Saturday, May 22, 2010

Mexicans Give Up Their Jobs In Mexico TO TAKE OURS HERE!

The institute released its own report on Tuesday, arguing that border enforcement efforts have failed. Workplace enforcement, which has been neglected, would be a crucial part of making a guest worker program successful.



“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

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

December 7, 2005

Most Mexican Immigrants in New Study Gave Up Jobs to Take Their Chances in U.S.


A report about the work lives of recent Mexican immigrants in seven cities across the United States suggests that they typically traded jobs in Mexico for the prospect of work here, despite serious bouts of unemployment, job instability and poor wages.
The report, released Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, was based on surveys of nearly 5,000 Mexicans, most of them here illegally.
Those surveyed were seeking identity documents at Mexican consulates in New York, Atlanta and Raleigh, N.C., where recent arrivals have gravitated toward construction, hotel and restaurant jobs, and in Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Fresno, Calif., where they have been more likely to work in agriculture and manufacturing.
Unlike the stereotype of jobless Mexicans heading north, most of the immigrants had been employed in Mexico, the report found.
Once in the United States, they soon found that their illegal status was no barrier to being hired here. And though the jobs they landed, typically with help from relatives, were often unstable and their median earnings only $300 a week, that was enough to keep drawing newcomers because wages here far exceeded those in Mexico.
Among respondents to the survey, those who settled in Atlanta and Dallas were the best off, with 56 percent in each city receiving a weekly wage higher than the $300-a-week median. The worst off were in Fresno, where more than half of the survey respondents worked in agriculture and 60 percent reported earning less than $300 a week. The lowest wages were reported by women, people who spoke little or no English, and those without identification.
To some scholars of immigration, the report underlines the lack of incentives for employers to turn to a guest worker program like the one proposed by President Bush because their needs are met cheaply by illegal workers - and all without paperwork or long-term commitment.
Guest workers might instead appeal to corporations like Wal-Mart, the scholars said, where service jobs are now the target of union organizing drives.
"You can't plausibly argue that immigrant-dominated sectors have a labor shortage," said Robert Courtney Smith, a sociologist and author of "Mexican New York: Transnational Lives of New Immigrants." Instead, he said, the report and evidence of falling wages among Mexican immigrants over time point to an oversupply of vulnerable workers competing with each other.
But Brendan Flanagan, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association, which supports a guest worker program, disagreed. "In many places it is difficult to fill jobs with domestic workers," Mr. Flanagan said. "We've seen a simple lack of applicants, regardless of what wage is offered."
Although the survey, conducted from July 2004 to January 2005, was not random or weighted to represent all Mexican immigrants, it offers a close look at a usually elusive population.
Those surveyed were not questioned directly about their immigration status, but they were asked whether they had any photo identification issued by a government agency in the United States. Slightly more than half over all, and 75 percent in New York, said they did not.
The migration is part of a historic restructuring of the Mexican economy comparable to America's industrial revolution, said Kathleen Newland, director of the Migration Policy Institute, a research organization based in Washington.
The institute released its own report on Tuesday, arguing that border enforcement efforts have failed. Workplace enforcement, which has been neglected, would be a crucial part of making a guest worker program successful.
For now, Mexicans keep arriving illegally.

What Illegals get for free from us..... (what do you get for free?)
Date: 2010-05-12, 8:25AM MST
Reply to: [Errors when replying to ads?]

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.

He gets $518.00 each month for each child born in the USA until that child reaches 18....

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.

He qualifies for food stamps.

He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.

His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school...often the mother brings other children not in the school along for the free breakfast...

He requires bilingual teachers and books.

He gets free bus transportation to and from school....we have to pay upwards of $300.00 per year for our children to ride the bus...

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are, or become, aged, blind or disabled , they qualify for SSI. If qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicaid. All of this is at the expense of the American taxpayer.

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance. And in California they do not smog their cars so the air is polluted by over a million more cars

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after paying their bills and his.

Worst of all is this....if this illegal gets amnesty he can bring up to 90 of his relatives into the states to leech even more from the tax payers....if they are elderly they qualify for Social Security benefits without paying a dime into the system...

Cheap labor? YEAH, RIGHT!


from the August 24, 2005 edition -
Is Mexico still a nation?
The Monitor's View
A survey released last week by the Pew Hispanic Center found more than four in 10 Mexicans are willing to leave their country to live in the US. One in five would risk a dangerous, illegal border crossing. Most surprising, one in three college graduates wants to flee. Before Washington takes up immigration reform this fall, it needs to take a hard look at Mexico's disillusionment.
Already, one in eight adults born in Mexico now lives in the US. And the Mexican economy is kept afloat partially by an estimated $16 billion sent back by immigrants to relatives.
Such numbers reveal a people so fed up with Mexico's dysfunctional politics and stagnant economy that their nationalism is wilting. While more than half of Mexico's 106 million people are officially poor, the Pew survey found an inclination to migrate "evident across a broad swath" of the population.
This wide push to leave is probably now as strong as the pull of higher wages, social advancement, and family connections in the US. And yet, Mexican leaders remain in denial about this propensity for mass exodus.
All this spells trouble for proposals by President Bush and some in Congress to set up a temporary worker program as a way to reduce the burden of illegal migration. The Mexican demand for such US "guest" visas could be, by some estimates, half a million a year. Yet the numbers in the proposals fall far short of that. The US could hardly absorb such a large wave of humanity without further challenges to its civic stability.
In other words, a guest-worker plan is a false promise of ending the waves of illegal border crossings.The challenges on America's southern flank are only getting worse. Arizona and New Mexico this month declared emergencies along their borders with Mexico, citing a rise in crime related to drug and people smuggling - and an inability by Washington to stem the violence. And the US ambassador to Mexico also criticized its leaders for not curbing border violence; he made a point by closing the consulate in Nuevo Laredo.
Just five years ago, Mexico had great hope of reform after the ouster of the Revolutionary Institutional Party, or PRI, which had governed since 1929. But President Vicente Fox's reform efforts have faltered. The nation's three main parties remain internally divided and unable to compromise. Decades of oil wealth have left people too willing to take handouts rather than accept the kind of taxation that creates citizens with a stake in government. With Mr. Fox a lame duck, Mexico is heading for a presidential election next July that could see another weak leader.
As dissatisfaction with politics and justice translates into Mexicans voting with their feet, the US needs to recognize that the "border issue" is much more of a "Mexico issue."
The US should further beef up border security, but also help Mexico regain national integrity. Legally hiring Mexicans is hardly a solution.
As it is doing with Africa, the US must peg better economic relations to better governance in Mexico, such as laws allowing referendums and run-offs for presidential elections. Rather than view such pressure as gringo meddling, the Mexican people might just welcome a challenge to their government. And think of staying put.



U.S. policy on immigration is a tragic joke

By Lou Dobbs Special for "The Republic"

Aug. 28, 2005 12:00 AM
There is a common front in our illegal-alien crisis, the war on drugs and the global war on terror. That front line is easily defined as our nation's borders, airports and seaports. And Arizonans know only too well the pain and problems of living and working on the front line of our border with Mexico. South of that border is a corrupt and ineffective government run by President Vicente Fox, who has no apparent incentive to control the flow of drugs being shipped from Mexico into the United States and every incentive to continue the exportation of illegal aliens into this country. This year, in fact, remittances back to Mexico from the estimated 20 million Mexican citizens living in the United States, most of them illegally, surpassed oil as Mexico's No. 1 source of foreign revenue. In the United States, an obscene alliance of corporate supremacists, desperate labor unions, certain ethnocentric Latino activist organizations and a majority of our elected officials in Washington works diligently to keep our borders open, wages suppressed and the American people all but helpless to resist the crushing financial and economic burden created by the millions of illegal aliens who crash our borders each year. They work just as hard to deny the truth to the American public. That's why almost every evening on my CNN broadcast we report on this country's "Broken Borders." The truth is that U.S. immigration policy is a tragic joke at the expense of hard-working middle-class Americans. What has been the response of the Bush administration? It proposed a guest-worker program giving legal status to millions of illegal aliens. But national opinion polls reveal an overwhelming majority of Americans are contemptuous of such cynical proposals. The latest Zogby poll shows only 35 percent of those surveyed support the president's approach. The American people want our borders secure, want our immigration laws enforced and want those who hire illegal aliens both punished and held liable for the economic and social costs of breaking our laws. We are a nation of immigrants, and there is no more diverse and welcoming society than ours. But we are first a nation of laws, and upholding those laws and our national values makes this great country of ours possible. Arizonans are to be commended for passing Proposition 200 and creating the political will that led to last week's declaration of the state of emergency by Gov. Janet Napolitano. Neither act is sufficient to solve our illegal-immigration crisis, but both acts constitute a beginning in resolving what may well be the most critical issue facing the United States. Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he wanted to "stabilize" our borders and create more detainee beds and expedite more deportations. Stabilizing our borders is not enough. If we do not take control of our borders, deportations amount to little more than inconvenience to illegal aliens and whomever else wants to enter our country. Failure to secure our borders means that we will continue to lose the war on drugs and lose a generation of Americans to those drugs. It also means the crushing burden of our failed immigration and homeland security policies will continue to fall exclusively on the shoulders of working men and women. Not only do illegal aliens and those who employ them cost the nation tens of billions of dollars in social services, principally in health care and education, they also depress wages for American citizens by an estimated $200 billion a year. The most reasonable response I have seen to this illegal-immigration crisis is legislation introduced by one of your state's distinguished senators, Jon Kyl, who co-sponsored a bill with Sen. John Cornyn. That bill seeks 10,000 new Border Patrol agents and detention beds, fraud-resistant Social Security cards, increased penalties for employers and current illegal aliens would have to leave the United States to apply for permanent citizenship. Reform begins with the truth. And our elected officials must begin to recognize the reality that a war on terror and war on drugs can be won only by securing our borders and that any reform of our immigration policies must begin first at the front line of the crisis: our border with Mexico. Anything less is just another sad joke, and we know at whose expense.Lou Dobbs is the anchor and managing editor of CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight."


By Maria Hsia Chang Professor of Political Science, University of Nevada Reno

One of the standard arguments invoked by those in favor of massive immigration into the United States is that our country is founded on immigrants who have always been successfully assimilated into America's mainstream culture and society. As one commentator put it, "Assimilation evokes the misty past of Ellis Island, through which millions entered, eventually seeing their descendants become as American as George Washington."1 Nothing more vividly testifies against that romantic faith in America's ability to continuously assimilate new members than the events of October 16, 1994 in Los Angeles. On that day, 70,000 people marched beneath "a sea of Mexican flags" protesting Proposition 187, a referendum measure that would deny many state benefits to illegal immigrants and their children. Two weeks later, more protestors marched down the street, this time carrying an American flag upside down.2 Both protests point to a disturbing and rising phenomenon of Chicano separatism in the United States — the product of a complex of forces, among which are multiculturalism and a generous immigration policy combined with a lax border control. The Problem Chicanos refer to "people of Mexican descent in the United States" or "Mexican Americans in general."3 Today, there are reasons to believe that Chicanos as a group are unlike previous immigrants in that they are more likely to remain unassimilated and unintegrated, whether by choice or circumstance — resulting in the formation of a separate quasi-nation within the United States. More than that, there are Chicano political activists who intend to marry cultural separateness with territorial and political self-determination. The more moderate among them aspire to the cultural and political autonomy of "home rule". The radicals seek nothing less than secession from the United States whether to form their own sovereign state or to reunify with Mexico. Those who desire reunification with Mexico are irredentists who seek to reclaim Mexico's "lost" territories in the American Southwest.4 Whatever their goals, what animates all of them is the dream of Aztlan. According to legend, Aztlan was the ancestral homeland of the Aztecs which they left in journeying southward to found Tenochtitlan, the center of their new civilization, which is today's Mexico City. Today, the "Nation of Aztlan" refers to the American southwestern states of California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, portions of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, which Chicano nationalists claim were stolen by the United States and must be reconquered (Reconquista) and reclaimed for Mexico.5 The myth of Aztlan was revived by Chicano political activists in the 1960s as a central symbol of Chicano nationalist ideology. In 1969, at the Chicano National Liberation Youth Conference in Denver, Rodolfo "Corky" Gonzales put forth a political document entitled El Plan de Aztlan (Spiritual Plan of Aztlan).6 The Plan is a clarion call to Mexican-Americans to form a separate Chicano nation: In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historial heritage, but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the nothern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers ...declare that the call of our blood is...our inevitable destiny.... Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops, and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent.... Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come .... With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan.7 How Chicanos are Unlike Previous Immigrants Brent A. Nelson, writing in 1994, observed that in the 1980s America's Southwest had begun to be transformed into "a de facto nation"8 with its own culture, history, myth, geography, religion, education, and language.9 Whatever evidence there is indicates that Chicanos, as a group, are unlike previous waves of immigrants into the United States. In the first place, many Chicanos do not consider themselves immigrants at all because their people "have been here for 450 years" before the English, French, or Dutch. Before California and the Southwest were seized by the United States, they were the lands of Spain and Mexico. As late as 1780 the Spanish crown laid claim to territories from Florida to California, and on the far side of the Mississippi up to the Great Lakes and the Rockies. Mexico held title to much of Spanish possessions in the United States until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American war in 1848. As a consequence, Mexicans "never accepted the borders drawn up by the 1848 treaty."10 That history has created among Chicanos a feeling of resentment for being "a conquered people," made part of the United States against their will and by the force of arms.11 Their resentment is amply expressed by Voz Fronteriza, a Chicano student publication,12 which referred to Border Patrol officers killed in the line of duty as "pigs (migra)" trying to defend "the false frontier."13 Chicanos are also distinct from other immigrant groups because of the geographic proximity of their native country. Their physical proximity to Mexico gives Chicanos "the option of life in both Americas, in two places and in two cultures, something earlier immigrants never had." Geographic proximity and ease of transportation are augmented by the media. Radio and television keep the spoken language alive and current so that Spanish, unlike the native languages of previous immigrants into the United States, "shows no sign of fading."14 A result of all that is the failure by Chicanos to be fully assimilated into the larger American society and culture. As Earl Shorris, author of Latinos: A Biography of the People, observed: "Latinos have been more resistant to the melting pot than any other group. Their entry en masse into the United States will test the limits of the American experiment...."15 The continuous influx of Mexican immigrants into the United States serve to continuously renew Chicano culture so that their sense of separateness will probably continue "far into the future...."16 There are other reasons for the failure of Chicano assimilation. Historically, a powerful force for assimilation was upward social mobility: Immigrants into the United States became assimilated as they rose in educational achievement and income. But today's post-industrial American economy, with its narrower paths to upward mobility, is making it more difficult for certain groups to improve their socioeconomic circumstances. Unionized factory jobs, which once provided a step up for the second generation of past waves of immigrants, have been disappearing for decades. Instead of the diamond-shaped economy of industrial America, the modern American economy is shaped like an hourglass. There is a good number of jobs for unskilled people at the bottom, a fair number of jobs for the highly educated at the top, but comparatively few jobs for those in the middle without a college education or special skills. To illustrate, a RAND Corporation study forecasts that 85 percent of California's new jobs will require post-secondary education. For a variety of reasons, the nationwide high-school dropout rate for Hispanics (the majority of whom are Chicano) is 30 percent — three times the rate for whites and twice the rate for blacks. Paradoxically, the dropout rate for Hispanics born in the United States is even higher than for young immigrants. Among Chicanos, high-school dropout rates actually rise between the second and third generations. Their low educational achievement accounts for why Chicanos as a group are poor despite being hardworking. In 1996, for the first time, Hispanic poverty rate began to exceed that of American blacks. In 1995, household income rose for every ethnic group except Hispanics, for whom it dropped 5 percent. Latinos now make up a quarter of the nation's poor people, and are more than three times as likely to be impoverished than whites. This decline in income has taken place despite high rates of labor-force participation by Latino men, and despite an emerging Latino middle class. In California, where Latinos now approach one-third of the population, their education levels are far lower than those of other immigrants, and they earn about half of what native-born Californians earn. This means that, for the first time in the history of American immigration, hard work is not leading to economic advancement because immigrants in service jobs face unrelenting labor-market pressure from more recently arrived immigrants who are eager to work for less. The narrowing of the pathways of upward mobility has implications for the children of recent Mexican immigrants. Their ascent into the middle-class mainstream will likely be blocked and they will join children of earlier black and Puerto Rican migrants as part of an expanded multiethnic underclass. Whereas first generation immigrants compare their circumstances to the Mexico that they left — and thereby feel immeasurably better off — their children and grandchildren will compare themelves to other U.S. groups. Given their lower educational achievement and income, that comparison will only lead to feelings of relative deprivation and resentment. They are unlikely to be content as maids, gardeners, or fruit pickers. Many young Latinos in the second and third generations see themselves as locked in irremediable conflict with white society, and are quick to deride successful Chicano students as "wannabes." For them, to study hard is to "act white" and exhibit group disloyalty.17 That attitude is part of the Chicano culture of resistance — a culture that actively resists assimilation into mainstream America. That culture is created, reinforced, and maintained by radical Chicano intellectuals, politicians, and the many Chicano Studies programs in U.S. colleges and universities. As examples, according to its editor, Elizabeth Martinez, the purpose of Five Hundred Years of Chicano History, a book used in over 300 schools throughout the West, is to "celebrate our resistance to being colonized and absorbed by racist empire builders." The book calls the INS and the Border Patrol "the Gestapo for Mexicans."18 For Rodolfo Acuna, author of Occupied America: The Chicano's Struggle Toward Liberation, probably the most widely assigned text in U.S. Chicano Studies programs, the Anglo-American invasion of Mexico was "as vicious as that of Hitler's invasion of Poland and other Central European nations...."19 The book also includes a map showing "the Mexican republic" in 1822 reaching up into Kansas and Oklahoma, and including within it Utah, Nevada, and everything west and south of there. At a MEChA conference in 1996, Acuna referred to Anglos as Nazis: "Right now you are in the Nazi United States of America."20 The effect of books such as those is to radicalize young Chicanos. As an example, although Chicano undergraduates at Berkeley lacked any sort of strong ethnic identity before entering college, in Berkeley they became "born again" as Chicanos because of MEChA and Chicano Studies departments. 21 The strident rhetoric of intellectuals is echoed by some Mexican-American politicians. Former California state senator Art Torres called Proposition 187 "the last gasp of white America" and spoke of "reclaiming" Southern California. The Mexican government also contributes to the Chicano sense of separateness through its recent decision that migrants will not forfeit their Mexican citizenship by becoming U.S. citizens and are allowed to vote in Mexican elections.22 Multiculturalism and Immigration All of this is exacerbated by the U.S. government's immigration policy and a new ethic of multiculturalism that has become almost an official dogma in the mass media and in academe. Exponents of multiculturalism maintain that all cultures are equal, and that the United States must accept its destiny as a universal nation, a world nation, in which no one culture — especially European culture — will be dominant. "The ideal of multiculturalism is a nation which has no core culture, no ethnic core, no center other than a powerful state apparatus."23 The social ethic of multiculturalism is actively supported by an official government policy of "corporate pluralism" which militates against America's earlier ideal of assimilation. According to Gunnar Myrdal, "corporate pluralism" refers to a society where racial and ethnic entities are accorded formal recognition and standing by the state as groups in the national polity, and where political power and economic reward are based on a distributive formula that postulates group rights and defines group membership as an important factor in the outcome for individuals. By replacing individual meritocracy with group rewards, corporate pluralism "strongly discourages assimilation in the conventional sense because if a significant portion of one's rational interests are likely to be satisfied by emphasis on one's ethnicity, then one might as well stay within ethnic boundaries and at the same time enjoy the social comforts of being among people of one's own kind."24 Corporate pluralism is realized through such government policies as affirmative action, court-ordered busing, and bilingual education. In the case of the latter, by the late 1970s, bilingual education has become "a Hispanic institution." A bilingual establishment has been formed which "fights for jobs and perks" and is determined to maintain Spanish as both language and culture. Being supported by government laws, that establishment cannot easily be dislodged.25 Conclusion Chicanos are not the only ethnic groups in the United States who resist assimilation and are geographically concentrated in certain areas and cities. The Cubans in Miami and Chinese in Monterey Park are other examples, but neither group is large enough to practice autonomism or separatism. Chicanos in the Southwest, however, are great in numbers and "are producing spokesmen for...autonomism, separatism, and even irredentism."26 Since 1977, INS has apprehended over a million illegals a year, the majority Hispanics; anywhere from 2 to 5 million eluded the INS. By the early 1980s, the number of illegal aliens in the United States, mostly Hispanic, totalled 3 to 12 million. In 1980, the Census Bureau counted 14.6 million Hispanics in the United States, increasing to 15.8 million by 1982, and 17.3 million by 1985 — making America the 5th or 4th largest Spanish-speaking country in the world.27 According to the 1990 Census, Latin America accounted for 38 percent of America's foreign-born, well over half of whom were from Mexico. The real percentage is probably higher because illegal aliens avoid the census and most illegals are from Latin America.28 According to a report by the Urban Institute in 1984 entitled The Fourth Wave: California's Newest Immigrants, by the year 2000, 42 percent of Southern California's residents will be Caucasian, 41 percent Hispanic, 9 percent Asian and 8 percent black. Demographers Leon F. Bouvier and Cary B. Davis in Immigration and the Future Racial Composition of the United States expect that, by 2080, Hispanics (more than half Chicano) will constitute 34.1 percent of the total U.S. population, even if immigration were restricted to 2 million entrants a year from all areas of the world and birthrates of Hispanics converge with those of non-Hispanics. In 2080, Hispanics will be either a plurality or a majority of the population in California and Texas at 41.4 percent and 53.5 percent, respectively, assuming an influx of a conservative one million immigrants a year.29 Former Senator Eugene McCarthy, writing in 1987, had warned of a "recolonization". McCarthy's warning was sounded five years earlier by a historian of race relations, George Fredrickson. Speaking at a colloquium on race relations in 1982, Fredrickson observed that: There are two ways that you can gain territory from another group. One is by conquest. That's essentially the way we took California from Mexico and... Texas as well. But what's going on now may end up being a kind of recolonization of the Southwest, because the other way you can regain territory is by population infiltration and demographic dominance .... The United States will be faced with the problem that Canada has been faced with... and which our system is not prepared to accomodate.30 Mario Barrera, a faculty member of U.C. Berkeley's Department of Ethnic Studies, admitted that multiculturalism "would help prepare the ideological climate for an eventual campaign for ethnic regional autonomy."31 In January 1995, El Plan de Aztlan Conference at UC Riverside resolved that "We shall the vote if possible and violence if necessary."32 The rise of Mexican irredentism as a serious political movement "awaits only the demographic transformation of the Southwest."33 As an article entitled "The Great Invasion: Mexico Recovers Its Own" in 1982's Excelsior, Mexico's leading daily newspaper, put it: The territory lost in the 19th century by...Mexico...seems to be restoring itself through a humble people who go on settling various zones that once were ours on the old maps. Land, under any concept of possession, ends up in the hands of those who deserve it.... [The result of this migration is to return the land] to the jurisdiction of Mexico without the firing of a single shot.34 Multiculturalism and United States government's immigration policy have contributed towards the rise of Chicano ethnic separatism within the American Southwest that has all the makings of an incipient Nation of Aztlan. NOTES * Paper presented at the Second Alliance for Stabilizing America's Population Action Conference, Breckenridge, CO, August 6, 1999. 1. Scott McConnell, "Americans No More?" National Review (December 31, 1997), p. 30. 2. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), pp. 19, 20. 3. Mario Barrera, Beyond Aztlan: Ethnic Autonomy in Comparative Perspective (NY: Praeger, 1988), p. 7. 4. "It is not clear whether most Chicano nationalists favor independence for Aztlan itself or seek its annexation by Mexico." Brent A. Nelson, America Balkanized: Immigration's Challenge to Government (Monterey, VA: American Immigration Control Foundation, 1994), pp. 31, 26. 5. Reconquista! The Takeover of America (California Coalition for Immigration Reform, 1997), p. 2. 7. 1)

ARIZONA - An American Sees & Speaks - THE MEXICAN INVASION

“ Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring.”



pass this on: Origins: The following-quoted letter to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee (the Senate Majority Leader) concerning illegal aliens was written by David J. Stoddard of Arizona, who served as a U.S. Border Patrol Agent for 27 years. As far as we know, it was first published on the Internet when Mr. Stoddard posted it to the web site.

Dear Senator Frist: There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran aliens. 1. Illegal aliens generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price. 2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage. 3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children. 4. Illegal aliens are NOT critical to the economy. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents. 5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants (legal immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another. 6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are not immigrants by definition. The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined. 7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote". Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Repu blicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end. 8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S. During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, new Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their schoolchildren. 9. Although some illegal aliens enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation? 10. There is a labor shortage in this country. This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage. 11. It is racist to want secure borders. What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price? For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There has already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more. You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here? There will be a reckoning. It will come in November of this year, again in 2008 and yet again in 2010. We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves. David J. Stoddard U.S. Border Patrol (RET) Hereford, Arizona


Mexico's Stubborn Lack of Choices

Oligopolies abound, leaving consumers with few options and high prices. The scarcity of competition is seen as an economic impediment.
By Marla Dickerson
Times Staff Writer
April 16, 2006
MEXICO CITY — When voters tossed out the ruling party in national elections six years ago, they gave a resounding no to a continuation of a 71-year political monopoly."Mexico has been a paradise to create and sustain unhealthy monopoly practices," said Mexico City political scientist Ricardo Raphael, a researcher at the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education, who blames weak antitrust legislation and Mexico's long history of crony capitalism for concentrating power in relatively few hands. Economists say business monopolies have saddled Mexican consumers with high prices, slowed the country's economic growth and exacerbated the divide between rich and poor.
*****************************************************************************Nearly half of Mexico's 106 million people live in poverty. Yet it has more billionaires than Switzerland — 10 last year — according to Forbes magazine's latest list of the world's richest people. Most of them built their fortunes in Mexican industries that have little or no competition. *****************************************************************************And the power brokers may only be strengthening their hands these days. Mexico's business barons have been aggressively defending their turf, rivaling the nation's presidential contenders for headlines. Attempts by Mexico's Federal Competition Commission to put teeth into the nation's antitrust laws have run into a buzz saw of opposition from business leaders. Topping the agency's wish list is having the ability to break up companies whose market power is deemed excessive. It's a standard tool provided to regulators in the United States and other developed economies, but one that doesn't exist in Mexico. Corporate titans here are working furiously behind the scenes to keep it that way. Eduardo Perez Motta, president of the competition commission, vented his frustration at a recent news conference. "It's incredible that these [businessmen] are fighting to maintain their privileges," Motta said. "They don't have the public justification to do it, but that's what they are doing  [using] all manner of sophistry, legal and otherwise."Mexico's oligopolies have their roots in protectionist philosophy that shaped the nation's industrial policy after World War II. The goal was to reduce reliance on imports by building up strong domestic players in key sectors of the economy. Through the years, the PRI-controlled government kept a firm hand in the economy through state-owned companies and chummy relationships with some pro-regime entrepreneurs, who were sheltered from competition. Televisa, for example, functioned for decades as a de facto government mouthpiece in exchange for a virtual monopoly on TV broadcasting. The late Emilio Azcarraga Milmo, who headed the company, once publicly declared himself "a soldier of the president and at the service of the PRI" and reportedly pledged more than $50 million at a party fundraiser to show his gratitude for his company's privileged status. A devastating financial crisis in the 1980s forced Mexico to open itself to more foreign investment and to unload a spate of state-owned firms. But experts say Mexico's privatizations in some respects saddled the nation with the worst of all worlds: Instead of breaking up public enterprises to spark competition, the government simply transferred them to new owners."They replaced public monopolies with private ones," said Celso Garrido, an economist at the Autonomous Metropolitan University in Mexico City. The best known of these transactions was the 1990 sale of state-owned telephone company Telmex to a consortium led by Mexican entrepreneur Carlos Slim, who used the company as a springboard to expand into mobile phone service and telecommunications ventures throughout Latin America. Forbes recently estimated Slim's fortune at $30 billion, making him the world's third-richest man, behind Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Slim has shown a talent for spotting undervalued assets. But critics say hard-nosed tactics have helped him retain a lock on the lucrative Mexican telecom market. Telmex and America Movil, Slim's cellphone company, last year garnered more than 60% of their combined $31 billion in revenue from Mexican consumers.The office of the U.S. trade representative repeatedly has criticized Telmex's use of Mexico's ponderous legal system to block efforts by Mexican regulators to spur competition. Mexico's central bank governor, Guillermo Ortiz, recently blasted Slim's telecom companies for hampering the nation's competitiveness by charging Mexican businesses and individuals some of the highest rates on the planet. Slim strongly denied Ortiz's assertions and blamed government monopolies and inefficiency for Mexico's woes. It was an unusual and highly publicized spitting match whose U.S. equivalent would see Microsoft Corp. founder Gates exchanging insults with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke."The banking system mostly serves the interest of big corporations," said Alfredo Coutino, senior economist at West Chester, Pa.-based Moody's Mexico's public monopolies may be even harder to crack. (INFOBOX BELOW) Kings of their markets When it comes to competition, less is more for Mexico's oligopolies, which dominate key sectors of the economy. Market share of companies in selected industriesBroadcasting: Grupo Televisa -- 56%*, TV Azteca -- 38%*Cement: Cemex -- 54%, Holcim Apasco -- 23%Beer: Grupo Modelo -- 57%, Cerveceria Cuauhtemoc Moctezuma-- 43% Tortillas/corn meal: Gruma -- 73%, Minsa -- 15%*Percentage of television stations owned

We Are Mexico's BIG POT OF GOLD!

Unless there is a major improvement in the Mexican economy, the US will remain a big pot of gold to many Mexicans.

Further, he advocates "attrition" of the approximately 12 million illegals in the US - not mass deportation - through enforcement of existing laws. It took "25 year of neglect" to get to the immigrant situation of today, he says. It will take "a lot of years to get out of it."

from the April 17, 2006 edition -

Status quo equals immigration woe

The US population will soar from 300 million later this year to 400 million by 2050.
By David R. Francis
Knock, knock. Who's there? Migrants. Millions upon millions of them, who would like to enter the United States in search of a better life.
No public opinion poll in the past 50 years has found a majority of Americans favoring increased immigration. Nonetheless, the total number of legal and illegal immigrants keeps growing, and the prospects of Congress acting to shrink the inflow are dim.
Is there a solution?
Over the long, long run, pressures to migrate to rich nations will ease as prosperity abroad spreads. Also, birth rates in poor nations - including Latin America - have been declining precipitously. Yet the world as a whole still adds 76 million people a year, mostly in the Far East and Africa, to today's 6.5 billion.
Since Mexico is the largest source of immigrants to the US, its population picture is the most relevant to citizens here. Each Mexican woman had an average of seven children in 1955, five children in 1980. Today, that number is 2.4. Within five years, as urbanization continues, Mexico's fertility rate should drop to 2.2. Soon thereafter, it could decline to 2.1, the "replacement rate," at which time Mexico's population will cease to grow - once the baby bulge has worked its way through the demographic situation.
By mid-century, though, Mexico will have about 139 million people, up from 107 million today. Unless there is a major improvement in the Mexican economy, the US will remain a big pot of gold to many Mexicans.
For decades, the supply of immigrants from many nations will be a large multiple of the US demand for new workers, notes Joseph Chamie, research director of the Center for Migration Studies, a New York think tank. The US must eventually put the brakes on illegal immigration, says Mr. Chamie, who was formerly head of the UN's Population Division.
If the status quo continues, the US population will soar from 300 million later this year to 400 million by 2050. The average age of Mexicans is 25, compared with 36 for Americans. So young Mexican immigrants on average will have far more children than American citizens will.
Without new immigrants, the US population will grow only to 320 million. But keeping the status quo in the US, including porous borders and not enforcing existing laws against hiring illegal aliens, is "politically advantageous," notes Chamie.

"It postpones making important - possibly painful - decisions, thereby avoiding alienating voters and important special-interest groups in an election year," he told the Population Association of America. Elected officials get "bulletproof" political cover by speaking of a "complex and difficult" issue, but not acting.
Despite the massive parades of mostly Hispanic immigrants in recent days; despite the congressional disputes over a host of immigration-related bills; despite the expressed compassion of many religious leaders for immigrant families, illegal and legal; despite the widespread use of euphemisms for the harsh-sounding but accurate word "illegal" ("undocumented," "overstayers," "irregular status") and political appeals for the Hispanic vote, the long-term impact of rapid population growth in the US gets short shrift in the national debate.
Some economists worry about what a continued inflow of immigrants will do to commuting times to work, urban sprawl, wear and tear on the environment (including national parks), the nation's religious balance, American culture, and the cost of public services.
One proposed remedy is a fence on the 1,800-mile border with Mexico. India has such a wall along parts of its border to the east to keep out poverty-stricken Bangladeshis and to the west to stop poorer Pakistanis, notes Chamie (who offered the "Knock, knock" riddle.)
A wall, however, would be expensive. Israel has been paying $2 million a mile for its wall blocking off the West Bank. At that rate, a Mexican wall would cost at least $3.6 billion, and probably more.
Steven Camarota, an economist at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, figures a fence combined with more border patrol agents could help reduce the inflow of illegal immigrants.
Further, he advocates "attrition" of the approximately 12 million illegals in the US - not mass deportation - through enforcement of existing laws. It took "25 year of neglect" to get to the immigrant situation of today, he says. It will take "a lot of years to get out of it."
Some 170,000 to 200,000 illegals leave voluntarily for home each year. A fence would make it harder for them to return to the US. Mr. Camarota suggests other obstacles: Make it difficult to get a driver's license, open a bank account, get public benefits, or use bogus Social Security numbers to get a job. Employers hiring illegal immigrants should receive serious fines, he says. State and local police should actively enforce existing immigration laws.
It may just be wishful thinking from a think tank advocating reduced immigration - though not an end to immigration.
Camarota's latest research finds that the surging inflow of low-skilled workers has been driving low-skilled native workers out of the labor force. They retire, live with relatives, or just drop out.
Between March 2000 and 2005, unemployment among less-educated adult citizens rose nearly 1 million. Another 1.5 million left the workforce altogether. In the same time frame, 1.6 million adult immigrants with high school or less education were added to the labor force. Immigration hits those at the bottom of the income ladder hardest.


Why the illegals must go! President, Americans for Legal Immigration

Today, Americans face an unprecedented illegal immigration crisis facilitated by multi-billion dollar drug and human importing cartels as well as corporations which are inducing the invasion by aiding and abetting illegal aliens and using their influence on the Executive Branch and elections to paralyze existing immigration laws supported by over 80% of the American citizenry. These events are not random and chaotic. Massive illegal immigration is the result of non-enforcement and under-enforcement of our existing immigration laws. Supporters of illegal aliens love to claim that our immigration system is broken. The system is not broken. Elite financial and political business interests who could care less about the death and devastation they are causing Americans have sabotaged the system. Their profits continue to rise as they send the rest of America spiraling downward on a path to anarchy and Third World quality-of-life conditions. By using their influence to suspend our existing laws, these globalist special interests have deprived all Americans of political representation as well as their votes, their voice, and a functioning Republic for which our flag stands. When the laws of the American people – debated and voted on by their duly-elected Congressional Representatives and signed into law by the President – go intentionally under-enforced by the Executive Branch, all of the principles, sovereignty, and self-governance of Americans are derailed. The will of the American public, the existing laws, the US Constitution, and the borders of our great nation are perceived as market hindrances to the global elite. We the people of America are perceived as peasants and subjects beneath the power of their influence. The American public has spoken through our lawmakers and in numerous polls. A super majority of Americans want our existing laws enforced, those responsible for illegal immigration fined and/or imprisoned, the borders secured, and illegal aliens deported from the United States for many years or permanently. These fact remain, despite several politicized polls which attempt to manufacture consent and make you believe such views represent a minority. The truth is that most Americans want the illegal aliens to return to the nations of which they are citizens. The rallying cry is: "Illegals Go Home!" We could easily list 101 reasons why Americans are upset about illegal immigration. Most are concerned about the 4,000+ preventable deaths of Americans by the criminal acts of illegal aliens on our soil each year. No corporate propaganda will change the fact that most Americans do not want to surrender or capitulate to the lawless masses rushing into our nation. No poll or politicized source is needed to prove this point because the decision is based upon our nation's successful history and basic common sense. The answer is based on something that every judge, lawmaker, and even street thug knows. The penalties must outweigh the benefits if you want to deter any action. It is common sense and common practice in America that for any law to be a deterrent, two important factors are in play. First, the laws must be enforced, and second, the penalties for any crime must exceed the benefits to those breaking the law. It is truly amazing that we find ourselves as a nation having to explain these basic foundations of law to corporations and politicians in the year 2007 despite their existence since the dawn of civilization! Can you imagine what would happen in America if the penalty for robbing a bank was that you had to return half of the money you stole if, and only if, you were apprehended for the crime? What if the penalty for car theft was paying a $2,000 fine if you were caught with the stolen vehicle? The answers are clear. Within a month, you would not have a bank open in America and you would not be able to keep a car worth more than $2,000 in your driveway for more than a week. How many millions of people would quickly take up the careers of bank robber and car thief once the rewards for the crime were higher than the penalty? If American businesses and homes left their windows and doors unlocked each night and robbers were merely removed by police when detected – only to try again the next night – what do you think would happen? If big, global businesses practiced the same non-enforcement of security similar to the lack of border security and lack of immigration enforcement they have facilitated for Americans, they would be out of business in a matter of days or weeks. If they left their doors unlocked at night and just pushed people back to the street, America would quickly descend into such chaos and anarchy that we would be unable to sustain a population of 300 million. Our population would take a hit similar to the impact of the Black Plague on Europe, and we would quickly enter a new dark age. Since illegal aliens can never afford to compensate Americans for what they have taken, they must go. We do not need to go door to door looking for illegals to deport in America. Attrition through enforcement works. Illegal aliens are leaving the states of Georgia and Pennsylvania in droves, not because they are enforcing the laws but because they have simply announced they plan to start! Unfortunately, the current state of affairs in America has illegals flooding in by the millions each year and many law-abiding Americans fleeing the states of California and Texas and many towns and cities in search of more safety and security. Many Americans are on the run and finding few places left to run to. The illegal aliens are sending a clear message on the streets of Los Angeles and other major urban centers. They are saying: "This is our land. White, black, and legal Hispanics get out!" This is great news for the housing and real estate markets, Wal-Mart, and McDonalds. They are growing the economy using rapid population growth. This is great news for big corporations and bad news for Americans. Attrition through enforcement will work. In fact, if President George Bush were to announce on national television that America would begin securing our borders and enforcing our existing laws in one month, so many illegal aliens would leave America that Mexico would have to set up refuge stations! Another important reason that the illegal aliens must leave for the long term is that they'll return to their home communities with a message for their neighbors that their ill-gotten gains did not pay off in America. This is the only thing that will stop, or slow, the flow. Deporting illegal aliens and sending them packing is the only real way we can put a stop to this crisis. The politicians in DC are very aware that Americans want the illegal aliens to go. That is why their latest Scamnesty legislation includes a “touchback” provision. Under these laws, the illegal aliens can hop across the Mexican or Canadian borders where special "Ellis Island" stations are set up for them to pay a fine, receive new documentation and be back in the US within days or hours. The lunatics advocating this plan are counting on Americans to be so stupid and so gullible that they can say, "Look, the illegals left and walked back in legally. Problem solved!" They are eager to pretend to accommodate the American desires for the illegals to leave while quickly returning their slave labor force to our nation. They know that Americans want illegals to leave and get behind a long line of legal immigrants waiting to enter the US, including millions of people who have been waiting 5-10 years. These politicians and the illegal aliens need to be shown the way to the back of the line. The back of the line is back in the country in which they are citizens, 5-10 years down the road behind all of the talented and law-abiding people who respect our laws. If these traitorous corporations and politicians succeed in setting up these Ellis Island stations for “Operation Touchback," the revered symbol of Ellis Island will take on a new meaning that Americans see with contempt and resentment. Ellis Island will become a name associated with the horrendous betrayal of free Americans and the deathblow to the American Republic. This is a symbol of America’s surrender and the subjugation of all her people. If we allow the politicians in DC to sign off on the many Guest Worker, Temporary Worker, Path to Citizenship, Amnesty, Scamnesty bills written by the US Chamber of Commerce, then no wall with an army on top of it will stop the next 20 million from crashing down on our country. We will have signaled that America is weak and will capitulate and accommodate. Already, the word is out in Central and South America that they can come and stay. Each time President Bush has opened his mouth about such programs, the US Border Patrol reports massive spikes in illegal crossings. Since there is literally no end to the stream of illegals who want to be in America, this will be the end of America as we have known it and as history has praised it. In the past, when America has cracked down on illegal immigration and the American people have signaled they want the immigration brakes applied, the policies have worked. New laws written near the turn of the 20th century greatly reduced the amount of immigration into America. When Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower launched large deportation campaigns in the 1950s and 1930s, illegal immigration slowed to minuscule levels as a result. Whether you agree or disagree with the decisions of the past, these policies were part of the successful formula that have led America to become the most opulent and successful civilization in human history. While some argue that these enforcement measures were racist and that some American citizens of different races were improperly deported at the time, we now have the technology and methodology in place to assure that American citizens and legal immigrants are not improperly affected by our immigration enforcement efforts. The difference in 2007 is that the globalist corporations that have hijacked the American government want to stop the American citizenry from applying the brakes this time. They have taken away our ability to determine who can enter our nation and our ability to stop armed and unarmed invasions as granted by the US Constitution. To take away the self-governance of Americans is to kill the very thing that has made us such a great and successful nation. In a time of crisis like this, we must stand firm on the principles that have made America an attractive and great nation. We must stand firm on the rule of law. The law must be applied equally to big corporations and illegal aliens alike lest we all become slaves subject to the plans of masters instead of a free and empowered citizenry. Illegal aliens and corporations must endure penalties for their illegal, deadly, and destructive actions that exceed the benefits they gain from their illegal activities. The hour is late and it is time for Americans to stand up and say with one voice... No Amnesty! No Guest Worker! Secure our borders and enforce the existing laws! Restore the American Republic! The illegals must go IF WE ARE TO SAVE OUR CULTURE, ECONOMY, FLAG, LANGUAGE, LAWS, AND LIVES!

No Need For Illegals By MARK KRIKORIAN - Then Why Do We Have Open Borders?

If we keep up the enforcement, we can actually get control of this problem; my own Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that a comprehensive enforcement effort could reduce the illegal-alien population by half in five years. Once we accomplished that, we could then consider what to do about the remaining illegal population.

Point/Counterpoint: No Need for Immigrants Here
Debate: Let's Stop Welcoming Undocumented Immigrants
Point/Counterpoint: No Need for Immigrants Here
Debate: Let's Stop Welcoming Undocumented Immigrants

Oct. 2, 2007
There are two questions to consider when deciding whether to stop welcoming illegal aliens. First, do we even need the flow of labor that illegal immigration represents? And second, whatever immigration policy we do adopt, can it be enforced if we make it easy to live here illegally, as we do now?
The answer to both questions is No.
There is no economic need for foreign labor, legal or illegal. There are an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the United States, with perhaps 7 million of them in the labor market either working or actively looking for work. But contrary to myths about "jobs Americans won't do," there is no major job category that is dominated by these illegal workers. The Census Bureau groups all jobs in the country into 473 categories, and in 2003-2004, only three small categories had even the tiniest majority of immigrant workers, legal and illegal. The large majority of America's taxi drivers, housekeepers, janitors, dishwashers, landscapers and construction laborers are native-born Americans.
More generally, the supporters of illegal immigration claim that low-skilled labor is a precious resource, like oil, and because we're running out of it at home, we have to import it from abroad. This, too, is false. On the contrary, immigration (legal and illegal) is actually crowding low-skilled Americans out of the labor market altogether. During the first half of this decade, the highest five-year period of immigration in our history, the percentage of working-age, native-born Americans without a high school degree who were in the labor force fell from 59 percent to 56 percent, and for those with only a high school degree, participation in the labor force fell from 78 percent to 75 percent. And American teenagers (aged 15 to 17) took an even bigger hit, seeing their labor force participation fall from 30 percent in 2000 to 24 percent in 2005.
Apart from the specifics of policy, we need to consider how to enforce whatever path we decide on. And here again, welcoming illegal immigrants is a mistake. The key to enforcement of immigration laws is not simply arresting and deporting violators, though that must continue, and even increase. At least as important is making life as an illegal alien as difficult and unattractive as possible, in order to dissuade new illegal settlers and persuade those already here to give up and go back home. The result would be not a magical disappearance of all illegal aliens but rather a reduction in their numbers over time, allowing American businesses  and even the illegals themselves  an opportunity to adjust to the new reality.
We have been pursuing the precise opposite of this strategy for a long time. Our welcome for illegal immigrants has included driver's licenses, in-state tuition subsidies, mortgages, bank accounts and even de facto permission to work on fake or stolen Social Security numbers. It's a wonder we don't have more illegal aliens than we do.

Ending this welcome for illegal immigrants and adopting what's been called a strategy of "attrition through enforcement" is already proving effective. Since the collapse of the Bush amnesty bill in the Senate this June, there has been a modest increase in enforcement efforts at all levels of government, federal, state and local. The results have been striking: USA Today recently reported on "Illegal immigrants moving out," while The New York Times has found that "Fleeing stepped-up sweeps by the American authorities, illegal immigrants to the United States, mostly Mexican, are arriving in growing numbers at the foot of the bridge in this Canadian border town seeking refugee status."
If we keep up the enforcement, we can actually get control of this problem; my own Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that a comprehensive enforcement effort could reduce the illegal-alien population by half in five years. Once we accomplished that, we could then consider what to do about the remaining illegal population.
Contrary to what you read in history textbooks, America is the least xenophobic society in all of human history. Although there is no "need" for additional foreign labor, Americans should, and will, continue to welcome those foreigners who have come to live among us legally. But the welcome we've been extending to illegal immigrants must come to an end if our immigration policy is ever to regain its credibility.
Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. This opinion piece is part of a live public policy debate series called Intelligence Squared U.S., which is an initiative of The Rosenkranz Foundation. For more information about the debate series live in New York, go to

ILLEGALS VOTING? - Or For How Long Have Illegals Voted???


September 10, 2006
Los Angeles Times
Latino Activists Put Faith in Ballots

As immigration rights leaders assess gains and losses since rallies last spring, they turn their focus to the recruitment of 1 million new voters.
By Teresa Watanabe

Times Staff Writer

Has the immigrant rights movement fizzled?

At a national Latino conference that drew hundreds to downtown Los Angeles last week, movement leaders emphatically said no.

Although Congress has stalled action on broad immigration reform and Labor Day marches failed to mobilize wide support, activists said they were only now beginning to roll out the next stage of their battle: a massive effort to produce 1 million new Latino voters and U.S. citizens.

Latino conference: An article in the Sept. 10 California section about a national Latino conference in downtown Los Angeles had a picture showing a man from the Pilipino Workers Center holding Philippine flags at a rally. The caption should have stated that the Sept. 9 rally, which followed the conference, also included immigration rights activists other than Latinos. Also, this and three other stories about immigration issues since April incorrectly identified Armando Navarro as chairman of UC Riverside's ethnic studies department. He is a professor in that department. —

"Now is not march time," Antonio Gonzalez, president of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project in Los Angeles, said Saturday. "We're mobilizing voters. That's the big deal."

But immigration control advocates say the marches last spring doomed activists' efforts by alienating most Americans and strengthening support for stronger border control and opposition to legalization.

"The mass sea of illegal aliens bearing foreign flags and hostile placards really produced a pronounced backlash, from which they've never recovered," said John Keeley, spokesman for the Washington based Center for Immigration Studies.

The movement's fate is in question just months after hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their supporters startled the nation by pouring into the streets to protest a House bill that would criminalize undocumented immigrants and those who support them. Buoyed by their success, they helped push the U.S. Senate to pass a landmark bill increasing visas and offering legalization to many of the nation's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Since then, some activists acknowledge, their ranks have become demoralized as congressional action on the issue stalled over the summer and recent marches have fallen flat.

In Los Angeles, for instance, police estimated that only about 1,500 people turned out for a Labor Day weekend rally that organizers had predicted would draw as many as 50,000. And Cecilia Munoz, a vice president of the National Council of La Raza, said some immigrants were reluctant to risk their jobs to march because the likelihood of legalization and other reform does not appear imminent.

"A lot of people feel a loss," immigrant activist Oscar Garcon said Saturday at the National Latino Congreso, which was billed as the most comprehensive gathering of Latino leaders in nearly 30 years. "They say, 'We demonstrated, we came out by the millions, but what did we change?' "

But he and others said a movement cannot fairly be measured by the size of its marches or its early setbacks, and some experts agree.

Louis DeSipio, a UC Irvine associate professor of political science and Chicano/Latino studies, said it was premature to dismiss prospects for broad immigration reform.

He said such aims could take years to achieve. The 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants, for instance, took a decade to pass and did so abruptly, just as most members of Congress thought the provision dead.

DeSipio said movements cannot be built from marches alone.

"It's good they've moved away from the marches," he said. "Marches can get people's attention, but it doesn't necessarily get a higher percentage of the community involved in civic participation. That's what things like get out the vote and voter registration drives do."

DeSipio said the ferment over immigration could in time lead to a surge in Latino voters similar to the one after the 1994 passage of Proposition 187. The measure would have denied health benefits to undocumented immigrants had it not been overturned in the courts.

The number of legal residents who became U.S. citizens increased from 434,000 in 1994 to more than 1 million in 1996; and Latino registered voters in California increased from 1.6 million in 1996 to 1.9 million in 2000, according to the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund in Los Angeles.

Activists argue that some preliminary data offer evidence of another surge. According to U.S. immigration statistics, the number of citizenship applications increased by 41.5% in May over last year, a far larger increase than in previous periods.

"This is one of many issues, and it's going to take time, but it will come," said Cristina Basurto, 32, a member of Women of Earth, a social justice organization, who attended a small rally after the conference Saturday near downtown. "I think people still have it in their hearts and still want to fight for what they believe in."

The number of new Latino voters grew by 35,000 in Los Angeles County from March to August, helping to boost their share of the electorate from 20% to 24% over last year, according to an analysis of Los Angeles County registrar recorder data by the Latino officials' organization.

Marcelo Gaete, the organization's senior program director, said his staff used a surname dictionary to determine how many of the county's new voters were Latino.

Keeley, however, said the political landscape proves his point: A get tough stand on immigration is a winning political message.

In Pennsylvania, for instance, he said Republican Sen. Rick Santorum is rapidly closing what had been a double digit deficit in the polls in his race against his Democratic challenger, state Treasurer Robert Casey Jr., by campaigning with a tough immigration message.

He also said congressional hearings on immigration and local town halls during the summer recess have convinced many legislators that constituents see border control as a top priority.

As a result, he said, "the chances are less than zero" of winning legalization this year.

Some Latino activists, including UC Riverside ethnic studies department Chairman Armando Navarro, agree that the movement for immigrant rights has lost steam. He said internal squabbling, a lack of leadership and a failure to organize immigrants for long term political change had squandered their gains of the spring.

DeSipio and others, however, said activists had already scored a significant victory by so far stopping the House bill, especially the provision that would criminalize undocumented immigrants and those who aid them, from becoming law. Elements of that bill, including border enforcement measures, however, may still pass.

Now, activists say, they are gearing up to launch what they envision will be a long term effort to mobilize Latino voters for elections this November and, more important, in 2008.

Two organizations — the Service Employees International Union and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project — have raised $7 million for national voter registration and get out the vote efforts.

The National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials plans to include 150,000 voter registration cards in La Opinion later this month and help sponsor another major workshop at the L.A. Convention Center to help immigrants apply for citizenship. A July workshop produced about 1,300 completed new citizenship applications, Gaete said.

Spanish language radio DJs, who helped turn masses out for marches, have also begun to actively promote voter registration and citizenship efforts. Renan Almendarez "El Cucuy" Coello took his "Votos por America" campaign to 10 cities over two weeks last month.

DeSipio cautioned, however, that it was easier to register voters than to get them out to the polls.

"There's certainly the potential there," he said, "but it will require sustained investment and a lot of hard work."@


Daniel Gonzlez
The Arizona Republic
Aug. 3, 2006

By flooding polls, advocates aim to push the immigration debate away from the enforcement heavy approach supported by many key lawmakers in favor of comprehensive immigration reform that offers a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and more visas to reunite families.

Their goal in Maricopa County is to register 22,000 new voters in time for the Nov. 7 election. To achieve that mark, a coalition of immigrant rights groups is launching a voter drive on Friday that will send dozens of workers into heavily concentrated Latino neighborhoods to knock on doors and stand outside markets and shopping centers to register new voters.

"We are building electoral power for our community so they can have a say, not only on the streets but at the ballot box," said Ruben Villarreal, an organizer for the Arizona Coalition for Migrant Rights, a Phoenix based organization working with We Are America Alliance, a national group. "Once we have a strong vote, I think politicians will think twice before they pass all these anti immigrant bills."

Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in Phoenix and cities across the country after the House passed a tough immigration bill in December that would make being in the country illegally a felony. During some demonstrations, marches carried signs that said, "Today we march. Tomorrow we vote."

But rallying Latinos to vote can be a challenge. Statistics show Hispanics who are eligible to vote cast ballots at lower rates than other groups. Bringing immigrants and new voters into the fold requires a lots of education and encouragement, organizers of the coalition said.

Seeking voters
After the marches, the Senate passed its own immigration package supported by President Bush. It took a broader approach than the House's enforcement only version and included a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and a temporary worker program. But despite prodding by the president, Congress hasn't reached a compromise, prompting organizers of the street marches to focus on trying to influence the outcome of the November midterm election and the 2008 presidential election.

Organizers believe the untapped power of new immigrant voters and their children could have far reaching political impact but acknowledge they face significant challenges getting immigrants to the polls and motivating them to naturalize.

A June study by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights estimates that by the 2008 presidential election, there will be 14.25 million potential voters among legal immigrants currently eligible to naturalize and U.S. born children of immigrants ages 16 to 24.

Of those, 303,600 live in Arizona, which would have been more than enough to swing the 2004 presidential election in Arizona, according to the coalition. Bush won Arizona by 210,770 votes. Nationally, in 2004, 47 percent of Hispanics 18 and older cast ballots in the presidential election, compared with 67 percent for Anglos and 60 percent for Blacks, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Latino immigrants historically have lower voter participation rates than the general population, however, and lower naturalization rates than other immigrant groups.

"The typical voter is someone who owns a house, is highly educated, is financially stable and over 40. And in our community, you aren't going to find that," Villarreal said.

Still, Villarreal and others will concentrate on voter drives in Republican J.D. Hayworth's District 5, in parts of Mesa, Tempe and Phoenix, and Republican Jim Kolbe's District 8 in southern Arizona. Hayworth, a staunch immigration control advocate, faces Democrat Harry Mitchell this fall, and a slew of candidates is battling for the seat Kolbe is giving up.

Casting ballots
There are signs besides the street marches that immigrants are eager to get more involved in the political process, in large part out of fear as the debate heats up.

As of May, citizenship applications in Phoenix increased by almost 40 percent, to 6,026 from 4,329, compared with the previous 12 months, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Nationally, citizenship applications are up 19 percent for the same periods, to 466,929 up from 393,628, the agency said.

Volunteers don't tell voters which candidate or political party to support, but they believe immigrant voters and Latinos are more likely to support candidates who favor comprehensive immigration reform, Villarreal said. Political candidates also are less likely to support hard line measures when immigrants vote, advocates say.

"Elected officials are going to see there is power in our community, that (immigrants) are part of their constituency," said Lydia Hernandez, an organizer with the Arizona Coalition for Migrant Rights.

On a recent Saturday morning, Juan Serrato and his wife, Claudia, lined up along with more than 100 other legal permanent residents in a cafeteria for help filling out applications at a citizenship workshop in Phoenix. The workshop at Bret R. Tarver Elementary School was the fifth citizenship workshop organized this summer by the Arizona Coalition for Migrant Rights.

During the five workshops, more than 625 legal permanent residents applied for citizenship, organizer Teresa Castro said. Only U.S. citizens can cast ballots, and in Arizona, Proposition 200 requires everyone registering to vote to prove U.S. citizenship and to show ID at polls.

The coalition plans two more workshops Saturday, one in Phoenix, the other in Tucson. Juan Serrato, a native of Mexico, said he has been content remaining a legal permanent resident of the U.S. for the past 18 years. But he was prompted to apply for citizenship by those in Washington, D.C., calling for tightening the border and clamping down on immigration.

"The laws are getting so strict against us that I'm trying to protect myself and my family," said Serrato, a 44 year old truck driver wearing a "USA" ball cap. "I'm afraid one day I could get deported."

Serrato said he was motivated to apply for citizenship by another reason: He has many family members and friends who would benefit if Congress passed immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for the undocumented.

"I want the right to vote so that I can help my people," he said.



"Today we march, tomorrow we vote!" the next day gringos..... (will wave the Mexican flag - MEX INVASION)
Mexican Invasion
By Tom Barrett (04/19/2005)

At the current rate of invasion (mostly through Mexico, but also through Canada) the United States will be completely over run with illegal aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants who follow US law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop the invasion, ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant population in the United States. According to US Border Control (see LINK below). “They will have made such inroads into the political and social systems that they will have more influence than our Constitution over how the U.S. is governed. The ugly consequence of an ignored U.S. Constitution is already taking place.” The millions upon millions of illegal aliens streaming into the US are the foundation for what could be another attempt at secession by several US states. Many of them will use ill-conceived programs that reward illegal immigration to become US citizens. Other illegals will simply go to the polls and vote without taking the trouble to apply for citizenship. Together, these groups could form a voting block that could tear our nation apart. Those of you who read the email version of this column should go to to see the map posted there. It shows the borders of a new nation proposed by influential Mexican nationals and Hispanic US Citizens. (See LINK below: Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland'.) It includes six northern states of Mexican, as well as Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and southern Colorado. The idea of a Hispanic Homeland could be ignored as the pipedream of crackpots if a substantial majority of Mexican citizens did not support it. A Zogby poll of Mexicans done in June 2002 revealed that a substantial majority of Mexican citizens believe that southwestern America properly belongs to Mexico. They said that Mexicans do not need the permission of the U.S. to enter this territory. 58 percent of Mexican citizens agreed with this statement: "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Only 28 percent disagreed with the statement. Listen to what some Mexican government officials and US leaders (including politicians and Professors at taxpayer-funded Universities) have to say on this subject. Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of La Raza Unida political party screams at rallies: "We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are ******** in their pants with fear! I love it! We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him!" (See LINK below.) Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council "They’re afraid we’re going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They’re right. We will take them over. Mario Obledo, California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Jerry Brown, who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton, says, “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave." Proposition 187 was the California initiative supported by a majority of Californians that denied taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens. Speaking at a Latino gathering in response to Proposition 187’s passage in 1995, Art Torres, the Chairman of the California Democratic Party, said: "Power is not given to you. You have to take it. Remember, 187 is the last gasp of white America in California." The national newspaper of Mexico, Excelsior: "The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot." Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor: "We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country...I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I’m going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back." Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General: “We are practicing ‘La Reconquista’ in California." "Reconquista" means the reconquest of the US southwest by Mexico. (See LINK below.). These people are serious! They think they are going to take US territory. The Mexican President declared it here in our country, and Bill Clinton signed a Presidential Executive Order that paves the way for at least part of Mexico’s dream. Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo said in Chicago on July 23, 1997, "I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this. For this reason, my government proposed a constitutional amendment to allow any Mexican with the right and the desire to acquire another nationality to do so without being forced to first give up his or her Mexican nationality." Translation: It is next to impossible to receive Mexican citizenship unless you can prove you are of Mexican descent. But Mexico knows that the US has soft immigration laws and will grant citizenship to almost anyone. (After all, we grant citizenship every day to immigrants from countries who have sworn to destroy us.) So Mexico wants to take advantage of this ridiculous situation by encouraging their citizens to apply for US citizenship while keeping Mexican citizenship. That way the Mexican government can influence the political process here in the US. Executive Order 13122, signed on May 25, 1999, by the most treasonous president this nation has ever been cursed with, Bill Clinton, established an Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southwest Border. Part of the Order reads, "The Southwest Border or Southwest Border region is defined as including the areas up to 150 miles north of the United States-Mexican border in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California." According to experts on international law, this sets the stage for a 150-mile-wide “Border Zone” that will neither belong to Mexico or the US. This could then become the first area of a Hispanic Nation that would eventually encompass the areas shown in the map of the proposed Republica del Norte (The Northern Republic). Our government, pushed by liberal Democrats, has been systematically laying the groundwork for such a breakaway republic. Did you know that immigrants from Mexico and other non European countries can come to this country and get preferences in jobs, education, and government contracts? It’s called affirmative action or racial privilege. Some time ago a vote was taken in the U.S. Congress to end this practice. It was defeated. Every single Democratic senator except Ernest Hollings voted to maintain special privileges for Hispanic, Asian and African immigrants. They were joined by thirteen Republicans. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have repeatedly stated that they believe that massive immigration from countries like Mexico is good. They have also backed special privileges for these immigrants. Mexico, a nation that has benefited enormously from American generosity is now working to destabilize our country. Is “destabilize” too strong a word? I don’t think so. Whether or not Mexican leaders think they can actually create enough hatred against “gringos” to accomplish the creation of a new republic made up of mainly US territory, they know that pushing that agenda will cause huge political problems here and allow Mexico to accomplish many of their goals. Is the government of Mexico behind this? You have seen quotes from a Mexican President and a Mexican Consul General in support of it. They have everything to gain and little to lose by pushing it. The Mexican government is also pushing illegal immigration, which destabilizes our economy. The US Border Control website (see LINK below) shows an illustration from a Mexican government publication showing their citizens how to best illegally enter the US. Why? It takes the strain of taking care of unemployed Mexicans off the Mexican treasury and puts it on the US treasury. And when the illegals get on welfare, they send some of their money home, which helps the Mexican economy. All this talk by Mexican and US officials about the US illegally occupying Mexican territory does nothing but breed racial hatred. The sad thing is that none of this is about race. It is about the things that all wars and conflicts are about: Greed, power and money. I don’t like to talk about a problem without offering a solution. The US politicians and professors who advocate taking US territory are guilty of sedition. Remove them from their offices and (hopefully) put them in a federal penitentiary where they can consider the error of their ways. The Mexican politicians who do the same are guilty of inciting sedition. This is very close to an act of war. Immediately cut of all economic aid to Mexico until its government publicly disavows this lunatic plan. Finally, we must realize that we can’t stop this by marching US troops into Mexico. We should use troops to guard our borders, because the US Border Patrol cannot cover the huge US-Mexico border without help. And we need to use pass laws that will stop the government from rewarding illegal immigrants at the expense of those who follow the law. We have a huge immigration problem in this country. This ridiculous Hispanic Homeland idea is just a symptom of the problem. INTERNET RESEARCH: Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland' 1. Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland' ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Charles Truxillo suggests the “Republica del Norte,” the Republic of the North, is “an inevitability.” He envisions it encompassing all of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and southern Colorado, plus the northern tier of Mexican states: Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas. Along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border “there is a growing fusion, a reviving of connections,” Truxillo said. “Southwest Chicanos and Norteño Mexicanos are becoming one people again.” Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.

Heritage Foundation - The Real Cost of All This "CHEAP" Mexican Labor

The cost of illegals to this nation is 100 BILLION.
April 4, 2007

Executive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer
by Robert E. Rector, Christine Kim and Shanea Watkins, Ph.D.
Executive Summary #12

Each year, families and individuals pay taxes to the government and receive back a wide variety of services and benefits. When the benefits and services received by one group exceed the taxes paid, a distributional deficit occurs, and other groups must pay for the services and benefits of the group in deficit. Each year, government is involved in a large-scale transfer of resources between different social groups.
This paper provides a fiscal distribution analysis of households headed by persons without a high school diploma. The report refers to these households as “low-skill households.” The analysis measures the total benefits and services received by these households compared to total taxes paid. The difference between benefits received and taxes paid rep_resents the total resources transferred by government on behalf of this group from the rest of society.
The size and cost of government are far larger than many people imagine. In fiscal year (FY) 2004, federal, state, and local expenditures combined amounted to $3.75 trillion. One way to grasp the size of government more readily is to calculate average expenditures per household. In 2004, there were some 115 million households (multi-person families and single persons living alone) in the U.S. Government spending thus averaged $32,706 per household across the U.S. population.
Government expenditures can be divided into six categories. The first four, which can be termed “immediate benefits and services,” are:
Direct benefits, which include Social Security, Medicare, and a few smaller transfer programs;
Means-tested benefits, including cash, food, housing, social services, and medical care for poor and near poor individuals;
Public educational services, which include the governmental cost of primary, secondary, vocational, and post-secondary education;
Population-based services, which are government services made available to a general community including police and fire protection, highways, sewers, food safety inspection, and parks.
Two additional spending categories are:
Interest and other financial obligations resulting from prior government activity, including interest payments on government debt and other expenditures relating to the cost of government services pro_vided in earlier years; and
Pure public goods, which include national defense, international affairs and scientific research, and some environmental expenditures.
On average, low-skill households receive more government benefits and services than do other households. In FY 2004, low-skill households received $32,138 per household in immediate benefits and services (direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services). If public goods and the cost of interest and other financial obligations are added, total benefits rose to $43,084 per low-skill household. In general, low-skill house_holds received about $10,000 more in government benefits than did the average U.S. household, largely because of the higher level of means-tested welfare benefits received by low-skill households.
In contrast, low-skill households pay less in taxes than do other households. On average, low-skill households paid only $9,689 in taxes in FY 2004. Thus, low-skill households received at least three dollars in immediate benefits and services for each dollar in taxes paid. If the costs of public goods and past financial obligations are added, the ratio rises to four to one.
Strikingly, low-skill households in FY 2004 had average earnings of $20,564 per household. Thus, the $32,138 per household in government immediate benefits and services received by these households not only exceeded their taxes paid, but also substantially exceeded their average household earned income.
A household’s net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. If the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services alone are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $22,449 (expenditures of $32,138 minus $9,689 in taxes). The average net fiscal deficit of a low-skill household actually exceeded the household’s earnings.
If interest and other financial obligations relating to past government activities are added, the average deficit per household rose to $27,301. In addition, the average low-skill household was a free rider with respect to government public goods, receiving public goods costing some $6,095 per household for which it paid nothing.
Receiving, on average, at least $22,449 more in benefits than they pay in taxes each year, low-skill households impose substantial long-term costs on the U.S. taxpayer. Assuming an average adult life span of 50 years for each head of household, the average lifetime costs to the taxpayer will be $1.1 million for each low-skill household for immediate benefits received minus all taxes paid. If the cost of interest and other financial obligations is added, the average lifetime cost rises to $1.3 million per low-skill household.
In 2004, there were 17.7 million low-skill households. With an average net fiscal deficit of $22,449 per house_hold, the total annual fiscal deficit (total benefits received minus total taxes paid) for all of these households equaled $397 billion (the deficit of $22,449 per household times 17.7 million households). This sum includes direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services. If the low-skill households’ share of interest and other financial obligations for past activities is added, their total annual fiscal deficit rises to $483 billion. Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least 3.9 trillion dollars. This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to sub_stantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services.
Politically feasible changes in government policy will have little effect for decades on the level of fiscal deficit generated by most low-skill households. For example, to make the average low-skill household fiscally neutral (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received and the appropriate share of interest on government debt), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, all 60 means-tested aid programs and cut the cost of public edu_cation in half. It seems certain that, on average, low-skill households will generate deep fiscal deficits for the fore_seeable future. Policies that reduce the future number of high school dropouts and other policies affecting future generations could reduce long-term costs.
Policies that would expand Medicaid and other entitlements will increase the size of future deficits of low-skill households at the margin. On the other hand, policy changes that curtailed medical inflation could reduce costs at the margin in future years. Policies which would halt the growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing or increase real edu_cational attainments of future generations could also limit the growth of future deficits somewhat. However, these policy changes would be dwarfed by any alteration in immigration policy that would substantially increase the future inflow of low-skill immigrants; such a policy would dramatically increase the future fiscal burden to taxpayers.
Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies and Christine Kim is a Policy Analyst in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Shanea Watkins, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Empirical Studies in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.