S. children? What about the quality of their educations? What about their well-being? What about our own poverty-stricken students and special needs across the country?

Today, one-third of all students graduating from high schools heavily impacted by mass immigration must take remedial courses in universities to bring their minds up to speed for college work. In thousands of schools, gangs, foreign languages, and strange customs usurp the educational experience for U.S. students.

At some point, and soon, we must stop 'birthright citizenship' as all other countries, including Ireland and New Zealand, have done.

This year, House member Nathan Deal introduced HR 1868: reintroduced his Birthright Citizenship bill that would eliminate automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal aliens. The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 (H.R.1868) would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make it more difficult for children born in the U.S. to gain citizenship.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1868

Under the proposed legislation, a person born in the United States, in order to gain citizenship, must have at least one parent who is:
A U.S. citizen or national;
A lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or
An alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Thank you for joining http://www.numbersusa.com and http://www.capsweb.org and http://www.fairus.org to send in pre-written faxes that will push the entire Congress to pass this important bill. Otherwise, you will keep paying and paying billions and billions-year after year with no end in sight.

Additionally, when those kids reach 18, they can chain migrate their entire families into the USA-causing a horrific overload of our infrastructure, carrying capacity and quality of life. Not to mention we are displacing Americans out of their own culture, language and way of life!

Staggering Cost of "CHEAP" Mexican Labor - WHO REALLY PAYS FOR IT? YOUR JOB NEXT?

The staggering cost of CHEAP MEXICAN LABOR....

While your home may be foreclosed on, you’re competing with the illegals for a “depressed Mexican wage”, the politicians are all working for AMNESTY. They’re just not using the “A” word.
.
THERE ARE 15 MILLION ILLEGALS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALONE. THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SPENT 38 MILLION ON WELFARE FOR THEM..... IN ONE MONTH..... UP 3 MILLION FROM THE MONTH BEFORE. AND THAT’S JUST A DROP IN THE BUCKET OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE MEXICAN INVASION.

REALITY CHECK! THERE ARE MUCH CLOSER TO 40 MILLION ILLEGALS. NOW PONDER “A” with that!

Here’s another reality check. GOOGLE MEXICAN GANGS AND LOS ANGELES! Because these vicious highly violent gangs are spreading all over the country!

ACCORDING TO THE PEW INSTITUTE, 70 MILLION MORE MEXICAN ILLEGALS ARE PLANNING TO ARRIVE ON YOUR DOOR STEP! Mexico has never done anything more successful that creating the Mexican welfare state of Los Angeles!

ACCORDING TO THE HERITAGE ORG, THE SENATE’S BILL FOR SECRET AMNESTY WOULD ENCOURAGE 100 MILLION MORE to climb our border.

Or crawl under them. Since 2005 there have been 30 tunnels found (how many NOT found?) under the CA and NARCO-MEX border.

..........................................
LOS ANGELES GIVES AWAY 37 MILLION OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO ILLEGALS ON WELFARE.... like the ones that marched on us waving their Mexican flags!

Welfare and food stamp benefits soar $3 million higher than September payout. New statistics from the Department of Public Social Services reveal that illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected over $37 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in November 2007 – up $3 million dollars from September, announced Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. Twenty five percent of the all welfare and food stamps benefits is going directly to the children of illegal aliens. Illegals collected over $20 million in welfare assistance for November 2007 and over $16 million in monthly food stamp allocations for a projected annual cost of $444 million. “This new information shows an alarming increase in the devastating impact Illegal immigration continues to have on Los Angeles County taxpayers,” said Antonovich. “With $220 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $444 million in welfare allocations, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949085/posts


Illegal Immigration http://thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4345 “TBR News has received so many favorable comments on my illegal immigration article, comments mostly on the number of statistics instead of political rhetoric, that I am adding more material, much of it from law enforcement friends in Arizona: And to those who write complaining letters in foreign languages, why not try English? We speak English here, not some garbled Spanish patois. If that presents major problems, why not try migrating south like the birds? Our loss will be Mexico’s gain! Here, from various sources is more cheering information for the suffering American taxpayer and his family:

In 2003, according to the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles, 57,600 cars were stolen in Phoenix. It is now the car-jacking capital of the world. Most were SUV’s and pickup trucks. At a conservative average of $15,000.00 per vehicle, owner losses exceeded $864 million. Insurance companies in the state suffered incredible claims from policyholders. Arizona is the temporary home of 500,000 illegal aliens. They cost Arizona taxpayers over $1 billion annually in services for schools, medical care, welfare anchor babies, loss of tax base and prisons. Illegals use those vehicles for smuggling more people and drugs from around the world into our country. When the vehicles are recovered, they are smashed-up wrecks in the desert. If not found, they have new owners south of the border as thieves drive the cars through the desert and into Mexico as easily as you drive your kids to soccer practice. Illegal aliens displaced American workers at a cost in excess of $133 billion dollars last year according to Harvard Professor George Borjas. American citizens: College and high school kids cannot find a summer job in yard care, landscape, fast food or service jobs. Why? Illegal aliens work them at a third the wage and often, under the table. Not only do young American not have jobs; their parents are paying taxes for illegal aliens who are not paying taxes. Annually, 75 percent of drugs arrive from Mexico at a net cost of $120 billion hard currency that leaves our country for good. In addition, our tax dollars pay $80 billion for the War on Drugs each year. It is a war that hasn’t been won in the past 30 years and drugs are as available today to your teenager as they were in 1970. When an alien criminal gets caught for rape, murder or drug distribution, you pay $1.6 billion annually in prison costs to house, feed and clothe those filling 30 percent of our federal and state prisons—not to mention TV, movies, weight rooms and other entertainment—they enjoy while being incarcerated. Over 300,000 women annually arrive pregnant and drop them on U.S. soil. The American taxpayer pays for food, housing, medical and schooling for them to age 18 PLUS their mother. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, average annual cost per child K-12 is $7,161.00 and exceeds $109 billion annually per cycle of anchor babies. The average head of household illegal alien costs you $2,700.00 in welfare money over and above any taxes he or she pays in their meager paying jobs. With 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in the USA, that figures exceeds $20 billion of your tax dollars. (Source: Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004) How about the $56 billion in pure cash illegal migrants sent to their home countries last year and every year? That’s after their kids enjoyed free education, free lunches, and free medical care paid for by you. Mexico receives $15 billion annually from its worker drones. No wonder Vicente Fox sent us 9.2 million illegal alien Mexicans so far. The lifetime net fiscal drain—taxes paid minus services used—for an adult immigrant is $55,200.00 according to Carrying Capacity Network. With a minimum of 15 million illegal aliens in our country, these figures are the tip of the iceberg. Average bilingual education is $1,200.00 per illegal alien student. Get this! We educate 1.1 million illegal alien children each year. The American public has paid $27 billion to provide forms, ballots, interpreters, and brochures for languages other than English in 2003. An estimated one-third to one-half illegal aliens work off the books. It costs $200 million to provide for emergency health care for illegal aliens in the Border States annually. California with over three million illegals paid $79 million, and four of their major LA hospitals bankrupted and shut their doors in 2004. Texas with 1.5 million illegal aliens paid $74 million in hospital care. Georgia ran a $63 million deficit for 64,000 unpaid doctor visits to their Grady Health Care system in 2002. Georgia taxpayers paid $27 million for 11,188 anchor baby hospital births. Georgia taxpayers paid a whopping $242 million for educating illegal alien kids in 2003. What are the consequences? One in two adult African-Americans in New York is unemployed. African-American children’s poverty grew by 50 percent since 1999. Why? Their dads can’t find work. It costs the taxpayer, $68 billion a year to pay for the resettlement of legal immigrants. Only 22 companies in 2003 were taken to court for hiring illegal aliens. None went to jail. However, it’s a $10,000.00 fine per illegal alien hired and up to five years in prison. You would think that would deter corporations. Not when they’ve bought off enforcement! Who else figures in this grand scheme? Your governors and mayors who provide sanctuary laws for illegal aliens! Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, Governor Baldacci of Maine! Governor Bill Owens of Colorado! Mayor Hickenlooper of Denver! Mayor of Los Angeles! The Mayor of San Francisco! The Mayor of Chicago! The Mayor of Miami! How do we know? All those cities and dozens more give sanctuary to illegal aliens with Special Order 40. Illegals remain in our country with exemption from arrest—yet, they are federal criminals! A national consensus on immigration is clear from the wide range of polls on the issue over the past several years: By overwhelming margins, Americans want to cut back drastically on immigration—not bring in new immigrants or legalize those who are already here illegally. Limiting immigration has the overwhelming support of most Americans, regardless of party affiliation or race. • 65% of voters favor stopping all immigration into the U.S. during the war on terrorism. • 92% of voters favor “imposing stricter immigration and border crossing polices.” • 84% of Americans support tighter restrictions on immigration. • 77% think the government is not doing enough “to control the border and to screen people allowed into the country”. • 85% strongly/somewhat agree “that enforcement of immigration laws and the border has been too lax and has made it easier for the terrorists to enter”. • 72% think that “a dramatic increase in resources devoted to border control and enforcement of immigration laws would help reduce the chances of future terrorist attacks”. • Six in ten Americans support reducing legal immigration levels. • 77% of respondents in a CNN poll opposed granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. • 53% of Americans said the number of legal immigrants allowed into the U.S. should be decreased. Only 6% wanted to see it increased. • 41% of Republicans and 45% of Democrats support stopping legal immigration altogether. • 72% of Americans think immigration should be reduced, • A Roper poll in January found that 83% of Americans favor a lower immigration level. 70% favor restricting immigration to less than 300,000 new immigrants a year (including 70% of Republicans, 73% of African-Americans, and 52% of Hispanics). Most want even larger cuts: 54% favor an immigration level of below 100,000 a year. 20% support no immigration at all. The same Roper poll found that a large majority (75%) supports strong laws to identify and deport illegal immigrants. Only 10% disagree with strict laws against the removal of illegal immigrants. The strongest supporters of tough measures against illegal immigrants are self-styled political moderates (78%), strongly religious (76%), whites (77%), Protestants (82%), and Midwesterners (85%). 76% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans, 78% of self-described middle-of-the-roaders, and 60% of Hispanics (English-speaking) also support tough laws against illegal immigrants. • 52% of all Americans favor a five-year ban on all legal and illegal immigration to the U.S., including 54% of all Republicans and 48% of all Democrats. • 50% favor a law that would stop all legal immigration into the U.S. for the next five years. • 63% of Americans think immigration levels are too high, including 66% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats. • 62% of Americans think immigration levels should be decreased, 27% think the present levels should remain, and 12% say they should be increased. Some lawmakers are particularly concerned with the attitudes of Hispanics on the immigration issue. Polls show that Hispanic Americans, like all Americans, support cutbacks in immigration. • 89% of Hispanic Americans strongly support an immediate moratorium on immigration. 74% feel fewer immigrants should be allowed and stronger restrictions should be enforced. • Hispanics favor reducing immigration by a margin of 53% to 35% in Texas, 48% to 40% in New York, and 47% to 39% in Florida. Rudolfo de la Garza, a University of Texas at Austin professor and one of the directors of the study, said: “U.S born Mexican-Americans believe that they suffer a lower quality of services because of the excess demand on them generated by the immigrants.” • 43% of Hispanics nationwide think the government is not doing enough to stop illegal immigration. The more established Hispanics are in the United States, the more likely they are to think the government is not doing enough to curb illegal immigration. 37% of foreign-born Hispanics believe not enough is being done; that belief increases to 45% of first-generation Hispanics and half of second-generation Hispanics. A sampling of a number of states regarding illegal immigration. With the mid-term elections on the horizon, Congress should become very attentive or they run the risk of being very unemployed.


***************************************************************************** CALIFORNIA
• 82% of Californians believe that the projected population growth during the next 20 years will make the state a less desirable place to live. Over 80% of California’s growth is due to immigration.
• 50% of California voters oppose granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, versus 34% who favor it.
35% of all people in prisons and jails are ILLEGALS FROM MEXICO. The county of Los Angeles spends millions jail housing illegals who are actively engaged in drug trafficking.
2,000 CALIFORNIANS have been murdered by illegals who fled back over the border to avoid prosecution. The Narco-mex government refused to return them.


******************************************************************************COLORADO • 68% of Colorado voters say overpopulation is a major problem in Colorado. Only 2% of voters believe that the state needs to expand its population at all, yet the state is projected to increase its population by 67%, from 4.3 million today to 6.4 million in 25 years. 61% want the federal government to lower immigration levels to reduce the environmental impact and development pressures on communities across the nation. FLORIDA • 58% of Florida voters favor making legal immigration more difficult. 71% favor the U.S. government spending more time and money to prevent illegal immigration into the U.S., including more than 40% of Hispanics. • 59% of Florida voters believe current immigration levels are too high. Almost two thirds (63%) of voters agree that “immigration levels are out of control and we need to reduce the number of immigrants we allow into the country”. A majority of voters (52%) said they would be more likely to endorse a candidate who supported immigration reduction as part of his or her campaign. 76% feel that "Continued population growth is a threat to Florida’s resource base, environmental health, and quality of life”. GEORGIA • 69% believe that the quality of life in the state will deteriorate if current growth and population trends continue. 74% are concerned about the level of immigration to the U.S. 79% are specifically concerned about the level of immigration to Georgia. 61% oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants. IOWA • 62% of Iowans feel that the U.S. should lower its current level of immigration. 65% feel that a U.S. population of 400 million in 2050, as projected by the U.S. Census Bureau, is too large. KANSAS • 86% of Kansans say levels of immigration into the U.S. are a “serious” or “very serious” problem. MARYLAND • 68% of Maryland voters are concerned about the current level of immigration to the state, and 58% want the federal government to lower immigration levels to reduce development pressures on the environment. 61% think overpopulation in Maryland is a major problem. • Two-thirds of adults in rural southern Maryland say the place where they live is growing too fast. Frustration with crowded roads is mounting, and nearly two-thirds want strict new limits on development. MICHIGAN • 52% of Michigan voters say legal immigration levels should be decreased, 41% say they should remain at present levels, and 4% say they should increase. NEW JERSEY • 82% of New Jersey residents say that illegal immigration is an important problem facing the country. 39% say it is one of the most important problems. TEXAS • 82% of Texans see illegal immigration as a serious problem (including 86% of Caucasians and 69% of Hispanics), and 61% say the federal government is not doing enough to stop it. VIRGINIA • 73% consider the pace of population growth to be an urgent problem, with 60% saying it threatens quality of life in the state. 70% say they are concerned about the level of immigration to Virginia, and 57% say they would be more likely to support a candidate for Congress who supported a reduction in national immigration levels.

CFR’s Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20050816.htm The Great Alien Invasion - What's Happening Now http://www.rense.com/general69/inva.htm "Bush Secret Border Wars" Mayhem and terror in Southern states to protect government drug cartels http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/140805borderwars.htm Mexican/Bush Crime Families Expand in U.S. http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2652 Wake up America!!! Illegal Immigration has to be stopped. Take a look at this website and see where all your tax dollars are going: 1. 1) http://immigrationcounters.com/

California's Population to DOUBLE: MEXICAN GANGS, EXPANDED WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS, ANCHORS, AND EVEN WIDER OPEN BORDERS?

CONSIDER THIS WHILE OBAMA, FEINSTEIN, BOXER, LOFGREN, WAXMAN, PELOSI, REID, GUTIERREZ PUSH FOR THE LA RAZA AMNESTY FOR 38 MILLION ILLEGALS AND THEIR VOTES!
NOT ENOUGH WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS?
NOT ENOUGH UNEMPLOYMENT?
NOT ENOUGH MEXICAN GANG MURDERS?
NOT ENOUGH “DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH”?


You thought things couldn’t get much worse in CALIFORNIA… now MEXIFORNIA…

POPULATION TO DOUBLE... LATINO THE DOMINANT ETHNIC GROUP.....double the deficits above! And double the crime, graffiti, anchor babies and homes foreclosed on with bars on the windows.
Riverside will become the second most populous county behind Los Angeles and Latinos the dominant ethnic group, study says. By Maria L. La Ganga and Sara Lin

Times Staff Writers
July 10, 2007
Over the next half-century, California's population will explode by nearly 75%, and Riverside will surpass its bigger neighbors to become the second most populous county after Los Angeles, according to state Department of Finance projections released Monday. California will near the 60-million mark in 2050, the study found, raising questions about how the state will look and function and where all the people and their cars will go. Dueling visions pit the iconic California building block of ranch house, big yard and two-car garage against more dense, high-rise development. But whether sprawl or skyscrapers win the day, the Golden State will probably be a far different and more complex place than it is today, as people live longer and Latinos become the dominant ethnic group, eclipsing all others combined. Some critics forecast disaster if gridlock and environmental impacts are not averted. Others see a possible economic boon, particularly for retailers and service industries with an eye on the state as a burgeoning market."It's opportunity with baggage," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in "a country masquerading as a state."Other demographers argue that the huge population increase the state predicts will occur only if officials complete major improvements to roads and other public infrastructure. Without that investment, they say, some Californians would flee the state.If the finance department's calculations hold, California's population will rise from 34.1 million in 2000 to 59.5 million at the mid-century point, about the same number of people as Italy has today. And its projected growth rate in those 50 years will outstrip the national rate — nearly 75% compared with less than 50% projected by the federal government. That could translate to increased political clout in Washington, D.C. Southern California's population is projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1 million over just seven counties. L.A. County alone will top 13 million by 2050, an increase of almost 3.5 million residents. And Riverside County — long among the fastest-growing in the state — will triple in population to 4.7 million by mid-century. Riverside County will add 3.1 million people, according to the new state figures, eclipsing Orange and San Diego to become the second most populous in the state. With less expensive housing than the coast, Riverside County has grown by more than 472,000 residents since 2000, according to state estimates. No matter how much local governments build in the way of public works and how many new jobs are attracted to the region — minimizing the need for long commutes — Husing figures that growth will still overwhelm the area's roads.USC Professor Genevieve Giuliano, an expert on land use and transportation, would probably agree. Such massive growth, if it occurs, she said, will require huge investment in the state's highways, schools, and energy and sewer systems at a "very formidable cost."If those things aren't built, Giuliano questioned whether the projected population increases will occur. "Sooner or later, the region will not be competitive and the growth is not going to happen," she said.If major problems like traffic congestion and housing costs aren't addressed, Giuliano warned, the middle class is going to exit California, leaving behind very high-income and very low-income residents. "It's a political question," said Martin Wachs, a transportation expert at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica. "Do we have the will, the consensus, the willingness to pay? If we did, I think we could manage the growth."The numbers released Monday underscore most demographers' view that the state's population is pushing east, from both Los Angeles and the Bay Area, to counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino as well as half a dozen or so smaller Central Valley counties.Sutter County, for example, is expected to be the fastest-growing on a percentage basis between 2000 and 2050, jumping 255% to a population of 282,894 , the state said. Kern County is expected to see its population more than triple to 2.1 million by mid-century.In Southern California, San Diego County is projected to grow by almost 1.7 million residents and Orange County by 1.1 million. Even Ventura County — where voters have imposed some limits on urban sprawl — will see its population jump 62% to more than 1.2 million if the projections hold.The Department of Finance releases long-term population projections every three years. Between the last two reports, number crunchers have taken a more detailed look at California's statistics and taken into account the likelihood that people will live longer, said chief demographer Mary Heim.The result?The latest numbers figure the state will be much more crowded than earlier estimates (by nearly 5 million) and that it will take a bit longer than previously thought for Latinos to become the majority of California's population: 2042, not 2038.The figures show that the majority of California's growth will be in the Latino population, said Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography at USC, adding that "68% of the growth this decade will be Latino, 75% next and 80% after that."That should be a wake-up call for voting Californians, Myers said, pointing out a critical disparity. Though the state's growth is young and Latino, the majority of voters will be older and white — at least for the next decade."The future of the state is Latino growth," Myers said. "We'd sure better invest in them and get them up to speed. Older white voters don't see it that way. They don't realize that someone has to replace them in the work force, pay for their benefits and buy their house."