Monday, February 15, 2010

OBAMA FIGHTS E-VERIFY! HIS JOBS PLAN IS CALLED "LA RAZA AMNESTY"

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

IT’S A BIT DIFFERENT IN MEXICAN OCCUPIED SANCTUARY CITY LOS ANGELES. IN THIS CITY OF 15 MILLION, HALF THOSE WITH A JOB ARE ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.
WHAT IF THE 38 MILLION ILLEGALS LIVING IN THIS COUNTRY, AND WAVING THEIR MEXICAN FLAG WERE SENT PACKING? WHAT WOULD THAT DO FOR THE STAGGERING UNEMPLOYMENT RATE?
WE CAN ONLY PREDICT WHAT IT WOULD DO ABOUT THE BILLIONS SPENT IN SOCIAL SERVICES FOR ILLEGALS ($50 MILLION FOR WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS IN L.A.), PRISON AND JAIL COSTS, AND THE HORRENDOUS PROBLEM OF MEXICAN GANGS SPREADING OVER THE COUNTRY!

South Carolina Businesses Fined for not using E-Verify (Revenue for CAlifornia )
________________________________________
Date: 2010-02-15, 10:34AM PST
Reply to: comm-5zzts-1601875351@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
________________________________________

States Pass E-Verify Laws
OverviewUpdatePollsIn the NewsOverview
Several states have passed legislation requiring employers to use E-Verify. E-Verify is an employment verification tool managed by the Department of Homeland Security that uses information from the Social Security Administration and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to determine an applicant's eligibility to work.


Visit your Action Buffet to take action!

Related Issues
Workplace Verification
State/Local Policies
Email this page Printer-friendly version

Update
South Carolina Businesses Fined for not using E-Verify
- posted on NumbersUSA


Businesses near Columbia, S.C. face fines after the state's Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation performed 89 audits and found companies not complying with the state's E-Verify law. A car dealership in Hardeeville, S.C. was slapped with a fine of $5,900.

The Palmetto State has one of the nation's toughest E-Verify laws, requiring all businesses to verify new hires through the system. The mandate is being rolled out in phases with employers of more than 100 workers needing to comply by July of 2009. Businesses with fewer than 100 workers will need to comply by July of 2010.

There are 10 states with mandatory E-Verify laws on the books, and three more with Executive Orders, but some states have come up short in enforcing the laws. South Carolina's Labor, Licensing and Regulation department is being more aggressive in their enforcement, citing nearly 36 businesses with first-time infractions.

See a map of states with E-Verify laws in place.

While BARACK OBAMA fights for UNOFFICIAL AMNESTY & OPEN BORDERS, SHERIFF JOE FIGHTS FOR THE RULE of LAW!

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

WHILE HISPANDERING BARACK OBAMA CONTINUES TO SABOTAGE OUR BORDER SECURITY TO ASSURE THE NEVER ENDING OF ILLEGALS OVER OUR BORDERS, AND INTO OUR JOBS, HOSPITALS, JAILS, PRISONS, WELFARE LINES, AND VOTING BOOTHS, SHERIFF ARPAIO IS TAKING A DIFFERENT STANCE. HE’S ENFORCING THE LAW!!!
*

Arizona Sheriff Arpaio to Unleash 800 Deputies on Undocumented Immigrants
New America Media, News Report, Text and Photos: Valeria Fernández , Posted: Feb 15, 2010


PHOENIX -- Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced last week that he would train 881 of his own deputies to arrest undocumented migrants in the course of their normal duties.

The announcement by the Maricopa County sheriff has come under fire from some legal scholars who argue he would be acting beyond the scope of the law and immigrant advocates who say this would further weaken the immigrant community’s tenuous relationship with law enforcement officials.

Arpaio’s controversial immigration sweeps of Latino neighborhoods led to claims of racial profiling. In October, the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revoked an agreement, known as 287(g), that allowed 160 of his officers to act as immigration agents.

Now, Arpaio says he can do this under his own authority. He has enlisted the help of Kris W. Kobach, a University of Missouri law professor, who was an advisor to former attorney general John Ashcroft during the Bush administration. Kobach, who works as an attorney for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, was paid an undisclosed amount of money to oversee the two-hour training.

Kobach argues that local police have “inherent authority” to stop, question and arrest people in order to enforce immigration law.

He based his legal advice on a hotly contested 2002 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo issued during Ashcroft's tenure.

Several legal scholars contend the opinion is flawed.

“Legally, it is highly suspect because there’s a long tradition on the other side of the opinion, ” said attorney Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), referring to a series of OLC memos from 1989 to 1996 that state the contrary. “Secondly, if there was an inherent authority to enforce immigration law, then there would be no need for Congress in 1996 to enact what’s now known as 287(g). If they had it, why would you need it?”

Chishti said that Congress has historically assumed that it has plenary power on immigration enforcement.

“It doesn’t mean that states can’t play a role, but that role is highly limited,” he said.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the enforcement arm of Homeland Security, has distanced itself from Arpaio’s new plans in a recent statement, which stated in part: “Sheriff Arpaio’s efforts to conduct immigration enforcement actions do not derive from any ICE-delegated federal authority. ICE has no engagement in MCSO’s [Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office] operations outside of our standard procedures of responding to a local law enforcement agency’s request for assistance.”

Arpaio’s critics say his latest announcement is in keeping with the aggressive tactics employed by his deputies. “There’s nothing new in this," said Jorge Mendez, a local community activist. "Those who were trained under 287(g) and those who weren’t were questioning people anyway.”

“You’re opening Pandora’s box,” said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Immigrants’ Rights Project. He said Arpaio's action is sending a message to police officers on the streets that they have broad power to detain and arrest solely on suspicion that people are illegally in the country.

“When you have local cops getting some short video training and making decisions about someone’s immigration status, it is hugely dangerous because it is a complex and difficult area of the law,” he said.

Legal advisor Kobach is known for litigation involving immigrants. Kobach filed suit in Kansas, California and Nebraska challenging those state's policies of offering in-state tuition rates to undocumented students. He also represented Hazelton, Penn., when its harsh anti-immigrant policies were challenged in court. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, is now running for secretary of state in Kansas.

Kobach has also worked with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR was identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group financially supported by the Pioneer Fund, a group with an alleged white supremacist agenda.

“We find it absolutely outrageous that Sheriff Arpaio has chosen an individual with an obvious bias, who works on behalf of an anti-immigrant group to conduct training on immigration law and ethnic profiling," said Bill Straus, Arizona Anti-Defamation League regional director.

“Those claims are absolutely false,” said Kobach, in his defense. “The Southern Poverty Law Center engages in slander against people that oppose illegal immigration. They fail to mention that many of the people I defend in court are Hispanic. They happen to be Hispanics that believe the laws need to be enforced.”

This is not the only controversy Arpaio is embroiled in. A federal grand jury is investigating allegations of abuse of power by his office unrelated to his immigration enforcement. His agency is also the subject of a federal Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation of civil rights violations. His office could also face judicial sanctions for destruction of evidence in connection with an ACLU lawsuit that alleges his deputies engaged in racial profiling during his immigration sweeps.

“This is going to magnify what he has been doing during the sweeps,” said Shana Higa, a criminal defense attorney who has been monitoring Arpaio’s immigration sweeps in Latino neighborhoods for the last two years. Higa believes this has made some Latinos afraid report crimes to the police, making them more vulnerable to criminals.

Despite criticism about his tactics and associations, Arpaio continues to defend his policies saying that since 2007 his deputies have detained 30,000 undocumented immigrants, often for something as simple as a traffic stop, and turned them over to immigration.

In fact, the great majority of those arrests could be attributed to other law-enforcement agencies in Maricopa County, including the Phoenix and Scottsdale police departments.

But Arpaio is trying to go further, according to legal experts.

“The difference is that it looks like they claim they have the right on their own to hold someone up without the ICE detainer,” said Chishti. “What will be challenged is that they can’t just hold people on the basis of an immigration suspicion.”

If Arpaio's deputies could do that, the Arizona state legislature wouldn’t be trying to pass a local law that allows police to arrest undocumented immigrants, said Alessandra Soller Meetze , director of the Arizona ACLU. SB 1070 would criminalize undocumented immigrants for trespassing in the territory of the state.

“If it passes, Arizona would be the first state in the country to make this specific state crime of immigration trespassing,” said Meetze. “We still think the Constitution prohibits Arizona from passing that law.”
*
FAIR Legislative Update February 9, 2010

Obama Proposes Cuts to Important Immigration Enforcement Programs
On February 1, President Obama released the details of his Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Request, which seeks to cut funding for important immigration enforcement programs. (See The President’s Budget Message, February 1, 2010). Specifically, the president’s budget would slash funding for the Secure Border Initiative; cut funding for US-VISIT; and cut 180 agents from the Border Patrol. The president’s proposed budget also proposes to merely maintain funding for the critically underfunded State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).
The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) “is a comprehensive, multi-year plan to help secure America’s borders” through fencing, infrastructure, and technology. (CBP Factsheet). SBI is a critical element of the larger DHS-CBP effort to increase border security, which includes construction of the border fence. Last year, Congress approved $800 million to fund SBI through FY2010. President Obama is requesting only $574 million for this program in his FY2011 budget, a $226 million cut. (FY2011 Budget Request Appendix: DHS).
US-VISIT, or United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, is an entry-exit tracking program that collects information, including biometric identifiers, on foreign nationals attempting when they enter the United States. This information is then used to, among other things, determine whether foreign nationals should be denied entry and whether exiting aliens have overstayed or otherwise violated the terms of their admission. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in November 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not have a unified schedule to completely implement a comprehensive exit function for US-VISIT, and it is difficult to determine when and how US-VISIT will be completed. (GAO Report, November 2009). Despite this failure to complete implementation, President Obama has proposed a $39 million cut to US-VISIT, from $374 million in FY2010 to $335 million in FY2011. (FY2011 Budget Request Appendix: DHS).
In addition, President Obama’s budget provides for a reduction of 180 Border Patrol agents. According to Acting DHS Chief Financial Officer Peggy Sherry, the administration does “not believe the 180 personnel reduction will in any way reduce the overall operating effectiveness of the Border Patrol because over the past five years, the Border Patrol has doubled in size.” Sherry continued: “A lot of the agent workforce, the substantial portion of it, has only a couple of years experience. As they become more seasoned and more mature in their jobs, their effectiveness will increase.” (See DHS Conference Call Transcript).
The administration has also requested only $330 million for SCAAP – a federal program administered through the Department of Justice that helps states pay for the incarceration of criminal aliens. (FY2011 Budget Request: DOJ). Congress recently cut the annual funding level for SCAAP from $400 million in FY2009 to $330 million in FY2010. (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, December 22, 2009). This cut drew significant criticism from border state Governors Rick Perry (R-TX) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), yet through his request, President Obama suggests that he wants to make it permanent. (Id.).
Although President Obama’s budget is a significant barometer reflecting his policies and priorities, it represents simply a funding request to Congress. Congress has the true power to appropriate money and can choose to wholesale adopt, modify, or reject the President’s budget request. As Congress and the administration negotiate the complicated budgeting and appropriations process over the coming months, stay tuned to FAIR for in-depth analyses of important immigration-related funding decisions.
*
Obama soft on illegals enforcement

Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold.

*
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor
*


FIGHTING FOR AMNESTY, UNDEFENDED BORDERS, MORE WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS, NO ID FOR ILLEGALS TO VOTE, NO ENGLISH ONLY, NO ICE, NO ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PROHIBITING THE HIRING OF ILLEGALS, CHAIN MIGRATION TO DOUBLE THE ILLEGAL POPULATION, NO E-VERIFY, NO WALL are

LA RAZA, THE FORTUNE 500 (MAJOR LA RAZA DONORS), U.S. CHAMBER of COMMERCE (fronting for corporate interests) LA RAZA DONOR BANKS WELLS FARGO and BANK of AMERICA (both exploit illegals) the GOVERNMENT OF MEXICO (we are Mexico’s welfare system), as well as the following

BARACK OBAMA, FEINSTEIN, BOXER, PELOSI, REID, WAXMAN, ESHOO, LOFGREN, HONDA, FARR, BACA, BECERRA, SANCHEZ, CLINTON, KENNEDY, McCAIN,

FOR A LIST OF DIVERSE ENTITIES FIGHTING TO END MEXICAN OCCUPATION AND RETURN AMERICA TO AMERICANS, SEE LIST BOTTOM.


Report Illegals & Employers Toll Free... (866) 347-2423
INS National Customer Service Center Phone: 1-800-375-5283.
http://www.ice.gov/ ICE, ice, ICE
http://www.reportillegals.com/


CALL NANCY PELOSI Washington , DC - (202) 225-4965 San Francisco , CA - (415) 556-4862 EMAIL NANCY PELOSI sf.nancy@mail.house.gov EMAIL FORM FOR NANCY PELOSI www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html If you are out of her district, you can still make your feelings heard: Americanvoices@mail.house.gov Senator Harry Reid 202-224-3121 in Washington DC 775-686-5750 in Reno , NV www.reid.senate.gov
*
SPREAD THE WORD!
Email the entire Senate regarding the LA RAZA HISPANDERING OBAMA AMNESTY PUSH: http://houseofbills.com/email-the-senate/
*
SPREAD THE WORD!
Email the entire Senate regarding the LA RAZA HISPANDERING OBAMA AMNESTY PUSH: http://houseofbills.com/email-the-senate/
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com GO HERE AND CUT/PASTE ARTICLES TO EMAIL OR POST!
*
CALIFORNIA’S GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER STATES THAT ONE BILLION PER YEAR IS SPENT MAINTAINING ILLEGALS IN CA PRISONS. OF THAT, THE FEDS ONLY REIMBURSE 100 MILLION!
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
And there are some 800,000 gang members in this country: That’s more than the combined number of troops in our Army and Marine Corps. These gangs have become one of the principle ways to import and distribute drugs in the United States. Congressman David Reichert joins Lou to tell us why those gangs are growing larger and stronger, and why he’s introduced legislation to eliminate the top three international drug gangs.
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, September 28, 2009

And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is headed.
*
NANCY PELOSI, LIKE DIANNE FEINSTEIN, HAS LONG ILLEGALLY HIRED ILLEGALS AT HER NAPA WINERY AND RESTAURANTS. PELOSI IS ALSO HEAVILY INVESTED IN SUNKIST, WHICH DOES NOT PAY LIVING WAGES FOR ORANGE PICKERS.
EMAIL: NANCY PELOSI
http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
CALL NANCY PELOSI Washington , DC - (202) 225-4965 San Francisco , CA - (415) 556-4862 EMAIL NANCY PELOSI sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

*
WSWS.org
NO ADS FREE NEWS ON CORPORATE RAPE
criminal illegals and the benefits to society
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_property_crimes_and_operation_predator.html
*
LA RAZA – “THE (MEXICAN) RACE”….
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA
1126 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
202-785 1670
Get on La Raza’s email list to find out what this fascist party is doing to expand the Mexican occupation. NCLR.org
FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE, AND MEXICAN SUPREMACY
LA RAZA is the virulently racist political party for ILLEGALS (only Mexicans) and the corporations that benefit from illegals, and the employers of illegals. IT IS ILLEGAL TO HIRE AN ILLEGAL.
LA RAZA IS THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of AMERICA and has contempt for AMERICANS, AMERICAN LAWS, AMERICAN LANGUAGE, AMERICAN BORDERS, and the AMERICAN FLAG.
However LA RAZA does like the AMERICAN WELFARE SYSTEM. The welfare system in the country is so good that Mexico has dumped 38 million of their poor, illiterate , criminal and frequently pregnant over our border.
*
FAIRUS.org
FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM
FAIR CHARACTERIZES THE OBAMA, AND LA RAZA DEMS PLAN FOR AMNESTY AS FOLLOWS:
That's why, throughout 2009 FAIR has been tracking every move the administration and Congress has made to undermine our immigration laws, reward illegal aliens and burden taxpayers.
• Foot-dragging on proven methods of immigration law enforcement including border structures and E-Verify.
• Appointment of several illegal alien advocates to important administration posts.
• Watering down of the 287(g) program to limit local law in their own jurisdictions.
• Health care reform that mandates a “public option” for newly-arrived legal immigrants as well as illegal aliens.

*
LosAngelesTimes
Do a search for Mexican gangs, or go to “Mexico Under Siege”
“THE DRUG WAR AT OUR BORDERS” …ask yourself why the LA RAZA DEMS want these borders OPEN!
*
usillegalaliens.com
*
USCFILE.org
Cut and paste articles and post email all over the country!
*
REPORT ILLEGALS TO: 1-866-DHS-2-ICE.
http://www.ice.gov/ ICE, ice, ICE

*

JUDICIALWATCH.org
*
Report Illegals & Employers Toll Free... (866) 347-2423
INS National Customer Service Center Phone: 1-800-375-5283.
http://www.reportillegals.com/
*
WHILE BARACK OBAMA GIVES HIMSELF A B+ (HIS BANKSTERS GAVE HIM THE GRADE) JUDICIAL WATCH’S GRADE IS A BIT MORE REALISTIC:
JUDICIAL WATCH.org
With trillion dollar bailouts, government-run healthcare, banks and car companies, ACORN corruption, attacks on conservative media, illegal alien amnesty, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors—this is the Obama legacy—and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency!
*
You can contact President Obama and let him know of your opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

BARACK OBAMA 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20500 comments@whitehouse.gov Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard for live listener: 202 456 1414 Fax: 202-456-2461
*
Here is the Department of Homeland Security's Hotline for reporting suspected illegal employees and employers: 866-347-2423 (YOU MAY BE WASTING YOUR TIME HERE. HISPANDERING OBAMA SELECTED LA RAZA JANET NAPOLITANO TO HEAD “HOMELAND SECURITY = PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP” FOR OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS)
*
Immigration Enforcement Group Defends Against Amnesty Push

The ALIPAC Team
www.alipac.us
*
Here is the Department of Homeland Security's Hotline for reporting suspected illegal employees and employers: 866-347-2423

*
OUTSIDE OF MEXICO CITY, THE LARGEST NUMBER OF KIDNAPPINGS IS IN PHOENIX.
EVERYDAY THERE IS A KIDNAPPING BY A MEXICAN IN PHOENIX!

http://arizona.mugshotlist.com/

http://arizona.mugshotlist.com/mugshots/male/

http://arizona.mugshotlist.com/mugshots/female/

illegals vs crime
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime.html

http://www.cis.org/mortensen/bratton

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/08/local/me-jail8
*
http://www.numbersusa.com
*
http://www.capsweb.org
*
http://www.fairus.org
*
http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com

ILLEGALS, FRAUD and FORECLOSURES - Who Pays?

In Rep. Dan Tancredo’s district there have been more than 10,000 mortgages owned by illegals that went into foreclosure. It’s only part of the border to border crime wave perpetrated by illegals from Mexico.
Time to fight AMNESTY and OPEN BORDERS?

E-Verify for Mortgage Applications (fraudulent claims from illegal immigrant)
________________________________________
Date: 2010-02-15, 10:38AM PST
Reply to: comm-whuqc-1601882525@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
________________________________________

Rep. Kenny Marchant Proposes Bill to use E-Verify for Mortgage Applications
Tuesday, February 9, 2010, 9:56 AM EST - posted on NumbersUSA


Rep. Kenny Marchant
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) has offered the Mortgage E-Verify Act that would require a mortgagor to be verified through E-Verify when applying for a modification of a home loan owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

"As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, I am happy to introduce my bill, the Mortgage E-Verify Act, which would require, as a condition for modification of a home mortgage loan held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), that the mortgagor be verified under the E-Verify program," Rep. Marchant said in a press release. "My bill will potentially save millions by cutting down on fraudulent claims from illegal immigrants and protect taxpayers from subsidizing the restructuring or renegotiation mortgages of illegal immigrants."

Rep. Marchant's bill is a result of a major case in Nevada where a loan officer submitted false income and employment documentation to help illegal aliens secure FHA loans. The scam totaled $6.2 million in loans with many going into default, costing HUD nearly $2 million. The loan officer was found guilty on 32 counts of submitting false information.

"E-Verify is a fantastic program which I have supported making permanent for employers," Rep. Marchant said. "Mandating its use as a condition for home mortgage loan modifications would help eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the system and bring integrity to the process. In fact, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement division (FinCEN) estimates that mortgage fraud increased 1,411 percent from 1997 to 2005. Furthermore, two-thirds of fraud reports in the last decade are due to falsified statements on loan documents. My bill would curb these abuses and protect the taxpayers."
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, November 12, 2007

Mortgage giants Wells Fargo and Countrywide Financial are accused of slapping dubious fees on homeowners struggling to save their homes. With fewer new mortgages being written, these
companies appear to be leaning on these lucrative fees to stay profitable—with devastating consequences for homeowners. We’ll have that report.
*

States that border Mexico caused the meltdown (simply loans to ILLEGALS)
________________________________________
September 25, 2008

It’s also no accident that the vast majority of the mortgages already defaulted on or about to default come from states where illegal immigration is the most rampant. According to the New York Times: California, Arizona, Texas and Florida. It was time to scam America internally and externally.

(THE POPULATION OF HARRY REID’S STATE OF NEVADA IS NOW 25% ILLEGAL. REID HAS WORKED TIRELESSLY FOR MORE ILLEGALS AND OBTAINED $5 MILLION ADDITIONAL TAX PAYER DOLLARS FOR LA RAZA! LAS VEGAS HAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST RATES OF FORECLOSURES IN AMERICA!)

The mortgages, with an average size of about $450,000, were Alt-A loans — the kind often referred to as liar loans, because lenders made them without the usual documentation to verify borrowers’ incomes or savings. Some of the loans came only via an on-line application with no appearance of the person getting the loan was needed. Nearly 60 percent of the loans were made in California, Florida and Arizona, where home prices rose — and subsequently fell — faster than almost anywhere else in the country.

But there’s so much more, according to blogger and journalist Michelle Malkin:

Regional reports across the country have decried the subprime meltdown’s impact on illegal immigrant “victims.” A July report showed that in seven of the 10 metro areas with the highest foreclosure rates, Hispanics represented at least one-third of the population; in two of those areas – Merced and Salinas-Monterey, Calif. – Hispanics comprised half the population. The amnesty-promoting National Council of La Raza and its Development Fund have received millions in federal funds to “counsel” their constituents on obtaining mortgages with little to no money down; the group almost succeeded in attaching a $10 million earmark for itself in one of the housing bills past this spring. ( Proving corruption in high levels of our government) our SENATORS are opperating in a Clandestine manner.

(A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed).

Come on people it is 1776 all over again. Some of the owners of the Federal Reserve live in England and Germany. The largest shareholder in the illegal stock of the Federal Reserve lives in England, by the way, this is why England's money is worth the most on earth. Gold prices are set in London each morning. The Euro is the second strongest currency followed by the USA.....we are mere puppets for paying the piper to make these people rich beyond imagination.

So, once again, U. S. citizens will pay for the lawlessness of our leaders and their friends on Wall Street. It is a very bad time for our country!

MEXICO IN MELTDOWN on our OPEN & UNDEFENDED BORDERS

latimes.com
Opinion
Mexico's killing fields
Dozens of Mexican journalists have been killed since 2004. Mexico says it is concerned, but little has changed. Foreign reporters publicizing Mexican colleagues' work might offer a shield.
By Tony Cohan and Tamsin Mitchell

February 15, 2010

Last Nov. 2, the body of Jose Bladimir Antuna Garcia, crime and security affairs reporter for the newspaper El Tiempo de Durango, was found in front of a hospital in the central Mexican city of Durango. Antuna, 39, had been abducted on his way to work earlier that day. He was declared to have died of "asphyxia from strangulation," though according to some reports, his body also bore bullet wounds to the head and abdomen.

A note found next to his body reportedly read: "This happened to me for giving information to soldiers and for writing too much."

Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world to work as a journalist. From January 2004 to December 2009, a total of 27 writers -- 26 print journalists and one author -- were slain, seven of them in 2009 alone. Five others have disappeared. Last month, two more Mexican journalists were killed. Few if any of these crimes have been properly investigated or prosecuted.

International PEN, the worldwide writers' organization, believes it likely that these journalists were targeted in retaliation for their critical reporting, particularly on drug trafficking. Though organized-crime groups are believed to be responsible for many attacks against journalists, government officials and the police are also believed to have played a role in some.

In the week before his death, Jose Antuna had broken a story about police corruption in Durango and had also been investigating the unsolved killing of another journalist at his newspaper, Carlos Ortega Samper, who was abducted and killed in May 2009. Antuna had received repeated death threats starting in 2008 and was the target of an apparent assassination attempt in April 2009. Despite reporting the latter to the Durango state public prosecutor's office, Antuna was not provided with any protection and continued to receive threats.

On May 26, the same day that another Durango-based journalist, Eliseo Barron Hernandez, was found dead after having been kidnapped from his home, an anonymous call was reportedly made to El Tiempo's offices saying that Antuna would be next. The caller identified himself as a member of Los Zetas, a paramilitary group reportedly linked to a drug cartel.

Last February, Mexico's human rights record was scrutinized for the first time by the United Nations under the Universal Periodic Review. Numerous member states took the opportunity to express concern about the shocking violence faced by journalists in the country and the apparent impunity of their attackers.

The Mexican government took the international community's recommendations seriously and promised to better protect journalists, investigate threats and violence against them more vigorously, and ensure that the investigation and prosecution of such crimes would become a federal rather than a state matter.

A year later, little has changed. Since the U.N. review, eight more print journalists have been slain in Mexico and another has disappeared. A number of these journalists were threatened before their killing or disappearance, and yet apparently none had been offered police protection or other measures to ensure their safety. In none of these cases has the perpetrator been brought to justice.

In a recent article on the dangers of being a journalist in Mexico, the award-winning Mexican investigative journalist and activist Lydia Cacho criticized the Mexican mainstream media for failing to reflect the true reality of the country, leaving the international community uninformed. Cacho called on foreign journalists to fill this gap by writing about the violence faced by their Mexican counterparts, "because talking about us protects our life and allows us to go on investigating and reporting."

So, let's not be silent about Mexico's killing field for journalists. Let's call President Felipe Calderon and the Mexican state to account for the 34 Mexican writers who since 2004 have paid the ultimate price for "writing too much."

Tony Cohan is the author of the travel narratives "On Mexican Time" and "Mexican Days"; Tamsin Mitchell is Americas researcher and campaigner for the Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN.

HERITAGE.org ROBERT RECTOR - Unfettered Immigration = POVERTY FOR AMERICANS!

Unfettered Immigration = Poverty

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. Current Trends in Immigration Over the last 40 years, immigration into the United States has surged. Our nation is now experiencing a second “great migration” similar to the great waves of immigrants that transformed America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 2004, an estimated 35.7 million foreign-born persons lived in the U.S. While in 1970 one person in twenty was foreign born, by 2004 the number had risen to one in eight. About one-third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are illegal aliens. There are between 10 and 12 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S.[1] Illegal aliens now comprise 3 to 4 percent of the total U.S. population. Each year approximately 1.3 million new immigrants enter the U.S.[2] Some 700,000 of these entrants are illegal.[3] One third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are Mexican. Overall, the number of Mexicans in the U.S. has increased from 760,000 in 1970 to 10.6 million in 2004. Nine percent of all Mexicans now reside in the U.S.[4] Over half of all Mexicans in the U.S. are illegal immigrants,[5] and in the last decade 80 to 85 percent of the inflow of Mexicans into the U.S. has been illegal.[6] The public generally perceives illegals to be unattached single men. This is, in fact, not the case. Some 44 percent of adult illegals are women. While illegal men work slightly more than native-born men; illegal women work less. Among female illegals, some 56 percent work, compared to 73 percent among native-born women of comparable age.[7] As well, Mexican women emigrating to the U.S. have a considerably higher fertility rate than women remaining in Mexico.[8] Decline in Immigrant Wages Over the last 40 years the education level of new immigrants has fallen relative to the native population. As the relative education levels of immigrants have declined, so has their earning capacity compared to the general U.S. population. Immigrants arriving in the U.S. around 1960 had wages, at the time of entry, that were just 13 percent less than natives’. In 1965, the nation’s immigration law was dramatically changed, and from 1990 on, illegal immigration surged. The result was a decline in the relative skill levels of new immigrants. By 1998, new immigrants had an average entry wage that was 34 percent less than natives.’[12] Because of their lower education levels, illegal immigrants’ wages would have been even lower. The low-wage status of recent illegal immigrants can be illustrated by the wages of recent immigrants from Mexico, a majority of whom have entered the U.S. illegally. In 2000, the median weekly wage of a first-generation Mexican immigrant was $323. This was 54 percent of the corresponding wage for non-Hispanic whites in the general population.[13] Historically, the relative wages of recent immigrants have risen after entry as immigrants gained experience in the labor market. For example, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s saw their relative wages rise by 10 percentage points compared to natives’ wages during their first 20 years in the country. But in recent years, this modest catch up effect has diminished. Immigrants who arrived in the late 1980s actually saw their relative wages shrink in the 1990s.[14] Immigration and Welfare Dependence Welfare may be defined as means-tested aid programs: these programs provide cash, non-cash, and social service assistance that is limited to low-income households. The major means-tested programs include Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public housing, the earned income credit, and Medicaid. Historically, recent immigrants were less likely to receive welfare than native-born Americans. But over the last thirty years, this historic pattern has reversed. As the relative education levels of immigrants fell, their tendency to receive welfare benefits increased. By the late 1990s immigrant households were fifty percent more likely to receive means-tested aid than native-born households.[15] Moreover, immigrants appear to assimilate into welfare use. The longer immigrants live in the U.S., the more likely they are to use welfare.[16] A large part, but not all, of immigrants’ higher welfare use is explained by their low education levels. Welfare use also varies by immigrants’ national origin. For example, in the late 1990s, 5.6 percent of immigrants from India received means-tested benefits; among Mexican immigrants the figure was 34.1 percent; and for immigrants from the Dominican Republic the figure was 54.9 percent.[17] Ethnic differences in the propensity to receive welfare that appear among first-generation immigrants persist strongly in the second generation.[18] The relatively high use of welfare among Mexicans has significant implications for current proposals to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Some 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Mexico and Latin America.[19] (See Chart 1) Historically, Hispanics in America have had very high levels of welfare use. Chart 2 shows receipt of aid from major welfare programs by different ethnic groups in 1999; the programs covered are Medicaid, Food Stamps, public housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, General Assistance, and Supplemental Security Income.[20] As the chart shows, Hispanics were almost three times more likely to receive welfare than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, among families that received aid, the cost of the aid received was 40 percent higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites.[21] Putting together the greater probability of receiving welfare with the greater cost of welfare per family means that, on average, Hispanic families received four times more welfare per family than white non-Hispanics. 1. Part, but not all, of this high level of welfare use by Hispanics can be explained by background factors such as family structure.[22] It seems likely that, if Hispanic illegal immigrants are given permanent residence and citizenship, they and their children will likely assimilate into the culture of high welfare use that characterizes Hispanics in the U.S. This would impose significant costs on taxpayers and society as a whole. Welfare use can also be measured by immigration status. In general, immigrant households are about fifty percent more likely to use welfare than native-born households.[23] Immigrants with less education are more likely to use welfare. (See Chart 3) 1. The potential welfare costs of low-skill immigration and amnesty for current illegal immigrants can be assessed by looking at the welfare utilization rates for current low-skill immigrants. As Chart 4 shows, immigrants without a high school degree (both lawful and unlawful) are two-and-a-half times more likely to use welfare than native-born individuals.[24] This underscores the high potential welfare costs of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. 1. All categories of high school dropouts have a high utilization of welfare. Immigrants who have less than a high school degree are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts. Legal immigrants who are high school dropouts are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts.[25] Illegal immigrant dropouts, however, are less likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts mainly because they are ineligible for many welfare programs. With amnesty, current illegal immigrants’ welfare use would likely rise to the level of lawful immigrants with similar education levels. Illegal Immigration and Poverty 1. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 4.7 million children of illegal immigrant parents currently live in the U.S.[26] Some 37 percent of these children are poor.[27] While children of illegal immigrant parents comprise around 6 percent of all children in the U.S., they are 11.8 percent of all poor children.[28] This high level of child poverty among illegal immigrants in the U.S. is, in part, due to low education levels and low wages. It is also linked to the decline in marriage among Hispanics in the U.S. Within this group, 45 percent of children are born out-of-wedlock.[29] (See Table 1.) Among foreign-born Hispanics the rate is 42.3 percent.[30] By contrast, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for non-Hispanic whites is 23.4 percent.[31] The birth rate for Hispanic teens is higher than for black teens.[32] While the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks has remained flat for the last decade, it has risen steadily for Hispanics.[33] These figures are important because, as noted, some 80 percent of illegal aliens come from Mexico and Latin America.[34] In general, children born and raised outside of marriage are seven times more likely to live in poverty than children born and raised by married couples. Children born out-of-wedlock are also more likely to be on welfare, to have lower educational achievement, to have emotional problems, to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to become involved in crime.[35] 5. Poverty is also more common among adult illegal immigrants, who are twice as likely to be poor as are native-born adults. Some 27 percent of all adult illegal immigrants are poor, compared to 13 percent of native-born adults.[36] Economic and Social Assimilation of Illegal Immigrant Offspring One important question is the future economic status of the children and grandchildren of current illegal immigrants, assuming those offspring remain in the U.S. While we obviously do not have data on future economic status, we may obtain a strong indication of future outcomes by examining the educational attainment of offspring of recent Mexican immigrants. Some 57 percent of current illegal immigrants come from Mexico, and about half of Mexicans currently in the U.S. are here illegally.[37] First-generation Mexican immigrants are individuals born in Mexico who have entered the U.S. In 2000, some 70 percent of first-generation Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) lacked a high school degree. Second-generation Mexicans may be defined as individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico. Second-generation Mexican immigrants (individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico) have greatly improved educational outcomes but still fall well short of the general U.S. population. Some 25 percent of second-generation Mexicans in the U.S. fail to complete high school. By contrast, the high school drop out rate is 8.6 percent among non-Hispanic whites and 17.2 percent among blacks. Critically, the educational attainment of third-generation Mexicans (those of Mexican ancestry with both parents born in the U.S.) improves little relative to the second generation. Some 21 percent of third-generation Mexicans are high school drop outs.[38] Similarly, the rate of college attendance among second-generation Mexicans is lower than for black Americans and about two-thirds of the level for non-Hispanic whites; moreover, college attendance does not improve in the third generation.[39] These data indicate that the offspring of illegal Hispanic immigrants are likely to have lower rates of educational attainment and higher rates of school failure compared to the non-Hispanic U.S. population. High rates of school failure coupled with high rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing are strong predictors of future poverty and welfare dependence. 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 Fiscal Impact of Low Skill Immigration The 1997 New Americans study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examined the fiscal impact of immigration.[47] It found that, within in a single year, the fiscal impact of foreign-born households was negative in the two states studied, New Jersey and California.[48] Measured over the course of a lifetime, the fiscal impact of first-generation immigrants nationwide was also slightly negative.[49] However, when the future earnings and taxes paid by the offspring of the immigrant were counted, the long-term fiscal impact was positive. One commonly cited figure from the report is that the net present value (NPV) of the fiscal impact of the average recent immigrant and his descendents is $83,000.[50] There are five important caveats about the NAS longitudinal study and its conclusion that in the long term the fiscal impact of immigration is positive. First, the study applies to all recent immigration, not just illegal immigration. Second, the finding that the long-term fiscal impact of immigration is positive applies to the population of immigrants as a whole, not to low-skill immigrants alone. Third, the $83,000 figure is based on the predicted earnings, tax payments, and benefits of an immigrant’s descendents over the next 300 years.[51] Fourth, the study does not take into account the growth in out-of-wedlock childbearing among the foreign-born population, which will increase future welfare costs and limit the upward mobility of future generations. Fifth, the assumed educational attainment of the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of immigrants who are high school dropouts or high school graduates seems unreasonably high given the actual attainment of the offspring of recent Mexican and Hispanic immigrants.[52] The NAS study’s 300-year time horizon is highly problematic. Three hundred years ago, the United States did not even exist and British colonists had barely reached the Appalachian Mountains. We cannot reasonably estimate what taxes and benefits will be even 30 years from now, let alone 300. The NAS study assumes that most people’s descendents will eventually regress to the social and economic mean, and thus may make a positive fiscal contribution, if the time horizon is long enough. With similar methods, it seems likely that out-of-wedlock childbearing could be found to have a net positive fiscal value as long as assumed future earnings are projected out 500 or 600 years. Slight variations to NAS’s assumptions used by NAS greatly affect the projected outcomes. For example, limiting the time horizon to 50 years and raising the assumed interest rate from 3 percent to 4 percent drops the NPV of the average immigrant from around $80,000 to $8,000.[53] Critically, the NAS projections assumed very large tax increases and benefits cuts would begin in 2016 to prevent the federal deficit from rising further relative to GDP. This assumption makes it far easier for future generations to be scored as fiscal contributors. If these large tax hikes and benefit cuts do not occur, then the long-term positive fiscal value of immigration evaporates.[54] Moreover, if future tax hikes and benefit cuts do occur, the exact nature of those changes would likely have a large impact on the findings; this issue is not explored in the NAS study. Critically, the estimated net fiscal impact of the whole immigrant population has little bearing on the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants, who are primarily low-skilled. As noted, at least 50 percent of illegal immigrants do not have a high school degree. As the NAS report states, “[S]ome groups of immigrants bring net fiscal benefits to natives and others impose net fiscal costs [I]mmigrants with certain characteristics, such as the elderly and those with little education, may be quite costly.”[55] The NAS report shows that the long-term fiscal impact of immigrants varies dramatically according to the education level of the immigrant. The fiscal impact of immigrants with some college education is positive. The fiscal impact of immigrants with a high school degree varies according to the time horizon used. The fiscal impact of immigrants without a high school degree is negative: benefits received will exceed taxes paid. The net present value of the future fiscal impact of immigrants without a high school degree is negative even when the assumed earnings and taxes of descendents over the next 300 years are included in the calculation.[56] A final point is that the NAS study’s estimates assume that low skill immigration does not reduce the wages of native-born low-skill workers. If low-skill immigration does, in fact, reduce the wages of native-born labor, this would reduce taxes paid and increase welfare expenditures for that group. The fiscal, social, and political implications could be quite large. 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] preference for entry visas. The current visa allotments for family members (other than spouses and minor children) should be eliminated, and quotas for employment- and skill-based entry increased proportionately.

Will It Take A CIVIL WAR To End Mexican Occupation?

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com


THE SECOND CIVIL WAR? Or war to end MEXICAN OCCUPATION?

SEEMS LIKELY AS DAILY THE HISPANDERING CORPORATE OWNED POLITICIANS CONTINUE TO ABET WALL STREET’S UNENDING RAPE AND PILLAGE. A HUGE PART OF WALL STREET’S PILLAGE IS THE ASSAULT ON THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED. THEY’VE BEEN AS SUCCESSFUL IN THAT AS THE BANKSTERS WERE PILLAGING US AND THEN GETTING MASSIVE WELFARE, BONUSES AND NO REGULATION FROM THE VERY LA RAZA DEMS THAT SOLD OUT AMERICAN TO THE MEXICAN INVADERS. BOTH WELLS FARGO, AND SKANK OF AMERICA ARE MAJOR LA RAZA DONORS AND HAVE LONG VICTIMIZED FOR PROFITS ILLEGALS.
THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION CAUSES WAGES FOR LEGALS, YOU KNOW, THOSE THAT PAY THE REAL WELFARE AND CRIME COSTS OF THE OCCUPATION, SOME $200 - $300 BILLION PER YEAR.
WHO ARE WILL WE BE AT WAR WITH?
MEXICO. WE ARE MEXICO’S WELFARE SYSTEM. SO THAT THE MEXICAN ECONOMY CAN REMAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE SMALL RULING CLASS OF MEXICAN OLIGARCHS, THEY MUST KEEP DUMPING THEIR POOR, ILLITERATE, CRIMINAL AND FREQUENTLY PREGNANT OVER OUR BORDERS. THEY’VE NOW DUMPED 38 MILLION AND THOSE THAT ARRIVE HERE ARE BREEDING LIKE CATHOLIC BUNNIES!
LA RAZA, “THE RACE” THE VIRULENTLY RACIST POLITICAL PARTY FOR MEXICAN SUPREMACY FUNDED BY….. get this…. YOUR TAX DOLLARS, THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT, AND GENEROUS DONATIONS FROM MUCH OF THE FORTUNE 500 WHO HAVE LONG BEEN AT WAR WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDER 20 YEARS OF CORPORATE PILLAGE OF BUSH, HILLARY, BILLARY, BUSH, their war profiteer FEINSTEIN, and HISPANDERING BARACK OBAMA.

THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ALWAYS THE FRONT FOR CORPORATE PILLAGERS. THERE SIMPLY WILL NEVER BE A WAGE LOW ENOUGH TO SATISFY THE CHAMBER.

THE LA RAZA DEMS HISPANDERING FOR THE ILLEGALS’ ILLEGAL VOTES.
WORST HISPANDERERS: OBAMA, CLINTONS, PELOSI, FEINSTEIN, BOXER, WAXMAN, LOFGREN, BACA, FARR, BECERRA, REID, NAPOLITANO, AND PROBABLY ALL BUT A COUPLE IN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT.
38 MILLION ILLEGALS DIDN’T WALK OVER OUR BORDERS WITH NOTHING BUT A MEXICAN FLAG IN THEIR POCKETS BY ACCIDENT! THEY WERE SENT PACKING BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND TO THE MULTITUDE OF INVITATIONS AND INDUCEMENTS OUR GOVERNMENT PUTS OUT EVERY DAY, SUCH AS NO E-VERIFY, NO (REAL) WALL, NO ENGLISH ONLY, AND NO ID FOR ILLEGALS TO VOTE, “FREE” MEDICAL, AND WELFARE FOR ANY MOMMA THAT CAME OVER THE BORDER PREGNANT.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH JUSTIFIABLE NEARLY DESTROYED BY DECADES OF PEDOPHILE PRIEST ABUSE, NEEDS TO FILL THE PEWS WITH ABEYANT HEAVY BREEDERS. THEREFORE, IN VIOLATION OF THEIR TAX EXEMPTION, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OPERATES A FOREIGN POLICY AND ENCOURAGES THE BREAKING OF AMERICAN LAWS BY ILLEGALS, AND THE EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGALS.

A CRAIGLIST POST
Civil War With Illegals ?

It's totally a done deal.

All of the Mexicans have been brainwashed by their corrupt government that they are
here to take back the land that was "stolen" from them.

Of course, it's illogical for them to destroy the country that creates their existence, but
that's not the point. You're talking about lawless drones from a 500 year old culture.

Their concept of reality is simply symbolic.

They do not realize that Americans are superior because of their cultural proclivities;
they think it's all due to the location of the land we "stole." Therefore, they think that
if they take it back for Mexico, the country that betrayed their dreams, they too
will magically be successful.

But the truth of their beliefs is seen on a daily basis in every town and city they
infest: they destroy them because fo their freely chosen cultural proclivities.

Anyway, it won't take much to set off the fuse.

The truth is that Third World hispanics are hostile to Americans and our way of life.

They want to live here, only as long as they can continue to obtain "bread and circuses."

If there is an interruption, they'll lose their shit. And if we continue with the rewards, the
numbers will increase and they'll become emboldened.

Either way, get your boomsticks and lock and load, ' cause it's coming
*







The Mexican Invasion................................................ 3 MILLION ILLEGALS HOP THE BORDER EVERY YEAR. 1.5 MILLION AMERICANS FALL INTO POVERTY..... AND UNLESS YOU’RE PART OF THE CORPORATE CLASS OF BILLIONAIRES, YOU’RE NOT DOING WELL EITHER. WHAT THIS CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR ARTICLE FAILS TO MENTION IS THAT THE NARCO-MEXICAN STATE ALSO EXPORTS THEIR CRIMINAL CLASS TO BE HOUSED IN OUR PRISONS AND JAILS. As well as 10 billion dollar drug trade with all the criminal elements still attached. ILLEGALS NOW MAKE UP ALMOST HALF THE COST OF THE US PRISON SYSTEM. ONE-THIRD OF ALL FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT CASES ARE WITH ILLEGALS. However this article is not entirely fair. Mexico does manufacture and export approximately a half-billion dollars of counterfeit DVD’s stolen from the American economy besides their poor and criminal classes. from the March 30, 2006 edition - 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. What are some examples of this failure of responsibility? • When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes - a figure roughly equivalent to that of Haiti and far below the level of major Latin American nations. Not only is Mexico's collection rate ridiculously low, its fiscal regime is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to widespread evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to reform the system. 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. • A venal, "come-back-tomorrow" bureaucracy explains the 58 days it takes to open a business in Mexico compared with three days in Canada, five days in the US, nine days in Jamaica, and 27 days in Chile. Mexico's private sector estimates that 34 percent of the firms in the country made "extra official" payments to functionaries and legislators in 2004. These bribes totaled $11.2 billion and equaled 12 percent of GDP. • Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. • Economic competition is constrained by the presence of inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a small number of private corporations - closely linked to government big shots - that control telecommunications, television, food processing, transportation, construction, and cement. Politicians who talk about, much less propose, trust-busting measures are as rare as a snowfall in the Sonoran Desert. 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.

*********************************************************************** Unfettered Immigration = Poverty By Unfettered Immigration = Poverty
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. Current Trends in Immigration Over the last 40 years, immigration into the United States has surged. Our nation is now experiencing a second “great migration” similar to the great waves of immigrants that transformed America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 2004, an estimated 35.7 million foreign-born persons lived in the U.S. While in 1970 one person in twenty was foreign born, by 2004 the number had risen to one in eight. About one-third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are illegal aliens. There are between 10 and 12 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S.[1] Illegal aliens now comprise 3 to 4 percent of the total U.S. population. Each year approximately 1.3 million new immigrants enter the U.S.[2] Some 700,000 of these entrants are illegal.[3] One third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are Mexican. Overall, the number of Mexicans in the U.S. has increased from 760,000 in 1970 to 10.6 million in 2004. Nine percent of all Mexicans now reside in the U.S.[4] Over half of all Mexicans in the U.S. are illegal immigrants,[5] and in the last decade 80 to 85 percent of the inflow of Mexicans into the U.S. has been illegal.[6] The public generally perceives illegals to be unattached single men. This is, in fact, not the case. Some 44 percent of adult illegals are women. While illegal men work slightly more than native-born men; illegal women work less. Among female illegals, some 56 percent work, compared to 73 percent among native-born women of comparable age.[7] As well, Mexican women emigrating to the U.S. have a considerably higher fertility rate than women remaining in Mexico.[8] Decline in Immigrant Wages Over the last 40 years the education level of new immigrants has fallen relative to the native population. As the relative education levels of immigrants have declined, so has their earning capacity compared to the general U.S. population. Immigrants arriving in the U.S. around 1960 had wages, at the time of entry, that were just 13 percent less than natives’. In 1965, the nation’s immigration law was dramatically changed, and from 1990 on, illegal immigration surged. The result was a decline in the relative skill levels of new immigrants. By 1998, new immigrants had an average entry wage that was 34 percent less than natives.’[12] Because of their lower education levels, illegal immigrants’ wages would have been even lower. The low-wage status of recent illegal immigrants can be illustrated by the wages of recent immigrants from Mexico, a majority of whom have entered the U.S. illegally. In 2000, the median weekly wage of a first-generation Mexican immigrant was $323. This was 54 percent of the corresponding wage for non-Hispanic whites in the general population.[13] Historically, the relative wages of recent immigrants have risen after entry as immigrants gained experience in the labor market. For example, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s saw their relative wages rise by 10 percentage points compared to natives’ wages during their first 20 years in the country. But in recent years, this modest catch up effect has diminished. Immigrants who arrived in the late 1980s actually saw their relative wages shrink in the 1990s.[14] Immigration and Welfare Dependence Welfare may be defined as means-tested aid programs: these programs provide cash, non-cash, and social service assistance that is limited to low-income households. The major means-tested programs include Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public housing, the earned income credit, and Medicaid. Historically, recent immigrants were less likely to receive welfare than native-born Americans. But over the last thirty years, this historic pattern has reversed. As the relative education levels of immigrants fell, their tendency to receive welfare benefits increased. By the late 1990s immigrant households were fifty percent more likely to receive means-tested aid than native-born households.[15] Moreover, immigrants appear to assimilate into welfare use. The longer immigrants live in the U.S., the more likely they are to use welfare.[16] A large part, but not all, of immigrants’ higher welfare use is explained by their low education levels. Welfare use also varies by immigrants’ national origin. For example, in the late 1990s, 5.6 percent of immigrants from India received means-tested benefits; among Mexican immigrants the figure was 34.1 percent; and for immigrants from the Dominican Republic the figure was 54.9 percent.[17] Ethnic differences in the propensity to receive welfare that appear among first-generation immigrants persist strongly in the second generation.[18] The relatively high use of welfare among Mexicans has significant implications for current proposals to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Some 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Mexico and Latin America.[19] (See Chart 1) Historically, Hispanics in America have had very high levels of welfare use. Chart 2 shows receipt of aid from major welfare programs by different ethnic groups in 1999; the programs covered are Medicaid, Food Stamps, public housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, General Assistance, and Supplemental Security Income.[20] As the chart shows, Hispanics were almost three times more likely to receive welfare than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, among families that received aid, the cost of the aid received was 40 percent higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites.[21] Putting together the greater probability of receiving welfare with the greater cost of welfare per family means that, on average, Hispanic families received four times more welfare per family than white non-Hispanics. 1. Part, but not all, of this high level of welfare use by Hispanics can be explained by background factors such as family structure.[22] It seems likely that, if Hispanic illegal immigrants are given permanent residence and citizenship, they and their children will likely assimilate into the culture of high welfare use that characterizes Hispanics in the U.S. This would impose significant costs on taxpayers and society as a whole. Welfare use can also be measured by immigration status. In general, immigrant households are about fifty percent more likely to use welfare than native-born households.[23] Immigrants with less education are more likely to use welfare. (See Chart 3) 1. The potential welfare costs of low-skill immigration and amnesty for current illegal immigrants can be assessed by looking at the welfare utilization rates for current low-skill immigrants. As Chart 4 shows, immigrants without a high school degree (both lawful and unlawful) are two-and-a-half times more likely to use welfare than native-born individuals.[24] This underscores the high potential welfare costs of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. 1. All categories of high school dropouts have a high utilization of welfare. Immigrants who have less than a high school degree are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts. Legal immigrants who are high school dropouts are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts.[25] Illegal immigrant dropouts, however, are less likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts mainly because they are ineligible for many welfare programs. With amnesty, current illegal immigrants’ welfare use would likely rise to the level of lawful immigrants with similar education levels.

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

ARE WE MEXICO'S WELFARE & PRISON SYSTEM? Mexico Thinks So!

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

EXPORTING POVERTY... we take MEXICO'S 38 million poor, illiterate, criminal and frequently pregnant

........ where can we send AMERICA'S poor?



The Mexican Invasion................................................
Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them

March 30, 2006 edition

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. What are some examples of this failure of responsibility? • When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes - a figure roughly equivalent to that of Haiti and far below the level of major Latin American nations. Not only is Mexico's collection rate ridiculously low, its fiscal regime is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to widespread evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to reform the system. 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. • A venal, "come-back-tomorrow" bureaucracy explains the 58 days it takes to open a business in Mexico compared with three days in Canada, five days in the US, nine days in Jamaica, and 27 days in Chile. Mexico's private sector estimates that 34 percent of the firms in the country made "extra official" payments to functionaries and legislators in 2004. These bribes totaled $11.2 billion and equaled 12 percent of GDP. • Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. • Economic competition is constrained by the presence of inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a small number of private corporations - closely linked to government big shots - that control telecommunications, television, food processing, transportation, construction, and cement. Politicians who talk about, much less propose, trust-busting measures are as rare as a snowfall in the Sonoran Desert. 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.

ARE OUR BORDERS SECURE? Or Would Secure Borders Conflict With LA RAZA AMNESTY?

please flag with care:


miscategorized


prohibited


spam/overpost


best of craigslist

_____________Is Our Homeland Secure? Think again! (without adequate border security ?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2010-02-15, 8:44AM PST
Reply to: comm-s4hwj-1601640943@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is Our Homeland Secure?
By Harris Sherline
February 15, 2010

For the most part, I have always been an optimist, generally seeing opportunity in difficult situations. But, I must admit that when it comes to homeland security, I tend to be somewhat pessimistic. When I do think about it, I invariably ask myself the following questions: Are we secure? Has our government done enough to make the American homeland safe? Are we doing enough ourselves, as individuals? Is it even possible to make us secure?

The Christmas day attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit raises serious questions about just how secure we are. In my judgment, at this point we are definitely not secure.

Not only are we not secure, but it appears that the system that is intended to protect us is broken. Consider the response of Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, when asked about the incident: "Do you feel that we are? Does anyone you know really feel the nation is safe from another attack? I don't know anyone who does when you put the question to them."

The Bush administration took credit for the fact that we did not suffer another major terrorist attack since 9/11, which makes me wonder what the reaction of the American people will be when it finally does happens. And, it is going to happen!

The reaction may well be to "throw the bums out." At this point, it will be the Obama administration that will be at fault. Unfortunately, that probably won't make much difference.

Every time I hear the head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, talk about what the government has done or is doing to protect America, I wonder how anyone can actually believe we are adequately protected when we are so plagued by political correctness that it prevents us from even doing something as basic as profiling airline passengers. Over eight years after 9/11 we are still not inspecting most of the cargo on airplanes and at our ports, or adequately protecting our water and food supplies, power plants, etc. And, what about the potential of suicide bombers attacking in such public places as shopping malls? If anything would disrupt our way of life that certainly would.

Our leaders responded to 9/11 by creating the largest bureaucracy in American history, the Department of Homeland Security, with a $55.1 billion budget and over 200,000 employees.

Just looking at the organization chart is enough to boggle the mind: There are 22 departments organized in five levels of bureaucracy. The major agencies are Transportation Security, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Coast Guard.

They all report to the Secretary of Homeland Security, along with 18 other assorted "Secretaries," Officers, Directors and the like. There is also a Homeland Security Advisory Council, which provides "advice and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security,"

To my eye, it looks like an organizational nightmare, with a span of control that exceeds the ability of any single individual to manage. Just looking at it raises questions. And, as usual, Congress has a hand in managing everything, adding to the complexity and confusion that surrounds the agency's activities. Furthermore, the current head of the Department, Janet Napolitano, has no training or experience in the field.

In my opinion we are a long way from being secure. I also believe we can never be completely safe. How on earth is it possible for us to protect ourselves from every conceivable attempt to attack us, ranging from nuclear to poisoning our food and/or water, to attacking our transportation systems, power grids, other major installations and Lord knows what else?

Furthermore, without adequate border security there can be no homeland security. Listening to the endless arguments about securing our borders, especially with Mexico, it is obvious that we are wide open to being infiltrated by our enemies.

Apart from 9/11, the breathtaking scope of the Katrina disaster underscored the fact that the most important function of government is to protect its citizens.

For the most part, the Homeland Security organization is a top down structure, with the agencies that comprise the Department of Homeland Security funding a wide variety of programs, including emergency preparedness activities at the state and county levels. However, are we really prepared for major emergencies, such as fires, torrential storms, accidents involving hazardous materials, earthquakes or other natural disasters - and the unthinkable, a terrorist attack or perhaps the overflow consequences of one in a major metropolitan area?

When there is a fire, earthquake, tornado, flood, who's available to help? We tend to rely on local Fire, Police or Sheriff's departments, public utilities, agencies like the Red Cross, or the National Guard. But, what if no one can get to you for two or three days, or a week? What can you do? Are you adequately prepared to tough it out on your own? New Orleans vividly demonstrated that most people are not.

In a major crisis, the reality is that you will probably have to fend for yourself until help arrives, conceivably days, a week, or longer. There are simply not enough police, firefighters and emergency personnel to respond to every situation.

Think about how unprepared you probably are for an emergency. Everything from fire extinguishers to first aid kits and CPR training to an adequate supply of food and water to a pre-determined survival plan and escape route for your family, to just plain knowing what to do to protect your home and loved ones and to help your neighbors.

Columnist Thomas Sowell made the following observations in an article about New Orleans and Katrina:


When all is said and done, government is ultimately just human beings -- politicians, judges, bureaucrats. Maybe the reason we are so often disappointed with them is that they have over-promised and we have been gullible enough to believe them.
Government cannot solve all our problems, even in normal times, much less during a catastrophe of nature that reminds man how little he is, despite all his big talk.

The most basic function of government, maintaining law and order, breaks down when floods or blackouts paralyze the system.

During good times or bad, the police cannot police everybody. They can at best control a small segment of society. The vast majority of people have to control themselves.


If we don't know what to do in a major emergency, and we expect our local police and firefighters to be the "first responders," and they are not available, who will be accountable, the Federal Department of Homeland Security, the state government, your city council or county board of supervisors? As we have already seen with Katrina in New Orleans, there will be plenty of blame to go around.

In the final analysis, self-help is inescapable. Think about it. Are you prepared? Do you know what to do if outside help cannot get to you when the next major emergency strikes.

There's another major emergency in your future, and the likelihood that the government, local, state or Federal, will be able prevent it or provide 100% protection is slim to none. We all need to be prepared to take care of ourselves and to help our neighbors until the situation stabilizes.

---

Read more of Harris Sherline's commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com

LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY - FASTEST GROWING POLITICAL ENTITY

THE MEXICAN RACIST FASCIST PARTY FOR MEX SUPREMACY OF LA RAZA "THE RACE"



*
“Wherever there’s a Mexican, there is Mexico!”... President Calderone.
As an American living under Spanish speaking Mexican occupation, I would add to this “Where there’s a Mexican, there’s a violent Mexican gang!”

THE LA RAZA AGENDA: EXPANDING MEXICAN OCCUPATION AND SUPREMACY

TAKEN FROM TRANSCRIPTS DATED 1995. MANY OF THESE LA RAZA POLITICIANS HAVE WON HIGHER OFFICES WITH THE VOTES OF ILLEGALS.

“WE WILL TAKE CONTROL OF OUR COUNTRY (U.S.) BY VOTE IF POSSIBLE AND VIOLENCE IF NECESSARY!”
Agendas of MEChA, La Raza, MALDEF, and Southwest Voter Registration Projects These are transcripts of live, recorded statements by elected U.S. politicians, college professors, and pro-illegal alien activists whose objective is to take control of our country "by vote if possible and violence if necessary!" 1. Armando Navarro, Prof. Ethnic Studies, UC Riverside at Latino Summit Response to Prop 187, UC Riverside, 1/1995
"These are the critical years for us as a Latino community. We're in a state of transition. And that transformation is called 'the browning of America'. Latinos are now becoming the majority. Because I know that time and history is on the side of the Chicano/Latino community. It is changing in the future and in the present the balance of power of this nation. It's a game - it's a game of power - who controls it. You (to MEChA students) are like the generals that command armies. We're in a state of war. This Proposition 187 is a declaration of war against the Latino/Chicano community of this country. They know the demographics. They know that history and time is on our side. As one community, as one people, as one nation within a nation as the community that we are, the Chicano/Latino community of this nation. What this means is a transfer of power. It means control."

“THE NEW LEADERSHIP OF THE AMERICAS... IS MEXICAN!”
“REMEMBER: (PROPOSITION) 187 IS THE LAST GASP OF WHITE AMERICA IN CALIFORNIA!”

2. ART TORRES
Art Torres, former CA state senator, currently Chair of California Democrat Party at UC Riverside 1/1995 "Que viva la causa! It is an honor to be with the new leadership of the Americas, here meeting at UC Riverside. So with 187 on the ballot, what is it going to take for our people to vote - to see us walking into the gas ovens? It is electoral power that is going to make the determination of where we go as a community. And power is not given to you -- you have to take it. Remember: 187 is the last gasp of white America in California. Understand that. And people say to me on the Senate floor when I was in the Senate, 'Why do you fight so hard for affirmative action programs?' And I tell my white colleagues, 'because you're going to need them.'"

“WE ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS THAT CAME FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY TO ANOTHER COUNTRY....WE ARE FREE TO TRAVEL THE LENGTH AND BREADTH OF THE AMERICAS BECAUSE WE BELONG HERE.”

3. Jose Angel Gutierrez, Prof. Univ. Texas at Arlington, founder La Raza Unida Party at UC Riverside 1/1995 "The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we're a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot - we will not- and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population."

YOU WONDERED WHY OBAMA WANTED THE CORRUPT RICHARDSON IN HIS ADMINISTRATION? IT’S ALL ABOUT HISPANDERING FOR THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES!

“WE HAVE TO BAND TOGETHER, AND THAT MEANS LATINOS IN FLORIDA, CUBAN-AMERICANS, MEXICAN-AMERICAS, PUERTO RICANS, SOUTH AMERICANS, WE HAVE TO NETWORK BETTER......”
BILL RICHARDSON. WE ALL WERE WITNESS TO OBAMA, ALWAYS THE HISPANDERER, ATTEMPT TO PUT RICHARDSON IN HIS CABINET TO SIGNAL THE ILLEGALS THAT AMNESTY WAS COMING. LIKE MOST HISPANIC POLITICIANS, RICHARDSON WAS TOO CORRUPT TO PASS EVEN THE CORRUPT CONGRESS AND WITHDREW HIS NOMINATION.
4. Bill Richardson, New Mexico Governor, former U.S. Congressman, U.N. Ambassador, U.S. Secretary of Energy interviewed on radio Latino USA responding to Congressional Immigration Reform legislation in 1996 "There are changing political times where our basic foundations and programs are being attacked, illegal and legal immigration are being unfairly attacked. We have to band together, and that means Latinos in Florida, Cuban-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, South Americans, we have to network better - we have to be more politically minded, we have to put aside party and think of ourselves as Latinos, as Hispanics more than we have in the past."


“WE’RE GOING TO TAKE OVER ALL THE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS IN CALIFORNIA. IN FIVE YEARS THE HISPANICS ARE GOING TO BE THE MAJORITY POPULATION OF THIS STATE.... ANYONE THAT DOESN’T LIKE IT SHOULD LEAVE IT!”, Mario Obledo,
Mario Obledo, founding member/former national director of Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), former CA Secretary Health/Welfare on Tom Leikus radio talk show "We're going to take over all the political institutions in California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state." Caller: "You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state and if anyone doesn't like it they should leave - did you say that?" Obledo: "I did. They ought to go back to Europe."

“WELCOME TO CALIFORNIA.. THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION STATE!”6. Mario Obledo CCIR commentary on Mario Obledo: When CCIR, the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, erected a billboard on the California/Arizona border reading, "WELCOME TO CALIFORNIA, THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION STATE", Mario Obledo, infuriated, went to the billboard location and threatened to blow it up or burn it down. Even after this threat to deny American citizens their freedom of speech, President Clinton awarded Obledo the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor. CCIR question to Obledo: "Jose Angel Gutierrez said, 'We have an aging white America, they are dying, I love it.' How would you translate that statement?" Obledo: "He's a good friend of mine. A very smart person."

“THEY’RE AFRAID THAT WE’RE GOING TO TAKE OVER THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS. THEY ARE RIGHT, WE WILL TAKE THEM OVER....”
7. Richard Alatorre, former Los Angeles City Councilman at Latino Summit conference in Los Angeles opposing CA Prop. 209 ending affirmative action in 9/1996 "Because our numbers are growing, they're afraid about this great mass of minorities that now live in our community. They're afraid that we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They are right, we will take them over, and we are not going to go away - we are here to stay, and we are saying 'ya basta' (enough!) and we are going to turn... and de... not elect or re-elect people that believe that they are going to advance their political careers on the backs of immigrants and the backs of minorities."

MEXICAN SUPREMACIST LA RAZA PARTY REP. FROM INLAND EMPIRE WHERE HE WORKS HARD TO THE EXPANSION OF THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION AND WELFARE SYSTEM.


“THE LATINOS ARE COMING... THE LATINOS ARE COMING!!! AND THEY’RE GOING TO VOTE!” 8. Joe Baca, former CA Assemblymember, currently member of Congress at Latino Summit Response to Prop 187 UC Riverside 1/1995 and Southwest Voter Registration Project annual conference in Los Angeles, 6/1996 "We need more Latinos out there. We must stand up and be counted. We must be together, We must be united. Because if we're not united you know what's going to happen? We're like sticks - we're broken to pieces. Divided we're not together. But as a unit they can't break us. So we've got to come together, and if we're united, si se puede (it can be done) and we will make the changes that are necessary. But we've got to do it. We've got to stand together, and dammit, don't let them divide us because that's what they want to do, is to divide us. And once we're divided we're conquered. But when we look out at the audience and we see, you know, la familia, La Raza (the family, our race), you know, it's a great feeling, isn't it a good feeling? And you know, I started to think about that and it reminded me of a book that we all read and we all heard about, you know, Paul Revere, and when he was saying, 'The British are coming, the British are coming!' Well, the Latinos are coming, the Latinos are coming! And the Latinos are going to vote. So our voices will be heard. So that's what this agenda is about. It's about insuring that we increase our numbers. That we increase our numbers at every level. We talk about the Congressional, we talk about the Senate, we talk about board of supervisors, board of education, city councils, commissions, we have got to increase out numbers because the Latinos are coming. Because what's going on right now, with 187, the CCRI (CA Civil Rights Initiative against affirmative action), and let me tell you, we can't go back, you know, we're in a civil war. But we need to be solidified, we need to come together, we must be strong, because united we form a strong body. United we become solidified, united we make a difference, united we make the changes, united Latinos will win throughout California, let's stick together, que si se puede, que no? (it can be done, right?)

“IF THEY’RE SUPPORTING LEGISLATION THAT DENIES THE UNDOCUMENTED DRIVER’S LICENSE, THEY DON’T BELONG IN OFFICE, FRIENDS. THEY DON’T BELONG HERE!”
9. Antonio Villaraigosa, Chair of MEChA (student wing of Aztlan movement) at UCLA, former CA assemblymember, former CA Assembly speaker, currently Los Angeles City Mayor, and formerly Councilman at Southwest Voter Registration Project Conference in Los Angeles, 6/1997 "Part of today's reality has been propositions like 187 (to deny public benefits to illegal aliens, 1994), propositions like 209 (to abolish affirmative action, 1996), the welfare reform bill, which targeted legal immigrants and targeted us as a community. That's been the midnight. We know that the sunny side of midnight has been the election of a Latino speaker - was the election of Loretta Sanchez, against an arch-conservative, reactionary hate-mongering politician like Congressman Dornan! Today in California in the legislature, we're engaged in a great debate, where not only were we talking about denying education to the children of undocumented workers, but now we're talking about whether or not we should provide prenatal care to undocumented mothers. It's not enough to elect Latino leadership. If they're supporting legislation that denies the undocumented driver's licenses, they don't belong in office, friends. They don't belong here. If they can't stand up and say, 'You know what? I'm not ever going to support a policy that denies prenatal care to the children of undocumented mothers', they don't belong here."


GLORIA MOLINA, RACIST MEXICAN SUPREMACIST IS NOW ON THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. A HUGE PORTION OF THE COUNTY’S REVENUES ARE PAID OUT TO ILLEGALS. LOS ANGELES COUNTY CALCULATES THAT THE TAX-FREE MEXICAN UNDERGROUND ECONOMY IS ABOUT $2 BILLION PER YEAR AND GROWING FAST.

“I’M GONNA GO OUT THERE AN VOTE BECAUSE I WANT TO PAY THEM BACK!”10. Gloria Molina, one of the five in Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors at Southwest Voter Registration Project Conference, 6/1996 "This community is no longer going to stand for it. Because tonight we are organizing across this country in a single mission, in a plan. We are going to organize like we've never organized before. We are going to go into our neighborhoods. We are going to register voters. We are going to talk to all of those young people that need to become registered voters and go out to vote and we're are politicizing every single one of those new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country. And what we are saying is by November we will have one million additional Latino voters in this country, and we're gonna march, and our vote is going to be important. But I gotta tell you, there's a lot of people that are saying, 'I'm gonna go out there and vote because I want to pay them back!' And this November we are going to remember those that stood with us and we are also going to remember those that have stood against us on the issues of immigration, on the issues of education, on the issues of health care, on the issues of the minimum wage."

“LONG LIVE OUR RACE!”11. Vicky Castro, former member of Los Angeles Board of Education at Southwest Voter Registration Project Conference, 6/1996 "Que viva la raza, que viva la raza (long live our race)! I'm here to welcome all the new voters of 18 years old that we're registering now in our schools. Welcome, you're going to make a difference for Los Angeles, for San Antonio, for New York, and I thank Southwest for taking that challenge. And to the Mechistas (MEChA students) across this nation, you're going to make that difference for us, too. But when we register one more million voters I will not be the only Latina on the Board of Education of Los Angeles. And let me tell you here, no one will dismantle bilingual education in the United States of America. No one will deny an education to any child, especially Latino children. As you know, in Los Angeles we make up 70% of this school district. Of 600,000 -- 400,000 are Latinos, and our parents are not heard and they're going to be heard because in Los Angeles, San Antonio and Texas we have just classified 53,000 new citizens in one year that are going to be felt in November!"

“I STARTED THIS VERY QUIETLY BECAUSE THERE ARE THOSE THAT IF THEY KNEW THAT WE WERE CREATING A WHOLE NEW CADRE OF BRAND NEW CITIZENS IT WOULD HAVE TREMENDOUS POLITICAL IMPACT.”


“WE HAVE PROCESSED A LITTLE OVER 78,000 BRAND NEW CITZENS.”12. Ruben Zacarias, former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District at Southwest Voter Registration Project Conference, 6/1997 "We have 27 centers now throughout LAUSD. Every one of them has trained people, clerks to take the fingerprints. Each one has the camera, that special camera. We have the application forms. And I'll tell you what we've done with I.N.S. Now we're even doing the testing that usually people had to go to INS to take, and pretty soon, hopefully, we'll do the final interviews in our schools. Incidentally, I started this very quietly because there are those that if they knew that we were creating a whole new cadre of brand new citizens it would have tremendous political impact. We will change the political panorama not only of L.A., but L.A. County and the State. And we do that we've changed the panorama of the nation. I'm proud to stand here and tell you that in those close to three years we have processed a little over 78,000 brand new citizens. That is the largest citizenship program in the entire nation."

“I HAVE PROUDLY AFFIRMED THAT THE MEXICAN NATIONAL EXTENDS BEYOND THE TERRITORY ENCLOSED BY ITS BORDERS....”13. Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico announcing the Mexican constitutional amendment allowing for dual citizenship on 6/23/97 "I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican national extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders, and that Mexican migrants are an important - a very important part of it. For that reason my government proposed a constitutional amendment to allow any Mexican with the right as he desires to acquire another nationality to do so without being forced to first give up his or her Mexican nationality. Fortunately, the amendment was passed almost unanimously by our federal Congress and is now part of our constitution. I am also here today to tell you that we want you to take pride in what each and every one of your Mexican brothers and sisters are doing back home.

“WE’RE HERE... TO SHOW THE WHITE ANGLO-SAXON PROTESTANT L.A., THE FEW OF YOU WHO REMAIN, THAT WE ARE THE MAJORITY, AND WE CLAIM THIS LAND AS OURS, IT’S ALWAYS BEEN OURS, AND WE’RE STILL HERE, AND NONE OF THE TALK ABOUT DEPORTING. IF ANYONE’S GOING TO BE DEPORTED IT’S GOING TO BE YOU!”

“WE ARE THE MAJORITY IN L.A. THERE’S OVER SEVEN MILLION MEXICANS IN L.A. COUNTY ALONE.”
14. Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96 "Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets, we're here today to show L.A., show the minority people here, the Anglo-Saxons, that we are here, the majority, we're here to stay. We do the work in this city, we take care of the spoiled brat children, we clean their offices, we pick the food, we do the manufacturing in the factories of L.A., we are the majority here and we are not going to be pushed around. We're here in Westwood, this is the fourth time we've been here in the last two months, to show white Anglo-Saxon Protestant L.A., the few of you who remain, that we are the majority, and we claim this land as ours, it's always been ours, and we're still here, and none of the talk about deporting. If anyone's going to be deported it's going to be you! Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! To back to the Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You're old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you, leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. Even their own ethicists say that they should die, that they have a duty to die. They're taking up too much space, too much air. We are the majority in L.A. There's over seven million Mexicans in L.A. County alone. We are the majority. And you're going to see every day more and more of it, as we manifest as our young people grow up, graduate from high school, go on to college and start taking over this society. The vast majority of our people are under the age of 15 years old. Right now we're already controlling those elections, whether it's by violence or nonviolence. Through love of having children we're going to take over." Other demonstrators: "Raza fuerza (brown race power), this is Aztlan, this is Mexico. They're the pilgrims on our land. Go back to the Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria."

“BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IF WE DO NOT MOBILIZE OUR COMMUNITY WE ARE NOT PUTTING TOGETHER A SETTING - THE PARAMETER IS TO ESTABLISH A MASSIVE MOVEMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY. THAT’S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. THAT’S WHY I AM HERE TODAY.... TO TALK ABOUT WHO HERE WANTS TO ORGANIZE THE MASSES....”15. Fabian Nunez, formerly Alliance for Immigrant Rights, political liaison for L.A. School District, currently Speaker of the CA Assembly at Latino Summit Response to Prop 187 at UC Riverside, 1/1995 "There's only two forms of power in this country and in this world. One is economic power, We certainly don't have the economic power because we don't own the means of production, but there's another form of power, and that's the power of the masses. So you can be as revolutionary as you want, you can be Chicano nationalist, you can be Mexican-American, you can be Hispanic, you can believe in the concept of Aztlan, you can believe in the concept of multi-culturalism. Somebody can say 'Everybody here is wrong, I am the only one that has reached revolutionary completeness'. But the bottom line is that if we do not mobilize our community we are not putting together a setting - the parameters to establish a massive movement in our community. That's what this is about. And that's why I am here today - to talk about who here wants to organize the masses, and who here is interested in developing that movement that somebody earlier said that the sleeping giant is in a coma.

17. Tom Tancredo, U.S. Congressman from Colorado,, speaking on CSPAN, 6/27/2001 "In the June 21 issue of Time Magazine, the lead story of which is titled, "AMEXICO". It describes the de facto elimination of the border between Mexico and the United States. I believe that the debate revolving around our immigration policy should reflect the fact that this phenomenon is underway. President Fox (of Mexico) yesterday stated that he came to the United States to "play a more active role in establishing the new international architecture". I believe that this new "international architecture" can be described as AMEXICO.

18. Gray Davis, former governor of California, recalled by the voters 10/2003, speaking to a Latino audience in 1999 "In the near future, people will look at California and Mexico as one magnificent region.” GRAY WAS CORRECT IN ONE RESPECT. CALIFORNIA AND MEXICO, NOW KNOWN AS MEXIFORNIA, the Mexican welfare state, IS ONE REGION, BUT MORE GRAFFITI DRENCHED DUMPSTER THAN ANYTHING “MAGNIFICENT”.
LA RAZA:
“FOR THE RACE, EVERYTHING, FOR THOSE OUTSIDE THE RACE