Saturday, March 6, 2010

15,000 JOBS CUT IN SAN FRANCISCO Even While Newsom, Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstein PUSH FOR AMNESTY!

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

San Francisco is a “SANCTUARY CITY” which pays out millions for their chapter of the MEXICAN WELFARE ZONE.

The Mayor of San Francisco, Lieutenant Governor wannabe, GAVIN NEWSOM was formerly a hispandering candidate for Viceroy of Mexifornia. His was the LA RAZA PLATFORM to expand the Mexican occupation of Mexifornia.

La Raza Feinstein has long pushed to expand the Mexican occupation. She and Boxer have repeated push for their “SPECIAL AMNESTY” for “cheap” labor farm workers from Mexico. Both of our LA RAZA U.S. SENATORS have taken big bribes from big ag biz donors to accomplish this “SPECIAL AMNESTY”, despite the fact that one-third of all ILLEGAL FARM WORKERS end up on welfare!

Dianne Feinstein has long hired illegals to work “cheap” for her S. F. hotel

La Raza Nancy Pelosi has long hired illegals at her $20 million Napa winery.

DESPITE THE STAGGERING UNEMPLOYMENT TRAGEDY IN CALIFORNIA, THE FORECLOSURES (SEE ILLEGALS & FORECLOSURES ON MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com), MEXICAN WELFARE AND PRISON COSTS, AND STATE, COUNTY AND CITY DEFICITS CAUSED IN LARGE PART BY THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION, THESE HISPANDERING POLITICIANS ARE AT THIS VERY MOMENT WORKING FOR THE LA RAZA OBAMA AMNESTY = ILLEGALS’ ILLEGAL VOTES!

THEY WILL NEVER NOT STOP SELLING US OUT!

*

15,000 S.F. workers given layoff notices
Heather Knight, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Emotions ranged from disbelief to despair to downright anger Friday as 15,000 San Francisco city workers received pink slips. But Mayor Gavin Newsom reiterated that his controversial plan to rehire them under shortened workweeks would wind up saving thousands of jobs.
Newsom ordered the layoff notices be sent to most of the city's 26,000 workers and said the overwhelming majority of them will be hired back within two weeks to work 37.5 hours a week instead of their current 40 - meaning they'll see a 6.25 percent cut to their paychecks.
The plan will save $50 million in the city's general operating fund, which has a $522 million deficit for the 2010-11 fiscal year. It will save another $50 million in departments that don't receive general fund money like the port and airport.
Bob Muscat, head of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 21, also is chairing the Public Employee Committee, comprised of many unions working together to come up with a counterproposal.
Muscat said that one idea is to reduce the city's outsourcing of labor and that the group wants to present its plan to Newsom next week. He said the unions will file a lawsuit if no compromise is reached.
"If he continues on this plan, then I think we'll be left with no choice," Muscat said.
City workers were irate Friday, commiserating as they showed each other their layoff notices. Some wore pink in protest.
"People are very upset. Many were in tears, and some were very, very angry," said Sin Yee Toon, the incoming chief elected officer of Service Employees International Union Local 1021. "There is a lack of fairness."
Many unions, including the SEIU, gave back raises last year to help balance the city's budget.
Certain workers safe
Many say it's unfair that some city workers are being laid off while others - including police officers, firefighters, Muni drivers, attorneys and a host of managers and department heads - are not.
At an impromptu news conference Friday morning, Newsom tried to quash those complaints by saying he'll be asking for a 6 to 6.25 percent pay cut from all unions, even those whose members will continue to work at least 40-hour weeks for staffing reasons or because their work hours are enshrined in the city charter. But those unions will have to agree to the pay cuts.
In 2007, Newsom gave police officers and firefighters a 23 percent pay raise spread over four years, which his critics said was an overly generous package intended to win their support as he ran for re-election. Both unions are due a 6 percent wage increase next year.
John Hanley, head of the firefighters union, said his group is open to meeting with the mayor to talk about givebacks but would not pledge to forgo their coming raises. "A labor group would never promise that," he said with a laugh.
The police and firefighters' unions both agreed to givebacks last year: 5 percent over two years for police and 5.75 percent over 2 1/2 years for fire. Still, the mayor's office will be asking them for more.
Muni operators due 7% raise
In addition, the Transport Workers Union representing Muni operators is due a 7 percent raise. That group recently rejected a package of contract concessions. The heads of TWU and the Police Officers Association did not return calls for comment.
Newsom said he and his chief of staff will continue to take the 15 percent pay cut they took this year.
"Unlike the headlines you guys write, my trust fund doesn't exist," the mayor said. "I've been looking around for it."
He added that everybody in his office earning more than $100,000 a year will continue to take 10 percent pay cuts. He said he's also asked his department heads to take 10 percent pay cuts.
"We're all in this together," he said.
Another concern among workers is how the layoffs will affect their benefits and pensions. Their health benefits and vacation and sick leave will not change, though their pensions will be impacted because they are based on wages. The mayor has said he hopes it encourages some workers to retire.
Many workers also are concerned because Newsom has said not everyone will be rehired. He said Friday his attorneys have advised him not to reveal the number who won't be rehired.
"I've been lawyered up, guys," he told reporters. "And you can quote me on that."
Pink slips by the numbers
15,000 San Francisco city workers getting layoff notices
37.5 hours Workweeks when rehired instead of 40
6.25 percent Cut to paychecks
$50 million Savings for the city's general operating fund
$50 million Savings for other departments such as port and airport
$522 million Overall deficit for city's general operating fund in 2010-11

Mexican Gangs Have Spread All Over This Nation! OUR OPEN & UNDEFENDED BORDERS!

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

MEXICAN GANG MEMBER MURDERS BABY.
PICK UP A NEWSPAPER, ANY NEWSPAPER SERVICING ANY CITY, AND DO A SEARCH FOR MEXICAN GANGS.
REALLY WANT AMNESTY AND OPEN BORDERS WITH THESE PEOPLE?

Murder trial starts Monday for Redlands gang member
Mike Cruz, Staff Writer
Posted: 03/05/2010 05:03:16 PM PST


SAN BERNARDINO - A Redlands gang member accused of killing of two men and wounding a baby, in what prosecutors have described as witness retaliation, is set to begin trial Monday in his capital case.
Lawyers in the case of Mathew Ruben Manzano will deliver their opening remarks before the jury at 9:30 a.m. in San Bernardino Superior Court, confirmed Deputy District Attorney Michael McDowell.
Prosecutors say Manzano targeted and killed Raymond Holguin Jr., in March 2005 at a Mentone residence after Holguin identified him in a carjacking case at a Redlands liquor store four years earlier.
Also killed at the home with Holguin was Fernando Anthony Gurule. If Manzano is convicted, prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty.
Lawyers on each side declined to comment Friday but said they were ready for the trial to get under way.
Redlands police say Gurule, 45, was working on a car on April 28, 2005, outside a Turquoise Avenue home when a gunman arrived and forced him into the living room.
Once inside, the gunman shot Gurule and then turned the gun on the 22-year-old Holguin, who was on a couch with his infant son on his chest, Detective Mark Hardy testified in January 2007 at a hearing.
The baby survived the gunfire with wounds to his feet. A dozen bullet casings at the scene from two different weapons.
Manzano is being represented by Rasheed Alexander and Celia Torres of the Public Defender's Homicide Defense

ATTRITION WORKS! Painless, Cheap, Non-Violent, Quick - BUT LA RAZA DEMS SAY HELL NO! WE NEED ILLEGALS' VOTES!

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
*
What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday August 18, 2008

The largest business lobby in the country is again meddling in Immigration policy. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has issued a scathing report on requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify, the federal program designed to check the legal status of all workers. President Bush signed an executive order
requiring federal contractors to use the system, but the open-borders Chamber of Commerce calls the initiative, "misguided, premature, and unwarranted.”
*
ATTRITION WORKS! PUT THE EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGALS IN JAIL! WATCH THEM OVERNIGHT STOP HIRING ILLEGALS WITH STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. WATCH THE ILLEGALS HEAD HOME AND DEMAND THEIR OWN COUNTRY, INSTEAD OF OURS, HAND THEM JOBS, WELFARE AND FREE MEDICAL!
THE RESIDUAL OF THIS IS EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGAL WOULD HAVE TO PAY LIVING WAGES! LIVING WAGES FOR AMERICAN MEANS HIGHER TAXES. THE END OF THE MEXICAN WELFARE AND PRISON STATE, WOULD MEAN LESS DEFICITS, MELTDOWNS, AND BILLIONS SAVED THAT ARE WASTED PAYING FOR THE MEXICAN WELFARE AND PRISONS STATE!
THE IMPEDIMENT TO GETTING OUR COUNTRY BACK ARE THE CORPORATE OWNED LA RAZA DEMS. OBAMA WANTS POCKETS FULL OF BANKSTER MONEY AND THE VOTES OF ILLEGALS. NANCY PELOSI HAS LONG ILLEGALLY HIRED ILLEGALS AT HER NAPA WINERY. DIANNE FEINSTEIN HAS LONG HIRED ILLEGALS AT HER S.F. HOTEL. BOTH FIGHT TO SABOTAGE E-VERIFY!
*

ASK YOURSELF WHY MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE MAJOR DONORS TO LA RAZA, THE MEXICAN SUPREMACIST FASCIST PARTY?
*
Small Business Owners: 79 percent said inadequate enforcement ( 17% unemployment)
________________________________________
Date: 2010-02-05, 11:11AM PST
Reply to: comm-hfte5-1587500470@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
________________________________________

New Poll Reveals Business Leaders and Union Members Favor Enforcement over Amnesty
Wednesday, - posted on NumbersUSA


A new Zogby poll (see the full report from the Center for Immigration Studies) reveals that when given the choice between enforcing immigration laws causing illegal aliens to leave the country or offering a mass amnesty, senior business executives, small business owners and union members favor enforcement. This is in stark contrast to the business and union lobbyists who are pushing for an amnesty.

Among the findings...

When asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal immigrants in the country to go home or offering them a pathway to citizenship with conditions, most members of the business community and unions choose enforcement.

Executives (e.g. CEOs, CFOs, VPs etc.): 59 percent support enforcement to encourage illegals to go home; 30 percent support conditional legalization.
Small Business Owners: 67 percent support enforcement; 22 percent support conditional legalization.
Union Households: 58 percent support enforcement; 28 percent support conditional legalization.
One of the most interesting findings of the survey is that members of the business community think there are plenty of Americans available to fill unskilled jobs. Union members feel the same way.

Executives: 16 percent said legal immigration should be increased to fill unskilled jobs, 61 percent said there are plenty of Americans available to do unskilled jobs, employers just need to pay more.
Small Business Owners: 13 percent said increase immigration; 65 percent said plenty of Americans are available.
Union Households: 10 percent said increase immigration; 72 percent said plenty of Americans are available.
Most members of the business community and union households do not feel that illegal immigration is caused by limits on legal immigration, as many of their lobbyists argue; instead, members feel it is due to a lack of enforcement.

Executives: Just 13 percent said illegal immigration is caused by not letting in enough legal immigrants; 75 percent said inadequate enforcement.
Small Business Owners: 10 percent said not enough legal immigration; 79 percent said inadequate enforcement.
Union Households: 13 percent said not enough legal immigration; 74 percent said inadequate enforcement efforts.
In contrast to many businesses group and union leaders, most executives and union members think im- migration is too high.

Executives: 63 percent said it is too high; 5 percent said too low; 16 percent said just right.
Small Business Owners: 70 percent said it is too high; 4 percent said too low; 13 percent said just right.
Union Households: 63 percent said immigration is too high; 5 percent said too low; 14 percent said just right.
The key question in the poll asked whether business leaders and union members would choose enforcement versus amnesty, and the overwhelming majority choose enforcement.


*
What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

By David R. Francis
from the June 23, 2008 edition
What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.
Amazingly, that is happening now – to some degree. This trend may already be shrinking the flood across the Mexican border and have a modest positive impact on job prospects for "native born" Americans during the present economic slump.
Immigration prosecutions reached an all-time high in March, reports the Trans_actional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data research and distribution group at Syracuse University in New York. Using data from the Justice Department, it calculates that prosecutions were up 49 percent from February and 72.7 percent from March of last year. This highly unusual surge is filling up US detention centers and jails.
March prosecutions numbered 9,360. That's small compared to the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US. Nonetheless, "It's working," says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that would like immigration levels reduced considerably.
The hike in prosecutions stems from an expansion of "Operation Streamline" last year by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Under the effort, undocumented aliens caught by border guards are no longer simply steered into "air-conditioned buses," as Mr. Krikorian puts it, and driven back across the border to try crossing again. Instead, they are charged with crimes and detained.
The most common charge is "reentry of a deported alien." But there are at least nine other crimes, including entry of an alien at an improper time or place. The result is detention until trial, usually before US Magistrate Courts. A typical sentence is one month, and then "removal."
That time under detention, DHS hopes, will deter these aliens from trying again and discourage others from even trying. Border crossings have plunged, especially in areas where those caught are put into lockups. Border patrol apprehensions along the Mexican border were down 17 percent to 347,372 between October 2007 and March 2008, compared with the same period a year previous.


BECOME A BLOG FOLLOWER:
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
In addition to the border measures, immigration officials have stepped up well-publicized raids on meatpacking firms and other companies hiring undocumented workers. States, including Arizona, also have been cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants, a crime often harder to prove in court than illegal border crossing.
Krikorian guesses that in the past, 800,000 to 900,000 illegal immigrants successfully entered the US every year, and about 400,000 left voluntarily or were deported each year – a net growth of about 500,000 illegal immigrants a year.
If current moves to restrain illegal immigration trim that growth by 100,000 to 200,000 immigrants, it should have some effect on the nation's labor supply, notes University of Chicago economist Jeffrey Grogger. He's coauthor of a paper calculating that a 10 percent increase in the supply of a particular skill group caused by higher immigration prompted a reduction in the wages of similarly low-skilled black men by 4 percent between 1960 and 2000, lowered their employment rate by a huge 3.5 percentage points, and increased their incarceration rate by almost a full percentage point.
So, presumably, fewer low-skilled immigrants could gradually induce more work for low-skilled native Americans.
The weaker economy and labor market should also prove less of a draw for immigrants, mostly undocumented ones, over the next year or two, cutting the flow by "several hundred thousand" per year, reckons a new study by four economists with Goldman Sachs, a prominent Wall Street investment bank. That would reduce labor-force growth by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points compared with the growth rate in the past few years – and thus the potential for greater economic growth. The Goldman Sachs economists would welcome an increase in the flow of immigrants as a way to absorb the excess inventory of homes troubling the housing industry, and mitigate the "incipient pressures on the federal budget due to the impending retirement of the baby boom generation."
But a study by Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies in Boston attributes the "unprecedented" levels of legal, illegal, and temporary immigration as a factor underlying the "devastation" in the job scene for America's teens and young adults over the past seven years. That's especially the case for males with no schooling beyond high school and youths from low-income families. Summer seasonal jobs as a proportion of all jobs are at the lowest level now in the past 30 years.
………………
NOTE THE DATE OF THE BELOW CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR article

(HILLARY CLINTON WAS BOUGHT BY WALMART. AS A FORMER “BOARD MEMBER” CLINTON HAS NEVER AND WILL NEVER SPEAK OUT ABOUT THE EXPLOITATION BY AMERICAN’S LARGEST EMPLOYER…. FIVE OWNERS, THE WALTONS, HAVE ASSETS OF $20 !BILLIION! YES, BILLION EACH, YES, EACH)

from the March 28, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0328/p08s01-comv.html j
Joke on America: Hiring Illegals
The Monitor's View
Ha ha ha. That's a good one. Wal-Mart, a company with $285 billion in sales, gets fined a mere $11 million earlier this month for having hundreds of illegal immigrants clean its stores.
The federal government boasts it's the largest fine of its kind. But for Wal-Mart, it amounts to a rounding error - and no admittance of wrongdoing since it claims it didn't know its contractors hired the illegals.
If it weren't so easy for illegals and employers to skirt worker ID verification, the settlement's requirement that Wal-Mart also improve hiring controls might have a ripple effect in corporate America. But the piddling fine will hardly deter businesses from hiring cheap labor from a pool of illegals that's surged by 23 percent since 2000.
It's commonly argued that Americans don't want the jobs illegals take. But a workforce of perhaps 7 million undocumented workers depresses wages. Those wages would readjust upward, and be attractive to Americans and legal immigrants, if the stream of illegals significantly abated. Promise of work in the US encourages illegal (and dangerous) border crossing. That's why the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 provided for sanctions against businesses that hire the undocumented.
But enforcement is pathetically inadequate, especially since 9/11.
Facing limited resources, immigration officials have necessarily redirected priorities to protecting critical infrastructure. For instance, more than 1,100 unauthorized alien workers with access to sensitive areas at airports have been arrested.
Even so, the sanctions' decline is staggering. In 1999, fines totaling $3.69 million were collected from 890 companies. Last year, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) collected $118,500 from 64 companies. But it levied zero fines. Zero.
Lax enforcement spans administrations, and experts blame the twin pressures of ethnic advocacy and business interests. Decentralized hiring and high turnover compound the problem. Many large corporations have fobbed off hiring responsibility on contractors, and after them come scads of smaller businesses that rely on the undocumented.
That's why it's especially important that local law enforcement be alert. The ICE might never have stumbled upon the Wal-Mart case had it not been for the local police in Honesdale, Pa., whose follow-up on a hit-and-run accident led them to the Wal-Mart workers. But like the feds, state and county governments also face limited resources.
The ICE says Wal-Mart's fine will fund future enforcement. That could be a model - but only if fines amount to more than a slap on the wrist.

WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS - NOT YET AS BAD AS WELFARE FOR BANKSTERS - But Give the LA RAZA DEMS More TIme!

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
The Soaring Cost of the Mexican Occupation in One California County Overrun By Illegals!
Rep. Joe Baca, a LA RAZA MEXICAN RACIST’S EXPANSION OF MEXICAN WELFARE STATE

Sbsun.com
Illegal migrants costly to San Bernardino County
Total spent on illegal immigrants elusive
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Posted: 02/20/2010 02:50:10 PM PST


Four years ago, a group of concerned citizens expressed outrage at the cost of illegal immigration to San Bernardino County taxpayers.
The price tag for six county departments to provide services to illegal immigrants was more than $38 million a year, the county Grand Jury found.
Most of the money was spent on emergency health care and law enforcement-related services for illegal immigrants.
But that was just a fraction of the tab.
Fourteen other unnamed county departments had no idea of their costs for illegal immigrant services. If those departments had provided numbers, the bill would have been substantially higher, the Grand Jury's report stated.
The Grand Jury recommended that the county immediately require all departments to start tracking their costs.
The information should be made available to the public as well as to state and federal lawmakers who would take action to solve the immigration crisis if they knew the true cost of the problem, according to the report released in 2006.
In response, the Board of Supervisors directed all departments to track the costs, but not all of them have been complying, officials said.
County supervisors want to find out what happened.
"The public has a right to know who's receiving the services and whether or not they're entitled to them," said Supervisor Neil Derry. "These are dollars that are being used by people who don't belong here that either could be used to provide services to legal citizens or returned to them in the form of lower taxes."
Supervisor Josie Gonzales also wants to know why some departments have not followed through on the board's direction.
"The fact that we continue to incur costs for services that are extremely difficult to recover funds for is of great concern to me," Gonzales said.
Supervisor Paul Biane said he will ask Chief Administrative Officer Greg Devereaux to look into the matter. But he isn't optimistic that tracking the information will make much of a difference.
"It would be great to know," Biane said, "but at the end of the day, I don't think it will mean more revenue to the county of San Bernardino to support us for the services we provide."
Brad Kuiper, who was foreman of the Grand Jury at the time, said county officials should be complaining louder.
"It's very frustrating to me and the Grand Jury," said Kuiper, a 71-year-old Apple Valley resident. "It's all taxpayer money and we don't seem to have a vote on any of this. Until it comes from the grass roots, it's obvious that none of these people that we've elected to office are going to do anything about any of this stuff."
The county is mandated by state and federal law to provide services to illegal immigrants.
Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, the county hospital in Colton, must treat every person that enters the emergency room, regardless of income or immigration status.
The hospital's health care cost for illegal immigrants was nearly $9 million in 2006. Today, that number is about $18 million, said Frank Arambula, the hospital's chief financial officer.
The hospital gets back about $5 million from Section 1011 of the Medicare program, which helps reimburse hospitals for emergency services provided to illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants make up about 1,400 emergency room patients a year, which equates to about 5 percent of total admissions, Arambula said.
"Is it a strain on our resources to provide these services? No," Arambula said. "Our mission is to take care of the sick who can't pay for health care. If someone doesn't have treatment, they could potentially infect others."
The county pays a hefty price to provide other services to illegal immigrants.
The District Attorney's Office spends about $9 million a year to prosecute cases against illegal immigrants charged with crimes, according to the 2006 Grand Jury report.
District attorney's spokeswoman Susan Mickey said she could not provide an updated cost.
"No one here has any idea where that ($9 million) figure came from," Mickey said. "We do not track cases by immigration status. We do not track by ethnicity or race or anything. If they break the law, they're prosecuted, whether they're legal or illegal."
The county Public Defender's Office also spends $9 million a year to provide criminal defense for illegal immigrants who can't afford their own lawyers, the report said.
County spokesman David Wert could not provide an updated cost.
Wert said the numbers provided to the Grand Jury were one-time estimates provided by the county administrative office at the Grand Jury's request. The county does not track costs for the Public Defender's Office because the county must provide services and there is no reimbursement from the federal government, Wert said.
Tracking costs is also extremely difficult because determining immigration status is a separate legal process, Wert said.
The Sheriff's Department does track the cost to jail illegal immigrants. Sheriff's employees undergo special training by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to determine the immigration status of inmates for purposes of reimbursement.
In the 2007-2008 fiscal year, the county spent $15.8 million to jail illegal immigrants but only got back $2.2 million from the federal government.
"It has a huge impact on the county and especially the Sheriff's Department budget," said sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Beavers. "It also taxes our jail population."
In recent years, the department has left more vacant positions unfilled and cut back on some crime-prevention and community programs as a result of not being fully reimbursed for the cost of jailing illegal immigrants, Beavers said.
For the first time, the county is seeking federal reimbursement for probation services provided to juvenile illegal immigrants. County officials are requesting $5.5 million this year to cover that cost.
Assemblyman Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, blamed the federal government and Democrats in the state Legislature for not dealing with the immigration crisis.
"They don't want to take this seriously," said Knight, whose district includes Victorville and Adelanto. "Unfortunately, counties like Los Angeles and San Bernardino are taking the brunt of a lot of this cost. How many of the basic services we provide are being stripped away because we're spending our money on illegal immigrants?"
Rep. Gary Miller, R-Brea, said citizens deserve to know how many of their tax dollars are spent on illegal immigrants.
"It's not the state's job to close down our borders," said Miller, whose district includes Chino and Chino Hills. "It's the federal government's, and we're not doing it. If we're unwilling to do our job, we should at least pick up the cost of the burden we're placing on our states."


Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/ci_14440651?source=most_viewed#ixzz0hPdYYvlH

*
County spent millions on welfare for illegal immigrants' American children
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Posted: 01/18/2010 05:11:43 PM PST


San Bernardino County spent nearly $64 million in state and federal money last year to provide welfare benefits to the American-born children of illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to welfare. But their citizen children are.
Nationwide, one in three immigrant-headed households uses at least one major welfare program, compared with 19 percent of citizen households, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that advocates immigration reduction.
In California, 192,660 citizen children are getting welfare checks passed through their illegal immigrant parents. That costs $546 million a year in state, federal and county funds, officials say.
Some lawmakers say it's an expense California can't afford as the state struggles to close a nearly $20 billion budget gap.
"We should never be giving benefits to people in this country illegally," said state Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga.
County officials provided data from August 2009 to show the funding and number of American-born children of illegal immigrants receiving aid in the CalWORKs and food stamp programs.
Information for all of 2009 was not easily retrievable, officials said, but the August figures are an accurate reflection of a monthly total during the year.
The county's Transitional Assistance Department runs the CalWORKs program, which provides cash aid and services to needy families, as well as the food stamp program.
The maximum CalWORKs grant for a family of three in the county is $661 per month. The maximum amount of food stamp assistance that a family of three can get is $526 a month.
The American-born children of illegal immigrants made up 15.5 percent of the CalWORKs caseload and 6.5 percent of the food stamp caseload in the county last year.
About 15,000 citizen children of illegal immigrants in the county received either CalWORKs or food stamps in a typical month last year. More than 11,000 used both programs in an average month in 2009, according to county data.
In August, the county spent nearly $3.3 million for CalWORKs and about $2 million for food stamps for the American-born children of illegal immigrants. The two programs totaled nearly $64 million when multiplied over 12 months.
The county contributes roughly $1.7 million a year of its own funds to run the programs, officials say.
"This is a huge burden on our state," said Assemblyman Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, whose district includes Victorville and northwestern San Bernardino County. "Obviously, these kids are U.S. citizens and that's fine. But when you look at it, these parents should have never been here in the first place."
The welfare expenses don't count pregnancy-related services that were provided last year to about 2,350 illegal immigrant women in the county through Medi-Cal, a health-care program for low-income California residents.
The welfare costs also don't include the roughly $11 billion the state spends annually for education, unreimbursed health care and incarceration of illegal immigrant criminals, said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation of American Immigration Reform, a Washington D.C.-based group that favors strict immigration limits.
"The American people are fed up with illegal aliens depleting our tax dollars by overrunning our schools, our hospitals and our welfare system," said Raymond Herrera, founder and president of We The People California's Crusader, a Claremont-based anti-illegal immigration group.
This month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed a nearly 16 percent grant reduction to CalWORKs caseloads, a move that could save the state almost $590 million.
Dutton said the CalWORKs program has failed.
"I don't think it's done a good job," he said. "People are on it too long. They've become dependent. If the program doesn't work, you need to get rid of it and try something different."
There is a five-year time limit for adults receiving CalWORKs. But children are still entitled to their share of benefits after their parents are cut off.
There is no time limit for the food stamp program.
The county did not have data on the average length of time an illegal immigrant parent with an American-born child receives CalWORKs or food stamps.
Supporters of the CalWORKs program say the proposed cuts would have devastating consequences.
"What they're attempting to do is cripple the future prosperity of our community by denying legal benefits to these American-born children," said Gil Navarro, a member of the San Bernardino County board of education.
"You are creating havoc in the community because now people have to survive in a different way," said Navarro, who is running for a state assembly seat in the June Democratic primary against Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter, D-Rialto. "Hungry people are forced to do things they may not normally do."
Not all illegal immigrants take advantage of public services like welfare that are available to their U.S.-born children.
Freddy Munguia, a 34-year-old illegal immigrant from Honduras, said he won't ask for public assistance for his 2- and 3-year-old American-born daughters.
"I don't want my kids to get any help from the government," said Munguia, a day laborer who came to this country four years ago. "Instead of helping the country, I'm taking away from it."
Critics of illegal immigration call the children "anchor babies" whose citizenship allows their illegal immigrant parents to gain a foothold in this country and receive welfare and other benefits for their kids.
"In some cases, people do come here with the intent of having children in this country because they believe it will work to their advantage," Mehlman said.
Others have a different view.
California could reap an economic boon worth $16 billion by legalizing its 1.8 million Latino illegal immigrant adults, helping fix the state's financial problems, according to a report released last week by the USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration.
"Our immigrants are an asset economically, politically, religiously and culturally," said the Rev. Patricio Guillen, a retired Roman Catholic priest who is executive director of Libreria del Pueblo, a San Bernardino nonprofit that helps immigrants.

MEXICO DEMANDS MORE WELFARE FOR THEIR PEOPLE THEY EXPORTED FOR THAT VERY BENEFIT!

MEXICAN OCCUPATION. blogspot.com

DATE: MARCH 21, LA RAZA “THE RACE” ILLEGALS WILL MARCH ON D.C. DEMANDING WHAT OBAMA AND THE LA RAZA DEMS ARE ALREADY PREPARING… AMNESTY AND THE EVER GREATER EXPANSION OF THE MEXICAN WELFARE SYSTEM!..... ALONG WITH YOUR JOB!


*
WE ARE MEXICO’S WELFARE AND PRISON SYSTEM! IT IS TIME THEY PAY FOR THEIR OWN POOR, ILLITERATE, CRIMINAL AND PREGNANT? THE LA RAZA DEMS SAY NO! GRINGOS WILL KEEP PAYING! EVEN AS THESE VERY ILLEGALS HAVE OUR JOBS!
*
For some, a struggle WHO THINKS ABOUT THE STRUGGLE OF THE AMERICANS?


Some illegal immigrants have used stolen Social Security numbers to qualify for health programs -- a form of medical identity theft increasingly on hospital radars. Many more scramble to pay for their medicine and doctors visits in cash, a challenge in an economy where day-laborer work has dried up.

*
HERE’S HOW WELL MEXICO’S WELFARE SYSTEM IN OUR BORDERS WORKS!
AN AMERICAN SEES & SPEAKS – Illegals and the MELTDOWN OF OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY – The Ever Expanding Mexican Welfare System

WHY WE ARE IN SUCH A MONEY SQUEEZE

Florida ER doctor's notes

Having spent three weeks in a hospital in Naples, Florida with my wife I couldn’t help noticing what was going on in the hospital and I had a lot of time to talk to the doctors and nurses about what I had observed. Below is a commentary from an ER Doctor. Do you think this might be a big reason our health care system and our social security system are so screwed up? Do you think this might be a big reason our taxes keep going up? Who do you think these people are going to vote for?

From a Florida ER doctor:

"I live and work in a state overrun with illegals. They make more money having kids than we earn working full-time. Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - thats right 8; all illegal anchor babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, We are the dumbest nation on earth. Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) for we elected the idiot idealogues who have passed the bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a revolution. Vote them all out in 2010. "


*
Mexico Promotes Free U.S. Healthcare For Illegal Immigrants

Time to wake up people! With unemployment at 12% and the state going broke, our tax dollars are going to pay for healthcare for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. To the tune of over a billion dollars a year!


Read on:

Mexico's government operates programs in about a dozen American cities that refers its nationals--living in the U.S. illegally--to publicly funded health centers where they can get free medical care without being turned over to immigration authorities.

The program is called Ventanillas de Salud (Health Windows) in Spanish and its mission is to help illegal immigrants find U.S. hospitals, clinics and other government programs where they can get free services without being deported for violating federal immigration laws.

Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Diego and Indiana are among the cities where Mexican consulates operate the health referral system which annually costs U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. In Los Angeles County alone, illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly $440 million in health services annually and a whopping $1.1 billion statewide.

The Mexican consul in Los Angeles proudly announced that nearly 300,000 Mexicans in the area have benefited from his government's health referral program, which he says actually saves the county money by encouraging immigrants to seek preventive care rather than waiting for more expensive emergency treatment.

The Southern California operation promises to assess "consulate clients" for eligibility to government-funded health insurance and other primary care services and offers free legal assistance to those who are denied coverage. Its goal is to improve access to health services for immigrants of Mexican origin by formalizing a health education, medical home referral and insurance enrollment program.

In Chicago, the Mexican consul's Spanish-language web site heavily promotes the Illinois Department of Health's low-cost prescription medicine program for illegal aliens and various free medical services throughout the state. It encourages all Mexicans in the area to pursue the valuable U.S. government-financed services for their entire family.

The Indiana-based program boasts that it serves thousands of "Mexican nationals" living in that state as well as Ohio, Kentucky and southern Illinois. Mexican officials claim that its highly successful pro-health program sends out a clear message to other Mexican consulates throughout the country and the world.

Although these programs facilitate people to remain in the country illegally, Mexico is working hard to expand them to all 47 U.S. consulates to better serve its nationals. In the meantime, U.S. taxpayers will keep picking up the exorbitant tab of medically treating the millions who live in the country illegally.

www.judicialwatchwatch.org

*

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com


“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” ….. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*

Is Obama no longer serving the Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA?

*
THE PURPOSE OF LA RAZA “THE RACE” IS TO EXPAND THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE, AND MAKE SURE THAT LAWS NEVER APPLY TO ILLEGALS.
PRESS RELEASE FROM LA RAZA.

That seems to be the same conclusion over at the National Council of La Raza:

Yesterday, the White House released a plan that once again excluded proposals to adequately address high uninsurance rates in the Latino community. It missed out on a key opportunity to fix serious flaws in Senate health care reform legislation, bypassing a number of pending legislative priorities that are critical to Latinos' well-being.

*
Pro-Illegal-Immigration 'La Raza' Blasts Obama Health Plan . . . (for Not Including Illegal Aliens)


Pro-Illegal-Immigration 'La Raza' Blasts Obama Health Plan for Not Including Illegal Aliens


By Roy Beck, - posted on NumbersUSA

The open-borders lobby is wailing about Pres. Obama's health care compromise, and that seems like it should be good news on the immigration front.

They say the President is leaving all illegal aliens out of the plan. And they are calling on their activists to phone the White House to demand that illegal aliens be included.

Pres. Obama's printed outline of changes doesn't mention immigration status at all. That certainly alarmed us at first.

You may recall that the President promised last summer that illegal aliens will not be included in any part of a new national health care plan. The Senate followed that for the most part in the bill it passed (as opposed to the House bill which is wide open for illegal-alien use).

Our NumbersUSA experts on the Hill have told me that they believe the Senate bill remains operative except in the cases of changes outlined by Obama this week. That should mean that illegal aliens are excluded.

That seems to be the same conclusion over at the National Council of La Raza:

Yesterday, the White House released a plan that once again excluded proposals to adequately address high uninsurance rates in the Latino community. It missed out on a key opportunity to fix serious flaws in Senate health care reform legislation, bypassing a number of pending legislative priorities that are critical to Latinos' well-being.

U.S. Latinos should be furious with the way the National Council of La Raza equates Latinos with illegal aliens.

The fact is that the Obama plan doesn't treat Latino Americans any differently than any other Americans. But it does treat legal U.S. residents differently than illegal ones. And La Raza should keep in mind that illegal aliens aren't just Latino but come in every nationality and ethnicity.

La Raza's action alert vilifies Obama's plan for requiring verification of a person's eligibility to have access to the government health coverage.

The pro-Amnesty, pro-illegal-immigration National Council of La Raza continued its recent attacks on Obama:

Unfortunately, the failure of the White House to act on these core priorities is more of the same inaction that we have seen in the past year. It is clear to NCLR that unless Latinos speak up now, we will continue to have our priorities undermined in the future.

-- National Council of La Raza

-- ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

*


THIS IS THE REALITY OF WHY OUR BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN AND UNDEFENDED:
MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE GENEROUS DONORS TO LA RAZA – THE MEXICAN FASCIST POLITICAL PARTY


*

“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

*
LA RAZA IS THE FASTEST GROWING POLITICAL PARTY IN AMERICA. IT IS THE FASCIST PART FOR MEXICAN SUPREMACY


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


IS IT TIME FOR NARCOMEX TO COVER THE COST OF THEIR ILL? THERE ARE MORE BILLIONAIRES IN MEXICO THAN SAUDI ARABIA OR SWITZERLAND!
INCLUDING A MAJOR SHARE OWNER OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, MOUTHPIECE FOR LA RAZA, CARLOS SLIM!

*
HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD EVEN ONCE OF AN AMERICAN POLITICIANS SUGGESTING THAT MEXICO BEAR THE COSTS OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE’S HEALTHCARE, WELFARE AND PRISON COSTS?

MEXICAN WELFARE STATE WORKS WELL FOR ILLEGALS!

AN AMERICAN SEES & SPEAKS – Illegals and the MELTDOWN OF OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY – The Ever Expanding Mexican Welfare System

WHY WE ARE IN SUCH A MONEY SQUEEZE

Florida ER doctor's notes
Having spent three weeks in a hospital in Naples, Florida with my wife I couldnt help noticing what was going on in the hospital and I had a lot of time to talk to the doctors and nurses about what I had observed. Below is a commentary from an ER Doctor. Do you think this might be a big reason our health care system and our social security system are so screwed up? Do you think this might be a big reason our taxes keep going up? Who do you think these people are going to vote for?

From a Florida ER doctor:

"I live and work in a state overrun with illegals. They make more money having kids than we earn working full-time. Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - thats right 8; all illegal anchor babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, We are the dumbest nation on earth. Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) for we elected the idiot idealogues who have passed the bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a revolution. Vote them all out in 2010. "

RASMUSSEN REPORT: 67% OF AMERICAN PEOPLE SAY ILLEGALS STRAIN

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

*
DATE: MARCH 21, LA RAZA “THE RACE” ILLEGALS WILL MARCH ON D.C. DEMANDING WHAT OBAMA AND THE LA RAZA DEMS ARE ALREADY PREPARING… AMNESTY AND THE EVER GREATER EXPANSION OF THE MEXICAN WELFARE SYSTEM!..... ALONG WITH YOUR JOB!


*

While 67% of the American people say illegal immigrants are a strain on the U.S. Budget, I would wonder if that already significant number would go up dramatically if the American people knew the facts? Washington, long hispandering to La Raza, has continued to propagandize “amnesty” for 12 million illegals. Facts from non-government sources put the number at 38 million and breeding (at your expense) fast!

There is not a community in this nation that has not suffered from the OPEN BORDERS – NON-ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS, MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVES, MEXICAN GANGS, AND MEXICAN MELTDOWN OF OUR “FREE” HOSPITALS. THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE IS EXPANDING ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. IN “SANCTUARY CITY” LOS ANGELES (COUNTY), WELFARE TO ILLEGALS IS NEARLY $50 MILLION PER MONTH. YES, THAT’S MONTH, NOT YEAR! IN HARRY REID’S STATE OF NEVADA, 25% OF THE POPULATION IS ILLEGAL NOW, AND WELFARE COSTS FOR ILLEGALS IS ALSO SOARING!

YOU WILL NOT HEAR THE POLITICIANS TALK ABOUT THE STAGGERING COST OF ALL THIS “CHEAP” MEXICAN LABOR THEY’VE ALLOWED MEXICO TO EXPORT. IT’S ALL ABOUT KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED FOR THEIR WALL STREET CORPORATE PAYMASTERS.

THERE IS A REASON WHY MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE GENEROUS DONORS TO LA RAZA, THE FASCIST POLITICAL PARTY FOR “THE RACE”!

RASMUSSEN REPORT & FAIRUS.org

67% Say Illegal Immigrants Are Major Strain on U.S. Budget
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
As the country wrestles with a future of historic-level deficits, 67% of U.S. voters say that illegal immigrants are a significant strain on the U.S. budget.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 23% disagree and do not believe illegal immigration is a strain on the budget.
Two-out-of-three (66%) voters say the availability of government money and services draw illegal immigrants to the United States. Nineteen percent (19%) think otherwise and do not believe government money and services are a magnet for illegal immigration. Another 15% are not sure.
These findings help to explain why 68% say gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States. Twenty-six percent (26%) think legalizing illegal immigrants is more important.
The majority support for controlling the borders has been consistent through several years of surveying.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Budget documents provided by the Obama administration show that in Fiscal Year 2009 50% of all federal spending went to national defense, Social Security and Medicare. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey shows that only 35% of voters believe that the majority of federal spending goes to just defense, Social Security and Medicare.
Just 20% say Congress is at least somewhat likely over the next year to pass legislation to gain control of the border and reduce illegal immigration, with a mere four percent (4%) who think it’s very likely. Seventy-one percent (71%) see congressional action this year to control the border as unlikely, with 47% who say it’s not very likely and 24% who say it’s not at all likely.
On the other hand, 45% believe it’s at least somewhat likely that Congress in the next year will pass legislation to create a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. This finding includes 10% who say it’s very likely.
Forty-seven percent (47%) think it’s unlikely that Congress will approve legislation in the next year that makes it possible for those who are here illegally to become U.S. citizens. Of that number, nine percent (9%) say it’s not at all likely.
This belief that Congress is more likely not to do what the majority of voters favor illustrates why unhappiness with Congress has reached the highest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters now say Congress is doing a poor job, and 63% say it would be better for the country if most congressional incumbents were defeated this November.
Fifty-six percent (56%) say the policies and practices of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally. Twenty-seven percent (27%) disagree, and 17% are not sure.
Seventy-five percent (75%) of voters are angry at the government’s current policies, up nine points since September.
A majority of voters across virtually all demographic categories agree that illegal immigrants are a strain on the budget and that they are drawn to America by the availability of government money and services. But there are partisan differences.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans and 73% of voters not affiliated with either major party say illegal immigrants are a budget strain. Just 48% of Democrats agree, and nearly as many (40%) disagree.
Similarly, 77% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated voters see the availability of government money and services as drawing illegal immigrants to America. But only 50% of Democrats share that view.
The differences between the Political Class and Mainstream voters are even sharper. While 78% of Mainstream voters say illegal immigrants are a significant strain on the budget, 60% of the Political Class disagree.
Seventy-five percent (75%) of Mainstream voters think the availability of government money and services draws illegal immigrants to the United States. Fifty-three percent (53%) of the Political Class reject that view.
But then 59% of the Political Class say legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the Untied States is more important than gaining control of the border. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Mainstream voters put controlling the border first.
The majority of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliateds believe control of the border is more important, but that view is more strongly held by GOP and unaffiliated voters.
Eighty percent (80%) of voters rate the issue of immigration as at least somewhat important in determining how they will vote in the next congressional election. That includes 50% who say it is very important to them.
Last summer, as California lawmakers struggled to close a $24-billion budget deficit, 64% of voters in the state said illegal immigrants put a significant strain on the state budget.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only

*
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
VOTERS INCREASINGLY PESSIMISTIC - IMMIGRATION TOPS ISSUES
(11-02) 04:00 PDT Sacramento
California voters are becoming increasingly pessimistic, with immigration issues topping their worries, according to a new Field Poll released Friday.
In a survey in the spring, half of voters interviewed statewide said that California was among the best places in the world to live, with 52 percent saying the Golden State was also moving in the right direction.
But now, burdened by a sputtering economy and doubts about the ability of elected officials to deal with mounting problems, voters' outlook is split - 42 percent of them said the state is headed in the right direction, while 42 percent gave a negative view and 16 percent were undecided.
And immigration and border protection questions have jumped back into the forefront of voter issues.
Two years ago, the last time the poll asked an open-ended question about voter concerns, just 6 percent of those interviewed identified immigration as their top concern.
In the new poll, 21 percent of voters named immigration and border control as their top concern - well ahead of public schools (13 percent) and the economy (9 percent).
"There's a lot of reasons, but when we see concerns about the economy, we usually see a spike on immigration, too," said Jaime Regalado, director of the Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University Los Angeles. "It's a pocketbook issue - but it's an issue that has just not gone away."
The poll, conducted during the 10-day period ending Oct. 21, was drawn from random telephone interviews with 579 registered voters. It had a sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.
Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, said he believes many voters had expected Congress and President Bush to work out a comprehensive immigration bill by now and the lack of a deal has disappointed them.
"Voters were led to believe that there would be some kind of immigration reform coming out of Washington," DiCamillo said. "But it never took hold, there was too much opposition and it's led to a great deal of frustration on this issue."
A Field Poll from July 2006 found that even during better economic times, 58 percent of Californians believed the problem of illegal immigration was a serious one; with 71 percent saying the number of federal agents patrolling the border should be increased.
The new poll did not include any follow-up questions about immigration, although the issue was mentioned more frequently among voters in Los Angeles County - 30 percent - than voters in the Bay Area (21 percent) and in Southern California outside of Los Angeles (19 percent.)
Bill Hing, a law professor who specializes in immigration issues from UC Davis, said there has been a great of media coverage of the border issues and illegal immigration over the past two years as a result of efforts in Washington to overhaul the laws and the many protest marches put on by pro-immigrant groups.
"I really think there's a lot of Americans who don't think immigration is that big a deal," he said. "But when you had these big demonstrations with people waving the Mexican flag - the truth is many Americans don't like seeing pro-immigration protests."
Hing and Regalado also noted that several popular talk-radio stations - mostly in Southern California - and CNN commentator Lou Dobbs have made immigration a central theme of their broadcasts.
*

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SPENDS 37 MILLION... ONE MONTH... WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS!

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

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949085/posts
*
Illegal alien population may be as high as 38 million

Study: Illegal alien population may be as high as 38 million A new report finds the Homeland Security Department "grossly underestimates" the number of illegal aliens living in the U.S. Homeland Security's Office of Immigration Studies released a report August 31 that estimates the number of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. is between 8 and 12 million. But the group Californians for Population Stabilization, or CAPS, has unveiled a report estimating the illegal population is actually between 20 and 38 million. Four experts, all of whom contributed to the study prepared by CAPS, discussed their findings at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington Wednesday. James Walsh, a former associate general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said he is "appalled" that the Bush administration, lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and every Democratic presidential candidate, with the exception of Joe Biden, have no problem with sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. "Ladies and gentlemen, the sanctuary cities and the people that support them are violating the laws of the United States of America. They're violating 8 USC section 1324 and 1325, which is a felony -- [it's] a felony to aid, support, transport, shield, harbor illegal aliens," Walsh stated. Walsh said his analysis indicating there are 38 million illegal aliens in the U.S. was calculated using the conservative estimate of three illegal immigrants entering the U.S. for each one apprehended. According to Walsh, "In the United States, immigration is in a state of anarchy -- not chaos, but anarchy."

IT’S ALSO THE NEXT GENERATION AFTER GENERATION OF “CHEAP” (FOR EMPLOYERS) MEXICAN LABOR......!

http://www.capsweb.org/action/activist_tool_kit.html

LOS ANGELES TIMES
60 million Californians by mid-century

Riverside will become the second most populous county behind Los Angeles and Latinos the dominant ethnic group, study says.By Maria L. La Ganga and Sara LinTimes Staff WritersJuly 10, 2007Over the next half-century, California's population will explode by nearly 75%, and Riverside will surpass its bigger neighbors to become the second most populous county after Los Angeles, according to state Department of Finance projections released Monday. California will near the 60-million mark in 2050, the study found, raising questions about how the state will look and function and where all the people and their cars will go. Dueling visions pit the iconic California building block of ranch house, big yard and two-car garage against more dense, high-rise development.But whether sprawl or skyscrapers win the day, the Golden State will probably be a far different and more complex place than it is today, as people live longer and Latinos become the dominant ethnic group, eclipsing all others combined.Some critics forecast disaster if gridlock and environmental impacts are not averted. Others see a possible economic boon, particularly for retailers and service industries with an eye on the state as a burgeoning market."It's opportunity with baggage," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in "a country masquerading as a state."Other demographers argue that the huge population increase the state predicts will occur only if officials complete major improvements to roads and other public infrastructure. Without that investment, they say, some Californians would flee the state.If the finance department's calculations hold, California's population will rise from 34.1 million in 2000 to 59.5 million at the mid-century point, about the same number of people as Italy has today. And its projected growth rate in those 50 years will outstrip the national rate — nearly 75% compared with less than 50% projected by the federal government. That could translate to increased political clout in Washington, D.C. Southern California's population is projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1 million over just seven counties.L.A. County alone will top 13 million by 2050, an increase of almost 3.5 million residents. And Riverside County — long among the fastest-growing in the state — will triple in population to 4.7 million by mid-century.Riverside County will add 3.1 million people, according to the new state figures, eclipsing Orange and San Diego to become the second most populous in the state. With less expensive housing than the coast, Riverside County has grown by more than 472,000 residents since 2000, according to state estimates.But many residents face agonizingly long commutes to work in other areas. And Monday, the state's growth projections raised some concerns in the Inland Empire.Registered nurse Fifi Bo moved from Los Angeles to Corona nine years ago so she could buy a house and avoid urban congestion. But she'd consider moving even farther east now that Riverside County is grappling with its own crowding problems."But where am I going? People used to move to Victorville, but [housing prices in] Victorville already got high," the 36-year-old said as she fretted about traffic and smog and public services stretched thin. "We don't know where to go. Maybe Arizona."John Husing, an economist who studies the Inland Empire, is betting that even in land-rich Riverside County, more vertical development is on the horizon. Part of the reason: a multi-species habitat conservation plan that went into effect in 2005, preserving 550,000 acres of green space that otherwise would have vanished."The difficult thing will be for anybody who likes where they live in Riverside County because it's rural," Husing said. "In 2050, you might still find rural out by Blythe, but other than that, forget rural."Husing predicts that growth will be most dramatic beyond the city of Riverside as the patches of empty space around communities such as Palm Springs, Perris and Hemet begin to fill in with housing tracts. The Coachella Valley, for example, will become fully developed and seem like less of a distinct area outside of Riverside, he said. "It'll be desert urban, but it'll be urban. Think of Phoenix," he said. Expect a lot of the new development in Riverside County to go up along the 215 Freeway between Perris and Murrieta, according to Riverside County Planning Director Ron Goldman. Thousands of homes have popped up in that area in the last decade, and Goldman said applications for that area indicate condominiums are next. The department is so busy that he's hiring 10 people who'll start in the next month."We have over 5,000 active development applications in processing right now," he said.No matter how much local governments build in the way of public works and how many new jobs are attracted to the region — minimizing the need for long commutes — Husing figures that growth will still overwhelm the area's roads.USC Professor Genevieve Giuliano, an expert on land use and transportation, would probably agree. Such massive growth, if it occurs, she said, will require huge investment in the state's highways, schools, and energy and sewer systems at a "very formidable cost."If those things aren't built, Giuliano questioned whether the projected population increases will occur. "Sooner or later, the region will not be competitive and the growth is not going to happen," she said.If major problems like traffic congestion and housing costs aren't addressed, Giuliano warned, the middle class is going to exit California, leaving behind very high-income and very low-income residents. "It's a political question," said Martin Wachs, a transportation expert at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica. "Do we have the will, the consensus, the willingness to pay? If we did, I think we could manage the growth."The numbers released Monday underscore most demographers' view that the state's population is pushing east, from both Los Angeles and the Bay Area, to counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino as well as half a dozen or so smaller Central Valley counties.Sutter County, for example, is expected to be the fastest-growing on a percentage basis between 2000 and 2050, jumping 255% to a population of 282,894 , the state said. Kern County is expected to see its population more than triple to 2.1 million by mid-century.In Southern California, San Diego County is projected to grow by almost 1.7 million residents and Orange County by 1.1 million. Even Ventura County — where voters have imposed some limits on urban sprawl — will see its population jump 62% to more than 1.2 million if the projections hold.The Department of Finance releases long-term population projections every three years. Between the last two reports, number crunchers have taken a more detailed look at California's statistics and taken into account the likelihood that people will live longer, said chief demographer Mary Heim.The result?The latest numbers figure the state will be much more crowded than earlier estimates (by nearly 5 million) and that it will take a bit longer than previously thought for Latinos to become the majority of California's population: 2042, not 2038.The figures show that the majority of California's growth will be in the Latino population, said Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography at USC, adding that "68% of the growth this decade will be Latino, 75% next and 80% after that."That should be a wake-up call for voting Californians, Myers said, pointing out a critical disparity. Though the state's growth is young and Latino, the majority of voters will be older and white — at least for the next decade."The future of the state is Latino growth," Myers said. "We'd sure better invest in them and get them up to speed. Older white voters don't see it that way. They don't realize that someone has to replace them in the work force, pay for their benefits and buy their house."

WHO ARE THE REAL TERRORIST? OVER THERE, OR ON OUR OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS?

Illegal Immigrants Caught Sabotaging American Train Tracks (We are at war with terrorists )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2010-03-03, 10:54AM PST
Reply to: comm-eyskv-1626768312@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]

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


ALIPAC NOTE: This press release is being sent to over 50,000 members of the American media today. Please monitor for coverage or lack thereof.

Illegal Immigrants Caught Sabotaging American Train Tracks

March 3, 2009

Contact: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
www.alipac.us, (866) 703-0864

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is requesting that Federal authorities charge the illegal aliens caught stealing over 500 railroad spikes in North Carolina with terrorism charges, since they entered America illegally and worked to sabotage train tracks in a way that could have resulted in mass casualties.

"We are at war with terrorists and stealing train spikes, which is likely to cause a train to derail is an act of terrorism," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "The Obama administration must admit that their failure to adequately enforce our border and immigration laws is putting American lives at risk of terrorism."

The Asheville Citizen Times reported on March 2, 2010 that police had arrested TWO ILLEGAL ALIENS, Cruz Mario Carnacion, 37 and Jose Luis Trejo-Yanez for being in possession of more than 500 STOLEN 7-inch spike's that were taken from the railroad tracks owned by Norfolk Southern Railroad.

This latest incident is similar to arrests of illegal aliens stealing railroad tracks and spikes from railroads near Yuma, AZ, which was reported by US Customs and Border Patrol on March 11, 2008.

"We believe that this documented pattern of illegal immigrants stealing railroad parts from tracks and putting American lives at risk is a form of terrorism that will likely not be reported by the national media,"said William Gheen. "America and Americans are under attack in our own nation and many times illegal aliens are engaging in domestic terrorism against our citizens and nation."

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is warning Americans of these illegal alien terrorism attempts through an massive online network of supporters and blogger. Activists across the nation are being encouraged to contact their local talk radio shows and elected officials to share this information about the illegal aliens stealing railroad spikes. Activists are also being asked to call their members of Congress and Janet Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security to ask her to focus on enforcing our existing immigration laws, instead of focusing on trying to pass the current AMNESTY legislation active in Congress.

Janet Napolitano's number is 202-282-8000

###

Background Articles

N.C. - Illegals charged with stealing 500 railroad spikes in Henderson County
http://www.alipac.us/article-4981-thread-1-0.html

Yuma Border Patrol Agents Arrest Subjects with Stolen Railroad Property
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-127468-railroad.html+spikes


Paid for by Americans for Legal Immigration AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION PAC

Rep. JOE BACA'S FRIGHTENING MEXICAN RACIST LA RAZA OCCUPATION

MEXICANOCCUPATION.BLOGSPOT.com

*
DATE: MARCH 21, LA RAZA “THE RACE” ILLEGALS WILL MARCH ON D.C. DEMANDING WHAT OBAMA AND THE LA RAZA DEMS ARE ALREADY PREPARING… AMNESTY AND THE EVER GREATER EXPANSION OF THE MEXICAN WELFARE SYSTEM!..... ALONG WITH YOUR JOB!

*

REP. JOE BACA of the RACIST LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY FOR MEXICAN SUPREMACY
“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?” Rep. JOE BACA,

OTHER LA RAZA POLITICIANS IN CA ARE MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA of LOS ANGELES, Rep. XAIVER BECERRA, Los Angeles, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERVISOR GLORIA MOLINA, and Reps. LINDA & LORETTA (SISTERS) SANCHEZ.
*
“In Mexico, a recent Zogby poll declared that the vast majority of Mexican citizens hate Americans. [22.2] Mexico is a country saturated with racism, yet in denial, having never endured the social development of a Civil Rights movement like in the US--Blacks are harshly treated while foreign Whites are often seen as the enemy. [22.3] In fact, racism as workplace discrimination can be seen across the US anywhere the illegal alien Latino works--the vast majority of the workforce is usually strictly Latino, excluding Blacks, Whites, Asians, and others.”
*
“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 LATINOS ARE COMING... THE LATINOS ARE COMING!!! AND THEY’RE GOING TO VOTE!”

JOE BACA
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!”
*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, February 11, 2008

In California, League of United Latin American Citizens has adopted a resolution to declare "California Del Norte" a sanctuary zone for immigrants. The declaration urges the Mexican government to invoke its rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo "to seek third nation neutral arbitration of ....disputes concerning immigration laws and their enforcement." We’ll have the story.
*
MEXICAN GANG MEMBER MURDERS BABY.
PICK UP A NEWSPAPER, ANY NEWSPAPER SERVICING ANY CITY, AND DO A SEARCH FOR MEXICAN GANGS.
REALLY WANT AMNESTY AND OPEN BORDERS WITH THESE PEOPLE?

Murder trial starts Monday for Redlands gang member
Mike Cruz, Staff Writer
Posted: 03/05/2010 05:03:16 PM PST


SAN BERNARDINO - A Redlands gang member accused of killing of two men and wounding a baby, in what prosecutors have described as witness retaliation, is set to begin trial Monday in his capital case.
Lawyers in the case of Mathew Ruben Manzano will deliver their opening remarks before the jury at 9:30 a.m. in San Bernardino Superior Court, confirmed Deputy District Attorney Michael McDowell.
Prosecutors say Manzano targeted and killed Raymond Holguin Jr., in March 2005 at a Mentone residence after Holguin identified him in a carjacking case at a Redlands liquor store four years earlier.
Also killed at the home with Holguin was Fernando Anthony Gurule. If Manzano is convicted, prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty.
Lawyers on each side declined to comment Friday but said they were ready for the trial to get under way.
Redlands police say Gurule, 45, was working on a car on April 28, 2005, outside a Turquoise Avenue home when a gunman arrived and forced him into the living room.
Once inside, the gunman shot Gurule and then turned the gun on the 22-year-old Holguin, who was on a couch with his infant son on his chest, Detective Mark Hardy testified in January 2007 at a hearing.
The baby survived the gunfire with wounds to his feet. A dozen bullet casings at the scene from two different weapons.
Manzano is being represented by Rasheed Alexander and Celia Torres of the Public Defender's Homicide Defense
*
THE EVER EXPANDING MEXICAN WELFARE STATE
*
Illegal migrants costly to San Bernardino County
Total spent on illegal immigrants elusive
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Posted: 02/20/2010 02:50:10 PM PST


Four years ago, a group of concerned citizens expressed outrage at the cost of illegal immigration to San Bernardino County taxpayers.
The price tag for six county departments to provide services to illegal immigrants was more than $38 million a year, the county Grand Jury found.
Most of the money was spent on emergency health care and law enforcement-related services for illegal immigrants.
But that was just a fraction of the tab.
Fourteen other unnamed county departments had no idea of their costs for illegal immigrant services. If those departments had provided numbers, the bill would have been substantially higher, the Grand Jury's report stated.
The Grand Jury recommended that the county immediately require all departments to start tracking their costs.
The information should be made available to the public as well as to state and federal lawmakers who would take action to solve the immigration crisis if they knew the true cost of the problem, according to the report released in 2006.
In response, the Board of Supervisors directed all departments to track the costs, but not all of them have been complying, officials said.
County supervisors want to find out what happened.
"The public has a right to know who's receiving the services and whether or not they're entitled to them," said Supervisor Neil Derry. "These are dollars that are being used by people who don't belong here that either could be used to provide services to legal citizens or returned to them in the form of lower taxes."
Supervisor Josie Gonzales also wants to know why some departments have not followed through on the board's direction.
"The fact that we continue to incur costs for services that are extremely difficult to recover funds for is of great concern to me," Gonzales said.
Supervisor Paul Biane said he will ask Chief Administrative Officer Greg Devereaux to look into the matter. But he isn't optimistic that tracking the information will make much of a difference.
"It would be great to know," Biane said, "but at the end of the day, I don't think it will mean more revenue to the county of San Bernardino to support us for the services we provide."
Brad Kuiper, who was foreman of the Grand Jury at the time, said county officials should be complaining louder.
"It's very frustrating to me and the Grand Jury," said Kuiper, a 71-year-old Apple Valley resident. "It's all taxpayer money and we don't seem to have a vote on any of this. Until it comes from the grass roots, it's obvious that none of these people that we've elected to office are going to do anything about any of this stuff."
The county is mandated by state and federal law to provide services to illegal immigrants.
Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, the county hospital in Colton, must treat every person that enters the emergency room, regardless of income or immigration status.
The hospital's health care cost for illegal immigrants was nearly $9 million in 2006. Today, that number is about $18 million, said Frank Arambula, the hospital's chief financial officer.
The hospital gets back about $5 million from Section 1011 of the Medicare program, which helps reimburse hospitals for emergency services provided to illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants make up about 1,400 emergency room patients a year, which equates to about 5 percent of total admissions, Arambula said.
"Is it a strain on our resources to provide these services? No," Arambula said. "Our mission is to take care of the sick who can't pay for health care. If someone doesn't have treatment, they could potentially infect others."
The county pays a hefty price to provide other services to illegal immigrants.
The District Attorney's Office spends about $9 million a year to prosecute cases against illegal immigrants charged with crimes, according to the 2006 Grand Jury report.
District attorney's spokeswoman Susan Mickey said she could not provide an updated cost.
"No one here has any idea where that ($9 million) figure came from," Mickey said. "We do not track cases by immigration status. We do not track by ethnicity or race or anything. If they break the law, they're prosecuted, whether they're legal or illegal."
The county Public Defender's Office also spends $9 million a year to provide criminal defense for illegal immigrants who can't afford their own lawyers, the report said.
County spokesman David Wert could not provide an updated cost.
Wert said the numbers provided to the Grand Jury were one-time estimates provided by the county administrative office at the Grand Jury's request. The county does not track costs for the Public Defender's Office because the county must provide services and there is no reimbursement from the federal government, Wert said.
Tracking costs is also extremely difficult because determining immigration status is a separate legal process, Wert said.
The Sheriff's Department does track the cost to jail illegal immigrants. Sheriff's employees undergo special training by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to determine the immigration status of inmates for purposes of reimbursement.
In the 2007-2008 fiscal year, the county spent $15.8 million to jail illegal immigrants but only got back $2.2 million from the federal government.
"It has a huge impact on the county and especially the Sheriff's Department budget," said sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Beavers. "It also taxes our jail population."
In recent years, the department has left more vacant positions unfilled and cut back on some crime-prevention and community programs as a result of not being fully reimbursed for the cost of jailing illegal immigrants, Beavers said.
For the first time, the county is seeking federal reimbursement for probation services provided to juvenile illegal immigrants. County officials are requesting $5.5 million this year to cover that cost.
Assemblyman Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, blamed the federal government and Democrats in the state Legislature for not dealing with the immigration crisis.
"They don't want to take this seriously," said Knight, whose district includes Victorville and Adelanto. "Unfortunately, counties like Los Angeles and San Bernardino are taking the brunt of a lot of this cost. How many of the basic services we provide are being stripped away because we're spending our money on illegal immigrants?"
Rep. Gary Miller, R-Brea, said citizens deserve to know how many of their tax dollars are spent on illegal immigrants.
"It's not the state's job to close down our borders," said Miller, whose district includes Chino and Chino Hills. "It's the federal government's, and we're not doing it. If we're unwilling to do our job, we should at least pick up the cost of the burden we're placing on our states."


Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/ci_14440651?source=most_viewed#ixzz0hPdYYvlH

THE LA RAZA HEALTCARE PLAN: illegals still free! WITH YOUR I.D.!

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com


For some, a struggle WHO THINKS ABOUT THE STRUGGLE OF THE AMERICANS?


Some illegal immigrants have used stolen Social Security numbers to qualify for health programs -- a form of medical identity theft increasingly on hospital radars. Many more scramble to pay for their medicine and doctors visits in cash, a challenge in an economy where day-laborer work has dried up.


*


From the Los Angeles Times
Q & A
Sorting out claims about healthcare legislation
How would an overhaul really affect senior citizens? Abortion funding? Illegal immigrants?



By Noam N. Levey

August 10, 2009

Reporting from Washington — With lawmakers home for their August recess, a fierce battle has broken out over what precisely is in the mammoth healthcare bills being pushed by congressional Democrats. There has been no shortage of misinformation, much of it advanced by critics of President Obama's overhaul effort who have made sometimes outlandish claims. Here is a look at a few of the most contentious points.

Would illegal immigrants get free healthcare benefits?

Provisions in the House and Senate bills explicitly prohibit people who are "not lawfully present in the United States" from getting federal aid to help them buy health insurance in the new exchanges.

Congressional Democrats have resisted Republican efforts to put tougher documentation requirements on those applying for aid, arguing that that could discourage many poor people from signing up for health insurance.

No matter what happens with the legislation, illegal immigrants would almost certainly still be able to get care in emergency rooms, a major burden in some parts of the country.

THESE LA RAZA ENDORSED POLITICIANS, FEINSTEIN, BOXER, PELOSI are well trained to speak out of both sides of their mouths!
*

From the Los Angeles Times
Debate heats up on healthcare for illegal immigrants

PELOSI LIES! SHE WANTS THE ILLEGALS SHE HIRES AT HER NAPA WINERY TO GET FREE MEDICAL. BUT THEY ALREADY DO! THEY JUST SHOW UP AT ANY EMERGENCY ROOM AND GIVE BIRTH. INSTANT 18 YEARS OF WELFARE IS BESTOWED.
*

House Speaker Pelosi has said that they would not be covered under overhaul proposals, but activists say medical care should not be denied to the sick, no matter their status.


For some, a struggle

Some illegal immigrants have used stolen Social Security numbers to qualify for health programs -- a form of medical identity theft increasingly on hospital radars. Many more scramble to pay for their medicine and doctors visits in cash, a challenge in an economy where day-laborer work has dried up.


*

By Antonio Olivo

August 11, 2009

Reporting from Chicago — Pushing around a cart filled with steamed corn, sliced cucumbers and other street food, Omar Castillo is the embodiment of what has become a third rail in the healthcare debate.

The 19-year-old, who received a kidney transplant last year, is in the U.S. illegally and has no ready access to long-term medical care. So peddling snacks is how he pays for the expensive drugs he needs to stay healthy.

To cover the needs of an estimated 6.8 million uninsured illegal immigrants, some advocates have proposed broadening the healthcare overhaul legislation now before Congress.

But fierce opposition has kept the idea off the table.

Castillo received his transplant and a year of free medicine as part of a hospital study at the University of Illinois Medical Center at Chicago after lobbying by Latino activists and a call from the governor's office. With the study over, his last free prescription is running out.

"We don't know what we'll do when the medicine is gone," said Castillo, holding two nearly empty bottles of the immunosuppressants he takes to ward off an organ rejection.

It is immoral, immigration activists say, for hospitals and doctors -- as well as a nation -- to deny healthcare to the seriously ill, no matter their legal status. But proponents of tougher immigration enforcement and others fighting to contain runaway costs fear that providing such services would encourage more illegal border crossings.

Given spotty healthcare in countries such as China and Mexico, "health insurance alone might be worth people coming here . . . especially if you've got a family that's got a lot of illness in it," said Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, which has pushed for tighter restrictions on medical aid to illegal immigrants.

The issue is so sensitive that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has made a point of emphasizing that illegal immigrants would not be covered under the current healthcare proposals. And the Congressional Hispanic Caucus issued a statement backing coverage only for "legal, law abiding" immigrants who pay their "fair share" for healthcare.

Under federal law, illegal immigrants are entitled to receive emergency healthcare, although some states offer assistance to cover uninsured children.

(47% OF THE JOBS IN LOS ANGELES ARE HELD BY ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS!)

For some, a struggle

Some illegal immigrants have used stolen Social Security numbers to qualify for health programs -- a form of medical identity theft increasingly on hospital radars. Many more scramble to pay for their medicine and doctors visits in cash, a challenge in an economy where day-laborer work has dried up.

"A lot of people are living with things that are easily treatable [and] that those of us with good health insurance just don't have to live with because we can go get the medication," said Jennifer Tolbert, a policy analyst at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

"If those individuals have communicable diseases," Tolbert said, "there may be a risk [of] spreading that condition."

Castillo's prescriptions for mycophenolate mofetil and tacrolimus can cost as much as $750 a month.

After about six hours of selling snacks in the hot sun on a recent day, he and a cousin took home $20, money that also must go toward food and other needs.

Castillo arrived from Mexico City in 2005.

He worked in construction for about six months, but he began growing weak and had trouble breathing, family members said.

A doctor discovered Castillo was born with a partly developed kidney.

Lucky break

Compared with others who are uninsured and facing chronic illness, Castillo has been lucky.

Last summer, the medical center assumed the cost of his kidney transplant after a group of activists rallied outside the hospital and persuaded then-Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich to make an appeal on Castillo's behalf.

Concerns over the financial burden -- an organ transplant can cost upward of $150,000, not counting follow-up care -- have led other hospitals to deny treatment, said Julie Contreras, an organizer with the League of United Latin American Citizens in Chicago.

"These people, some of them are going to die," Contreras said. "When a hospital denies treatment to any human being . . . this is flat-out immoral."

In Chicago, about a dozen immigrants in need of organ transplants have formed an informal support group.

They sat recently inside one patient's home, comparing kidney dialysis regimens and worries over mounting hospital bills. Within the group, sharing medicine is common.

In cases where pills are running out, so is rationing: one pill a day instead of three.

Asked about returning to Mexico or other home countries to receive more comprehensive care, the group broke into laughter.

"Over there, it's a thousand times worse," said Juan Zavala, a legal immigrant from Mexico and a transplant recipient. "Here, you may get treated poorly by some nurse or doctor. There? They'll give you a kick and tell you you're out of luck."

Sitting nearby was 16-year-old Liliana Cruz. After she was diagnosed with kidney failure, her family came to the U.S. illegally from Mexico in 2005 to seek help in getting a transplant.

But the operation is still beyond their reach. Cruz's age qualifies her to receive a transplant paid for by Illinois' All Kids health subsidy program, and she has a willing donor in an adult sister. But the University of Illinois Medical Center has declined the procedure because the sister's part of the surgery would not be subsidized.

"I just want a normal life," Cruz said during a recent round of kidney dialysis paid for by the state. "Right now, this machine is my life."

DRIVING DRUNK & MEXICAN - Every Day 12 Americans Are Murdered by Them!

Intoxicated Identities: Alcohol's Power in Mexican History and Culture
Editorial Reviews


Review
Intoxicated Identities is a fascinating work that will change the way you think and feel about drunks and drunkenness and hence about the world itself. In an age scared of drugs and addictions, Mitchell pursues bold ideas with nuanced arguments and writing that is witty, racy and unusually sparkling. This is an intoxicating book.. -- Michael Taussig, Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University. Both dazzling and scholarly, profound and witty, Mitchell's meticulously researched book on Mexican drinking habits is destined for classic status in alcohol-and-cultures studies. Set against vast panoramas of time and space from Aztec to Zapotec, Mitchell's work shows that sobriety and drunkenness are not stark alternatives, but interwoven threads within the rich tapestry of Mexican identity. Intoxicated Identities ignites the imagination with the brilliance and power of sustained lighting: ¡magnífico!. -- David D. Gilmore, Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook UniversityAs inhis writings on Spanish culture Mitchell has set Mexican binge drinking into a broad historical and social context and revealed its ancient roots as well as later psychic and economic functions. I highly recommend this book to people interested in Mexican history, anthropology, psychology, music and literature: it is a scholarly tour-de-force.. -- Philip K. Bock, author of Rethinking Psychological AnthropologyBoth dazzling and scholarly, profound and witty, Mitchell's meticulously researched book on Mexican drinking habits is destined for classic status in alcohol-and-cultures studies. Set against vast panoramas of time and space from Aztec to Zapotec, Mitchell's work shows that sobriety and drunkenness are not stark alternatives, but interwoven threads within the rich tapestry of Mexican identity. Intoxicated Identities ignites the imagination with the brilliance and power of sustained lighting: ¡magnífico!. -- David D. Gilmore, Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook UniversityAs in his writings on Spanish culture Mitchell has set Mexican 'binge drinking' into a broad historical and social context and revealed its ancient roots as well as later psychic and economic functions. I highly recommend this book to people interested in Mexican history, anthropology, psychology, music and literature: it is a scholarly tour-de-force.. -- Philip K. Bock, author of Rethinking Psychological Anthropology Book DescriptionIn Intoxicated Identities, Tim Mitchell provides a novel and well-grounded framework for understanding subjective drinking experiences from the Aztecs to the present day in areas as diverse as Chiapas, Chihuahua, Oaxaca, Mexico City, Texas and California. Power drinking plays a crucial role in Mexican religion, politics, fine arts and ritual spousal abuse. Mexico ranks number one in deaths from cirrhosis, and Mexican Americans are twice as likely to be arrested for drunken driving as blacks or whites. With methods and concepts derived from an extraordinary range of disciplines, Mitchell explains how Mexican culture reinforces heavy drinking. He analyzes supply (nationalistic marketing strategies) but emphasizes demand (psychocultural motivations unique to Mexico). He chronicles the joys and sorrows of a borrachera, or drinking binge, and explores this altered state of consciousness on its own terms, not from any temperance or anti-alcohol perspective.
Paperback: 224 pages Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition (May 4, 2004) Language: English ISBN-10: 0415948134 ISBN-13: 978-0415948135 Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6 x 0.6 inches

CITY JOURNAL - How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy - AND BUILD THE MEXICAN WELFARE & PRISON SYSTEM

SPREAD THE WORD!

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

City Journal
How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy

A handful of industries get low-cost labor, and the taxpayers foot the bill.


Steven Malanga

Summer 2006
*
REPORT ILLEGALS TO: 1-866-DHS-2-ICE.
WHAT IS THE REAL LATINO AMERICA? AND WHO REALLY PAYS FOR IT?

ASK YOURSELF WHY MUCH OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE GENEROUS DONORS TO LA RAZA… “The Race”? This is a virulently racist political party to expand the Mexican occupation and for Mexican supremacy.
You may be appalled that you TAX DOLLARS are also handed over to THE RACE POLITICAL PARTY!
Obama, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Waxman, Lofgren, Reid, Baca, Farr, Gutierrez, Becerra ARE ALL LA RAZA ENDORSED HISPANDERING POLITICIANS WORKING HARD FOR OPEN BORDERS, QUICK AMNESTY=ILLEGALS’ VOTES, NO E-VERIFY, NO ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS, NO ENGLISH ONLY (MEXICANS ARE HIGHLY RACIST AND LOATHE SPEAKING THE GRINGO’S LANGUAGE!) AND NO ID TO VOTE. SISTERS LORETTA AND LINDA SANCHEZ, TWO CORRUPT MEXICANS IN ORANGE COUNTY, CA, BOTH WON THEIR LA RAZA PARTY SEAT IN CONGRESS BY THE VOTES OF ILLEGALS!

HOW DO EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGALS MAKE IT WORK? THE ILLEGALS SUBSIDIZE MISERABLE WAGES WITH WELFARE FROM THE GRINGOS. IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALONE, MONTHLY, YES, MONTHLY WELFARE TO ILLEGALS IS $50 MILLION DOLLARS. THIS MEXICAN OCCUPIED TERRITORY ALSO HAS 500 – 1,000 MEXICAN GANG RELATED MURDERS YEARLY. MORE THAN THE ENTIRE MURDER RATE FOR ALL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. MEXICANS ARE THE MOST RACIST AND VIOLENT PEOPLE IN THE HEMISPHERE!

City Journal
How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy

A handful of industries get low-cost labor, and the taxpayers foot the bill.
Steven Malanga
Summer 2006

The day after Librado Velasquez arrived on Staten Island after a long, surreptitious journey from his Chiapas, Mexico, home, he headed out to a street corner to wait with other illegal immigrants looking for work. Velasquez, who had supported his wife, seven kids, and his in-laws as a campesino, or peasant farmer, until a 1998 hurricane devastated his farm, eventually got work, off the books, loading trucks at a small New Jersey factory, which hired illegals for jobs that required few special skills. The arrangement suited both, until a work injury sent Velasquez to the local emergency room, where federal law required that he be treated, though he could not afford to pay for his care. After five operations, he is now permanently disabled and has remained in the United States to pursue compensation claims.
“I do not have the use of my leg without walking with a cane, and I do not have strength in my arm in order to lift things,” Velasquez said through an interpreter at New York City Council hearings. “I have no other way to live except if I receive some other type of compensation. I need help, and I thought maybe my son could come and work here and support me here in the United States.”
Velasquez’s story illustrates some of the fault lines in the nation’s current, highly charged, debate on immigration. Since the mid-1960s, America has welcomed nearly 30 million legal immigrants and received perhaps another 15 million illegals, numbers unprecedented in our history. These immigrants have picked our fruit, cleaned our homes, cut our grass, worked in our factories, and washed our cars. But they have also crowded into our hospital emergency rooms, schools, and government-subsidized aid programs, sparking a fierce debate about their contributions to our society and the costs they impose on it.
Advocates of open immigration argue that welcoming the Librado Velasquezes of the world is essential for our American economy: our businesses need workers like him, because we have a shortage of people willing to do low-wage work. Moreover, the free movement of labor in a global economy pays off for the United States, because immigrants bring skills and capital that expand our economy and offset immigration’s costs. Like tax cuts, supporters argue, immigration pays for itself.
But the tale of Librado Velasquez helps show why supporters are wrong about today’s immigration, as many Americans sense and so much research has demonstrated. America does not have a vast labor shortage that requires waves of low-wage immigrants to alleviate; in fact, unemployment among unskilled workers is high—about 30 percent. Moreover, many of the unskilled, uneducated workers now journeying here labor, like Velasquez, in shrinking industries, where they force out native workers, and many others work in industries where the availability of cheap workers has led businesses to suspend investment in new technologies that would make them less labor-intensive.
Yet while these workers add little to our economy, they come at great cost, because they are not economic abstractions but human beings, with their own culture and ideas—often at odds with our own. Increasing numbers of them arrive with little education and none of the skills necessary to succeed in a modern economy. Many may wind up stuck on our lowest economic rungs, where they will rely on something that immigrants of other generations didn’t have: a vast U.S. welfare and social-services apparatus that has enormously amplified the cost of immigration. Just as welfare reform and other policies are helping to shrink America’s underclass by weaning people off such social programs, we are importing a new, foreign-born underclass. As famed free-market economist Milton Friedman puts it: “It’s just obvious that you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.”
Immigration can only pay off again for America if we reshape our policy, organizing it around what’s good for the economy by welcoming workers we truly need and excluding those who, because they have so little to offer, are likely to cost us more than they contribute, and who will struggle for years to find their place here.
Hampering today’s immigration debate are our misconceptions about the so-called first great migration some 100 years ago, with which today’s immigration is often compared. We envision that first great migration as a time when multitudes of Emma Lazarus’s “tired,” “poor,” and “wretched refuse” of Europe’s shores made their way from destitution to American opportunity. Subsequent studies of American immigration with titles like The Uprooted convey the same impression of the dispossessed and displaced swarming here to find a new life. If America could assimilate 24 million mostly desperate immigrants from that great migration—people one unsympathetic economist at the turn of the twentieth century described as “the unlucky, the thriftless, the worthless”—surely, so the story goes, today’s much bigger and richer country can absorb the millions of Librado Velasquezes now venturing here.
But that argument distorts the realities of the first great migration. Though fleeing persecution or economic stagnation in their homelands, that era’s immigrants—Jewish tailors and seamstresses who helped create New York’s garment industry, Italian stonemasons and bricklayers who helped build some of our greatest buildings, German merchants, shopkeepers, and artisans—all brought important skills with them that fit easily into the American economy. Those waves of immigrants—many of them urban dwellers who crossed a continent and an ocean to get here—helped supercharge the workforce at a time when the country was going through a transformative economic expansion that craved new workers, especially in its cities. A 1998 National Research Council report noted “that the newly arriving immigrant nonagricultural work force . . . was (slightly) more skilled than the resident American labor force”: 27 percent of them were skilled laborers, compared with only 17 percent of that era’s native-born workforce.
Many of these immigrants quickly found a place in our economy, participating in the workforce at a higher rate even than the native population. Their success at finding work sent many of them quickly up the economic ladder: those who stayed in America for at least 15 years, for instance, were just as likely to own their own business as native-born workers of the same age, one study found. Another study found that their American-born children were just as likely to be accountants, engineers, or lawyers as Americans whose families had been here for generations.
What the newcomers of the great migration did not find here was a vast social-services and welfare state. They had to rely on their own resources or those of friends, relatives, or private, often ethnic, charities if things did not go well. That’s why about 70 percent of those who came were men in their prime. It’s also why many of them left when the economy sputtered several times during the period. For though one often hears that restrictive anti-immigration legislation starting with the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 ended the first great migration, what really killed it was the crash of the American economy. Even with the 1920s quotas, America welcomed some 4.1 million immigrants, but in the Depression of the 1930s, the number of foreign immigrants tumbled far below quota levels, to 500,000. With America’s streets no longer paved with gold, and without access to the New Deal programs for native-born Americans, immigrants not only stopped coming, but some 60 percent of those already here left in a great remigration home.
Today’s immigration has turned out so differently in part because it emerged out of the 1960s civil rights and Great Society mentality. In 1965, a new immigration act eliminated the old system of national quotas, which critics saw as racist because it greatly favored European nations. Lawmakers created a set of broader immigration quotas for each hemisphere, and they added a new visa preference category for family members to join their relatives here. Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy reassured the country that, “contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants,” and “it will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
But, in fact, the law had an immediate, dramatic effect, increasing immigration by 60 percent in its first ten years. Sojourners from poorer countries around the rest of the world arrived in ever-greater numbers, so that whereas half of immigrants in the 1950s had originated from Europe, 75 percent by the 1970s were from Asia and Latin America. And as the influx of immigrants grew, the special-preferences rule for family unification intensified it further, as the pool of eligible family members around the world also increased. Legal immigration to the U.S. soared from 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s.
As the floodgates of legal immigration opened, the widening economic gap between the United States and many of its neighbors also pushed illegal immigration to levels that America had never seen. In particular, when Mexico’s move to a more centralized, state-run economy in the 1970s produced hyperinflation, the disparity between its stagnant economy and U.S. prosperity yawned wide. Mexico’s per-capita gross domestic product, 37 percent of the United States’ in the early 1980s, was only 27 percent of it by the end of the decade—and is now just 25 percent of it. With Mexican farmworkers able to earn seven to ten times as much in the United States as at home, by the 1980s illegals were pouring across our border at the rate of about 225,000 a year, and U.S. sentiment rose for slowing the flow.
But an unusual coalition of business groups, unions, civil rights activists, and church leaders thwarted the call for restrictions with passage of the inaptly named 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized some 2.7 million unauthorized aliens already here, supposedly in exchange for tougher penalties and controls against employers who hired illegals. The law proved no deterrent, however, because supporters, in subsequent legislation and court cases argued on civil rights grounds, weakened the employer sanctions. Meanwhile, more illegals flooded here in the hope of future amnesties from Congress, while the newly legalized sneaked their wives and children into the country rather than have them wait for family-preference visas. The flow of illegals into the country rose to between 300,000 and 500,000 per year in the 1990s, so that a decade after the legislation that had supposedly solved the undocumented alien problem by reclassifying them as legal, the number of illegals living in the United States was back up to about 5 million, while today it’s estimated at between 9 million and 13 million.
The flood of immigrants, both legal and illegal, from countries with poor, ill-educated populations, has yielded a mismatch between today’s immigrants and the American economy and has left many workers poorly positioned to succeed for the long term. Unlike the immigrants of 100 years ago, whose skills reflected or surpassed those of the native workforce at the time, many of today’s arrivals, particularly the more than half who now come from Central and South America, are farmworkers in their home countries who come here with little education or even basic training in blue-collar occupations like carpentry or machinery. (A century ago, farmworkers made up 35 percent of the U.S. labor force, compared with the under 2 percent who produce a surplus of food today.) Nearly two-thirds of Mexican immigrants, for instance, are high school dropouts, and most wind up doing either unskilled factory work or small-scale construction projects, or they work in service industries, where they compete for entry-level jobs against one another, against the adult children of other immigrants, and against native-born high school dropouts. Of the 15 industries employing the greatest percentage of foreign-born workers, half are low-wage service industries, including gardening, domestic household work, car washes, shoe repair, and janitorial work. To take one stark example: whereas 100 years ago, immigrants were half as likely as native-born workers to be employed in household service, today immigrants account for 27 percent of all domestic workers in the United States.
Although open-borders advocates say that these workers are simply taking jobs Americans don’t want, studies show that the immigrants drive down wages of native-born workers and squeeze them out of certain industries. Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz, for instance, estimate that low-wage immigration cuts the wages for the average native-born high school dropout by some 8 percent, or more than $1,200 a year. Other economists find that the new workers also push down wages significantly for immigrants already here and native-born Hispanics.
Consequently, as the waves of immigration continue, the sheer number of those competing for low-skilled service jobs makes economic progress difficult. A study of the impact of immigration on New York City’s restaurant business, for instance, found that 60 percent of immigrant workers do not receive regular raises, while 70 percent had never been promoted. One Mexican dishwasher aptly captured the downward pressure that all these arriving workers put on wages by telling the study’s authors about his frustrating search for a 50-cent raise after working for $6.50 an hour: “I visited a few restaurants asking for $7 an hour, but they only offered me $5.50 or $6,” he said. “I had to beg [for a job].”
Similarly, immigration is also pushing some native-born workers out of jobs, as Kenyon College economists showed in the California nail-salon workforce. Over a 16-year period starting in the late 1980s, some 35,600 mostly Vietnamese immigrant women flooded into the industry, a mass migration that equaled the total number of jobs in the industry before the immigrants arrived. Though the new workers created a labor surplus that led to lower prices, new services, and somewhat more demand, the economists estimate that as a result, 10,000 native-born workers either left the industry or never bothered entering it.
In many American industries, waves of low-wage workers have also retarded investments that might lead to modernization and efficiency. Farming, which employs a million immigrant laborers in California alone, is the prime case in point. Faced with a labor shortage in the early 1960s, when President Kennedy ended a 22-year-old guest-worker program that allowed 45,000 Mexican farmhands to cross over the border and harvest 2.2 million tons of California tomatoes for processed foods, farmers complained but swiftly automated, adopting a mechanical tomato-picking technology created more than a decade earlier. Today, just 5,000 better-paid workers—one-ninth the original workforce—harvest 12 million tons of tomatoes using the machines.
The savings prompted by low-wage migrants may even be minimal in crops not easily mechanized. Agricultural economists Wallace Huffman and Alan McCunn of Iowa State University have estimated that without illegal workers, the retail cost of fresh produce would increase only about 3 percent in the summer-fall season and less than 2 percent in the winter-spring season, because labor represents only a tiny percent of the retail price of produce and because without migrant workers, America would probably import more foreign fruits and vegetables. “The question is whether we want to import more produce from abroad, or more workers from abroad to pick our produce,” Huffman remarks.
For American farmers, the answer has been to keep importing workers—which has now made the farmers more vulnerable to foreign competition, since even minimum-wage immigrant workers can’t compete with produce picked on farms in China, Chile, or Turkey and shipped here cheaply. A flood of low-priced Turkish raisins several years ago produced a glut in the United States that sharply drove down prices and knocked some farms out of business, shrinking total acreage in California devoted to the crop by one-fifth, or some 50,000 acres. The farms that survived are now moving to mechanize swiftly, realizing that no amount of cheap immigrant labor will make them competitive.
As foreign competition and mechanization shrink manufacturing and farmworker jobs, low-skilled immigrants are likely to wind up farther on the margins of our economy, where many already operate. For example, although only about 12 percent of construction workers are foreign-born, 100,000 to 300,000 illegal immigrants have carved a place for themselves as temporary workers on the fringes of the industry. In urban areas like New York and Los Angeles, these mostly male illegal immigrants gather on street corners, in empty lots, or in Home Depot parking lots to sell their labor by the hour or the day, for $7 to $11 an hour.
That’s far below what full-time construction workers earn, and for good reason. Unlike the previous generations of immigrants who built America’s railroads or great infrastructure projects like New York’s bridges and tunnels, these day laborers mostly do home-improvement projects. A New York study, for instance, found that four in ten employers who hire day laborers are private homeowners or renters wanting help with cleanup chores, moving, or landscaping. Another 56 percent were contractors, mostly small, nonunion shops, some owned by immigrants themselves, doing short-term, mostly residential work. The day laborer’s market, in other words, has turned out to be a boon for homeowners and small contractors offering their residential clients a rock-bottom price, but a big chunk of the savings comes because low-wage immigration has produced such a labor surplus that many of these workers are willing to take jobs without benefits and with salaries far below industry norms.
Because so much of our legal and illegal immigrant labor is concentrated in such fringe, low-wage employment, its overall impact on our economy is extremely small. A 1997 National Academy of Sciences study estimated that immigration’s net benefit to the American economy raises the average income of the native-born by only some $10 billion a year—about $120 per household. And that meager contribution is not the result of immigrants helping to build our essential industries or making us more competitive globally but instead merely delivering our pizzas and cutting our grass. Estimates by pro-immigration forces that foreign workers contribute much more to the economy, boosting annual gross domestic product by hundreds of billions of dollars, generally just tally what immigrants earn here, while ignoring the offsetting effect they have on the wages of native-born workers.
If the benefits of the current generation of migrants are small, the costs are large and growing because of America’s vast range of social programs and the wide advocacy network that strives to hook low-earning legal and illegal immigrants into these programs. A 1998 National Academy of Sciences study found that more than 30 percent of California’s foreign-born were on Medicaid—including 37 percent of all Hispanic households—compared with 14 percent of native-born households. The foreign-born were more than twice as likely as the native-born to be on welfare, and their children were nearly five times as likely to be in means-tested government lunch programs. Native-born households pay for much of this, the study found, because they earn more and pay higher taxes—and are more likely to comply with tax laws. Recent immigrants, by contrast, have much lower levels of income and tax compliance (another study estimated that only 56 percent of illegals in California have taxes deducted from their earnings, for instance). The study’s conclusion: immigrant families cost each native-born household in California an additional $1,200 a year in taxes.
Immigration’s bottom line has shifted so sharply that in a high-immigration state like California, native-born residents are paying up to ten times more in state and local taxes than immigrants generate in economic benefits. Moreover, the cost is only likely to grow as the foreign-born population—which has already mushroomed from about 9 percent of the U.S. population when the NAS studies were done in the late 1990s to about 12 percent today—keeps growing. And citizens in more and more places will feel the bite, as immigrants move beyond their traditional settling places. From 1990 to 2005, the number of states in which immigrants make up at least 5 percent of the population nearly doubled from 17 to 29, with states like Arkansas, South Dakota, South Carolina, and Georgia seeing the most growth. This sharp turnaround since the 1970s, when immigrants were less likely to be using the social programs of the Great Society than the native-born population, says Harvard economist Borjas, suggests that welfare and other social programs are a magnet drawing certain types of immigrants—nonworking women, children, and the elderly—and keeping them here when they run into difficulty.
Not only have the formal and informal networks helping immigrants tap into our social spending grown, but they also get plenty of assistance from advocacy groups financed by tax dollars, working to ensure that immigrants get their share of social spending. Thus, the Newark-based New Jersey Immigration Policy Network receives several hundred thousand government dollars annually to help doctors and hospitals increase immigrant enrollment in Jersey’s subsidized health-care programs. Casa Maryland, operating in the greater Washington area, gets funding from nearly 20 federal, state, and local government agencies to run programs that “empower” immigrants to demand benefits and care from government and to “refer clients to government and private social service programs for which they and their families may be eligible.”
Pols around the country, intent on currying favor with ethnic voting blocs by appearing immigrant-friendly, have jumped on the benefits-for-immigrants bandwagon, endorsing “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies toward immigrants who register for benefits, giving tax dollars to centers that find immigrants work and aid illegals, and enacting legislation prohibiting local authorities from cooperating with federal immigration officials. In New York, for instance, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has ordered city agencies to ignore an immigrant’s status in providing services. “This policy’s critical to encourage immigrant day laborers to access . . . children’s health insurance, a full range of preventive primary and acute medical care, domestic violence counseling, emergency shelters, police protection, consumer fraud protections, and protection against discrimination through the Human Rights Commission,” the city’s Immigrant Affairs Commissioner, Guillermo Linares, explains.
Almost certainly, immigrants’ participation in our social welfare programs will increase over time, because so many are destined to struggle in our workforce. Despite our cherished view of immigrants as rapidly climbing the economic ladder, more and more of the new arrivals and their children face a lifetime of economic disadvantage, because they arrive here with low levels of education and with few work skills—shortcomings not easily overcome. Mexican immigrants, who are up to six times more likely to be high school dropouts than native-born Americans, not only earn substantially less than the native-born median, but the wage gap persists for decades after they’ve arrived. A study of the 2000 census data, for instance, shows that the cohort of Mexican immigrants between 25 and 34 who entered the United States in the late 1970s were earning 40 to 50 percent less than similarly aged native-born Americans in 1980, but 20 years later they had fallen even further behind their native-born counterparts. Today’s Mexican immigrants between 25 and 34 have an even larger wage gap relative to the native-born population. Adjusting for other socioeconomic factors, Harvard’s Borjas and Katz estimate that virtually this entire wage gap is attributable to low levels of education.
Meanwhile, because their parents start off so far behind, the American-born children of Mexican immigrants also make slow progress. First-generation adult Americans of Mexican descent studied in the 2000 census, for instance, earned 14 percent less than native-born Americans. By contrast, first-generation Portuguese Americans earned slightly more than the average native-born worker—a reminder of how quickly immigrants once succeeded in America and how some still do. But Mexico increasingly dominates our immigration flows, accounting for 43 percent of the growth of our foreign-born population in the 1990s.
One reason some ethnic groups make up so little ground concerns the transmission of what economists call “ethnic capital,” or what we might call the influence of culture. More than previous generations, immigrants today tend to live concentrated in ethnic enclaves, and their children find their role models among their own group. Thus the children of today’s Mexican immigrants are likely to live in a neighborhood where about 60 percent of men dropped out of high school and now do low-wage work, and where less than half of the population speak English fluently, which might explain why high school dropout rates among Americans of Mexican ancestry are two and a half times higher than dropout rates for all other native-born Americans, and why first-generation Mexican Americans do not move up the economic ladder nearly as quickly as the children of other immigrant groups.
In sharp contrast is the cultural capital transmitted by Asian immigrants to children growing up in predominantly Asian-American neighborhoods. More than 75 percent of Chinese immigrants and 98 percent of South Asian immigrants to the U.S. speak English fluently, while a mid-1990s study of immigrant households in California found that 37 percent of Asian immigrants were college graduates, compared with only 3.4 percent of Mexican immigrants. Thus, even an Asian-American child whose parents are high school dropouts is more likely to grow up in an environment that encourages him to stay in school and learn to speak English well, attributes that will serve him well in the job market. Not surprisingly, several studies have shown that Asian immigrants and their children earn substantially more than Mexican immigrants and their children.
Given these realities, several of the major immigration reforms now under consideration simply don’t make economic sense—especially the guest-worker program favored by President Bush and the U.S. Senate. Careful economic research tells us that there is no significant shortfall of workers in essential American industries, desperately needing supplement from a massive guest-worker program. Those few industries now relying on cheap labor must focus more quickly on mechanization where possible. Meanwhile, the cost of paying legal workers already here a bit more to entice them to do such low-wage work as is needed will have a minimal impact on our economy.
The potential woes of a guest-worker program, moreover, far overshadow any economic benefit, given what we know about the long, troubled history of temporary-worker programs in developed countries. They have never stemmed illegal immigration, and the guest workers inevitably become permanent residents, competing with the native-born and forcing down wages. Our last guest-worker program with Mexico, begun during World War II to boost wartime manpower, grew larger in the postwar era, because employers who liked the cheap labor lobbied hard to keep it. By the mid-1950s, the number of guest workers reached seven times the annual limit during the war itself, while illegal immigration doubled, as the availability of cheap labor prompted employers to search for ever more of it rather than invest in mechanization or other productivity gains.
The economic and cultural consequences of guest-worker programs have been devastating in Europe, and we risk similar problems. When post–World War II Germany permitted its manufacturers to import workers from Turkey to man the assembly lines, industry’s investment in productivity declined relative to such countries as Japan, which lacked ready access to cheap labor. When Germany finally ended the guest-worker program once it became economically unviable, most of the guest workers stayed on, having attained permanent-resident status. Since then, the descendants of these workers have been chronically underemployed and now have a crime rate double that of German youth.
France has suffered similar consequences. In the post–World War II boom, when French unemployment was under 2 percent, the country imported an industrial labor force from its colonies; by the time France’s industrial jobs began evaporating in the 1980s, these guest workers and their children numbered in the millions, and most had made little economic progress. They now inhabit the vast housing projects, or cités, that ring Paris—and that have recently been the scene of chronic rioting. Like Germany, France thought it was importing a labor force, but it wound up introducing a new underclass.
“Importing labor is far more complicated than importing other factors of production, such as commodities,” write University of California at Davis prof Philip Martin, an expert on guest-worker programs, and Michael Teitelbaum, a former member of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. “Migration involves human beings, with their own beliefs, politics, cultures, languages, loves, hates, histories, and families.”
If low-wage immigration doesn’t pay off for the United States, legalizing illegals already here makes as little sense as importing new rounds of guest workers. The Senate and President Bush, however, aim to start two-thirds of the 11 million undocumented aliens already in the country on a path to legalization, on the grounds that only thus can America assimilate them, and only through assimilation can they hope for economic success in the United States. But such arguments ignore the already poor economic performance of increasingly large segments of the legal immigrant population in the United States. Merely granting illegal aliens legal status won’t suddenly catapult them up our mobility ladder, because it won’t give them the skills and education to compete.
At the same time, legalization will only spur new problems, as our experience with the 1986 immigration act should remind us. At the time, then-congressman Charles Schumer, who worked on the legislation, acknowledged that it was “a riverboat gamble,” with no certainty that it would slow down the waves of illegals. Now, of course, we know that the legislation had the opposite effect, creating the bigger problem we now have (which hasn’t stopped Senator Schumer from supporting the current legalization proposals). The legislation also swamped the Immigration and Naturalization Service with masses of fraudulent, black-market documents, so that it eventually rubber-stamped tens of thousands of dubious applications.
If we do not legalize them, what can we do with 11 million illegals? Ship them back home? Their presence here is a fait accompli, the argument goes, and only legalization can bring them above ground, where they can assimilate. But that argument assumes that we have only two choices: to decriminalize or deport. But what happened after the first great migration suggests a third way: to end the economic incentives that keep them here. We could prompt a great remigration home if, first off, state and local governments in jurisdictions like New York and California would stop using their vast resources to aid illegal immigrants. Second, the federal government can take the tougher approach that it failed to take after the 1986 act. It can require employers to verify Social Security numbers and immigration status before hiring, so that we bar illegals from many jobs. It can deport those caught here. And it can refuse to give those who remain the same benefits as U.S. citizens. Such tough measures do work: as a recent Center for Immigration Studies report points out, when the federal government began deporting illegal Muslims after 9/11, many more illegals who knew they were likely to face more scrutiny voluntarily returned home.
If America is ever to make immigration work for our economy again, it must reject policies shaped by advocacy groups trying to turn immigration into the next civil rights cause or by a tiny minority of businesses seeking cheap labor subsidized by the taxpayers. Instead, we must look to other developed nations that have focused on luring workers who have skills that are in demand and who have the best chance of assimilating. Australia, for instance, gives preferences to workers grouped into four skilled categories: managers, professionals, associates of professionals, and skilled laborers. Using a straightforward “points calculator” to determine who gets in, Australia favors immigrants between the ages of 18 and 45 who speak English, have a post–high school degree or training in a trade, and have at least six months’ work experience as everything from laboratory technicians to architects and surveyors to information-technology workers. Such an immigration policy goes far beyond America’s employment-based immigration categories, like the H1-B visas, which account for about 10 percent of our legal immigration and essentially serve the needs of a few Silicon Valley industries.
Immigration reform must also tackle our family-preference visa program, which today accounts for two-thirds of all legal immigration and has helped create a 40-year waiting list. Lawmakers should narrow the family-preference visa program down to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and should exclude adult siblings and parents.
America benefits even today from many of its immigrants, from the Asian entrepreneurs who have helped revive inner-city Los Angeles business districts to Haitians and Jamaicans who have stabilized neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn to Indian programmers who have spurred so much innovation in places like Silicon Valley and Boston’s Route 128. But increasingly over the last 25 years, such immigration has become the exception. It needs once again to become the rule.