Sunday, July 4, 2010


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

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

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

March 30, 2006 edition

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

By George W. Grayson WILLIAMSBURG, VA.

At the parleys this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún, Mexican President Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his countrymen north of the Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional visas for Mexicans to enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of guest-worker schemes, and the "regularization" of illegal immigrants who reside throughout the continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the Mexican chief executive excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of a wall on the US-Mexico border and called for the "orderly, safe, and legal" northbound flow of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state of Guanajuato. Mexican legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández Enriquez, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America, recently emphasized that the solution to the "structural phenomenon" of unlawful migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but with "understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility." Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty. To his credit, Fox's "Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly the plight of the poorest of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers have advanced measures that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of the workforce, curb unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad. Indeed, Mexico's leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact science as they shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying efforts by the US senators and representatives to crack down on illegal immigration at the border and the workplace. What are some examples of this failure of responsibility? • When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes - a figure roughly equivalent to that of Haiti and far below the level of major Latin American nations. Not only is Mexico's collection rate ridiculously low, its fiscal regime is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to widespread evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to reform the system. Insufficient revenues mean that Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of social mobility: Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare only 6.10 percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study. • A venal, "come-back-tomorrow" bureaucracy explains the 58 days it takes to open a business in Mexico compared with three days in Canada, five days in the US, nine days in Jamaica, and 27 days in Chile. Mexico's private sector estimates that 34 percent of the firms in the country made "extra official" payments to functionaries and legislators in 2004. These bribes totaled $11.2 billion and equaled 12 percent of GDP. • Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. • Economic competition is constrained by the presence of inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a small number of private corporations - closely linked to government big shots - that control telecommunications, television, food processing, transportation, construction, and cement. Politicians who talk about, much less propose, trust-busting measures are as rare as a snowfall in the Sonoran Desert. Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian concerns require North America's neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not the least of which is immigration. However, Mexico's power brokers have failed to make the difficult decisions necessary to use their nation's bountiful wealth to benefit the masses. Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist that Mexico's pampered elite act responsibly, rather than expecting US and Canadian taxpayers to shoulder burdens Mexico should assume.

*********************************************************************** Unfettered Immigration = Poverty

By. Robert Rector | May 16, 2006

This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty. An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years. Current Trends in Immigration Over the last 40 years, immigration into the United States has surged. Our nation is now experiencing a second “great migration” similar to the great waves of immigrants that transformed America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 2004, an estimated 35.7 million foreign-born persons lived in the U.S. While in 1970 one person in twenty was foreign born, by 2004 the number had risen to one in eight. About one-third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are illegal aliens. There are between 10 and 12 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S.[1] Illegal aliens now comprise 3 to 4 percent of the total U.S. population. Each year approximately 1.3 million new immigrants enter the U.S.[2] Some 700,000 of these entrants are illegal.[3] One third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are Mexican. Overall, the number of Mexicans in the U.S. has increased from 760,000 in 1970 to 10.6 million in 2004. Nine percent of all Mexicans now reside in the U.S.[4] Over half of all Mexicans in the U.S. are illegal immigrants,[5] and in the last decade 80 to 85 percent of the inflow of Mexicans into the U.S. has been illegal.[6] The public generally perceives illegals to be unattached single men. This is, in fact, not the case. Some 44 percent of adult illegals are women. While illegal men work slightly more than native-born men; illegal women work less. Among female illegals, some 56 percent work, compared to 73 percent among native-born women of comparable age.[7] As well, Mexican women emigrating to the U.S. have a considerably higher fertility rate than women remaining in Mexico.[8] Decline in Immigrant Wages Over the last 40 years the education level of new immigrants has fallen relative to the native population. As the relative education levels of immigrants have declined, so has their earning capacity compared to the general U.S. population. Immigrants arriving in the U.S. around 1960 had wages, at the time of entry, that were just 13 percent less than natives’. In 1965, the nation’s immigration law was dramatically changed, and from 1990 on, illegal immigration surged. The result was a decline in the relative skill levels of new immigrants. By 1998, new immigrants had an average entry wage that was 34 percent less than natives.’[12] Because of their lower education levels, illegal immigrants’ wages would have been even lower. The low-wage status of recent illegal immigrants can be illustrated by the wages of recent immigrants from Mexico, a majority of whom have entered the U.S. illegally. In 2000, the median weekly wage of a first-generation Mexican immigrant was $323. This was 54 percent of the corresponding wage for non-Hispanic whites in the general population.[13] Historically, the relative wages of recent immigrants have risen after entry as immigrants gained experience in the labor market. For example, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s saw their relative wages rise by 10 percentage points compared to natives’ wages during their first 20 years in the country. But in recent years, this modest catch up effect has diminished. Immigrants who arrived in the late 1980s actually saw their relative wages shrink in the 1990s.[14] Immigration and Welfare Dependence Welfare may be defined as means-tested aid programs: these programs provide cash, non-cash, and social service assistance that is limited to low-income households. The major means-tested programs include Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public housing, the earned income credit, and Medicaid. Historically, recent immigrants were less likely to receive welfare than native-born Americans. But over the last thirty years, this historic pattern has reversed. As the relative education levels of immigrants fell, their tendency to receive welfare benefits increased. By the late 1990s immigrant households were fifty percent more likely to receive means-tested aid than native-born households.[15] Moreover, immigrants appear to assimilate into welfare use. The longer immigrants live in the U.S., the more likely they are to use welfare.[16] A large part, but not all, of immigrants’ higher welfare use is explained by their low education levels. Welfare use also varies by immigrants’ national origin. For example, in the late 1990s, 5.6 percent of immigrants from India received means-tested benefits; among Mexican immigrants the figure was 34.1 percent; and for immigrants from the Dominican Republic the figure was 54.9 percent.[17] Ethnic differences in the propensity to receive welfare that appear among first-generation immigrants persist strongly in the second generation.[18] The relatively high use of welfare among Mexicans has significant implications for current proposals to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Some 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Mexico and Latin America.[19] (See Chart 1) Historically, Hispanics in America have had very high levels of welfare use. Chart 2 shows receipt of aid from major welfare programs by different ethnic groups in 1999; the programs covered are Medicaid, Food Stamps, public housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, General Assistance, and Supplemental Security Income.[20] As the chart shows, Hispanics were almost three times more likely to receive welfare than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, among families that received aid, the cost of the aid received was 40 percent higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites.[21] Putting together the greater probability of receiving welfare with the greater cost of welfare per family means that, on average, Hispanic families received four times more welfare per family than white non-Hispanics. 1. Part, but not all, of this high level of welfare use by Hispanics can be explained by background factors such as family structure.[22] It seems likely that, if Hispanic illegal immigrants are given permanent residence and citizenship, they and their children will likely assimilate into the culture of high welfare use that characterizes Hispanics in the U.S. This would impose significant costs on taxpayers and society as a whole. Welfare use can also be measured by immigration status. In general, immigrant households are about fifty percent more likely to use welfare than native-born households.[23] Immigrants with less education are more likely to use welfare. (See Chart 3) 1. The potential welfare costs of low-skill immigration and amnesty for current illegal immigrants can be assessed by looking at the welfare utilization rates for current low-skill immigrants. As Chart 4 shows, immigrants without a high school degree (both lawful and unlawful) are two-and-a-half times more likely to use welfare than native-born individuals.[24] This underscores the high potential welfare costs of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. 1. All categories of high school dropouts have a high utilization of welfare. Immigrants who have less than a high school degree are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts. Legal immigrants who are high school dropouts are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts.[25] Illegal immigrant dropouts, however, are less likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts mainly because they are ineligible for many welfare programs. With amnesty, current illegal immigrants’ welfare use would likely rise to the level of lawful immigrants with similar education levels. Illegal Immigration and Poverty 1. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 4.7 million children of illegal immigrant parents currently live in the U.S.[26] Some 37 percent of these children are poor.[27] While children of illegal immigrant parents comprise around 6 percent of all children in the U.S., they are 11.8 percent of all poor children.[28] This high level of child poverty among illegal immigrants in the U.S. is, in part, due to low education levels and low wages. It is also linked to the decline in marriage among Hispanics in the U.S. Within this group, 45 percent of children are born out-of-wedlock.[29] (See Table 1.) Among foreign-born Hispanics the rate is 42.3 percent.[30] By contrast, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for non-Hispanic whites is 23.4 percent.[31] The birth rate for Hispanic teens is higher than for black teens.[32] While the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks has remained flat for the last decade, it has risen steadily for Hispanics.[33] These figures are important because, as noted, some 80 percent of illegal aliens come from Mexico and Latin America.[34] In general, children born and raised outside of marriage are seven times more likely to live in poverty than children born and raised by married couples. Children born out-of-wedlock are also more likely to be on welfare, to have lower educational achievement, to have emotional problems, to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to become involved in crime.[35] 5. Poverty is also more common among adult illegal immigrants, who are twice as likely to be poor as are native-born adults. Some 27 percent of all adult illegal immigrants are poor, compared to 13 percent of native-born adults.[36] Economic and Social Assimilation of Illegal Immigrant Offspring One important question is the future economic status of the children and grandchildren of current illegal immigrants, assuming those offspring remain in the U.S. While we obviously do not have data on future economic status, we may obtain a strong indication of future outcomes by examining the educational attainment of offspring of recent Mexican immigrants. Some 57 percent of current illegal immigrants come from Mexico, and about half of Mexicans currently in the U.S. are here illegally.[37] First-generation Mexican immigrants are individuals born in Mexico who have entered the U.S. In 2000, some 70 percent of first-generation Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) lacked a high school degree. Second-generation Mexicans may be defined as individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico. Second-generation Mexican immigrants (individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico) have greatly improved educational outcomes but still fall well short of the general U.S. population. Some 25 percent of second-generation Mexicans in the U.S. fail to complete high school. By contrast, the high school drop out rate is 8.6 percent among non-Hispanic whites and 17.2 percent among blacks. Critically, the educational attainment of third-generation Mexicans (those of Mexican ancestry with both parents born in the U.S.) improves little relative to the second generation. Some 21 percent of third-generation Mexicans are high school drop outs.[38] Similarly, the rate of college attendance among second-generation Mexicans is lower than for black Americans and about two-thirds of the level for non-Hispanic whites; moreover, college attendance does not improve in the third generation.[39] These data indicate that the offspring of illegal Hispanic immigrants are likely to have lower rates of educational attainment and higher rates of school failure compared to the non-Hispanic U.S. population. High rates of school failure coupled with high rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing are strong predictors of future poverty and welfare dependence. Immigration and Crime Historically, immigrant populations have had lower crime rates than native-born populations. For example, in 1991, the overall crime and incarceration rate for non-citizens was slightly lower than for citizens.[40] On the other hand, the crime rate among Hispanics in the U.S. is high. Age-specific incarceration rates (prisoners per 100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) among Hispanics in federal and state prisons are two to two-and-a-half times higher than among non-Hispanic whites.[41] Relatively little of this difference appears to be due to immigration violations.[42] Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly Hispanic. It is possible that, over time, Hispanic immigrants and their children may assimilate the higher crime rates that characterize the low-income Hispanic population in the U.S. as a whole.[43] If this were to occur, then policies that would give illegal immigrants permanent residence through amnesty, as well as policies which would permit a continuing influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, would increase crime in the long term. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration One important question is the fiscal impact of immigration (both legal and illegal). Policymakers must ensure that the interaction of welfare and immigration policy does not expand the welfare-dependent popula_?tion, which would hinder rather than help immi_?grants and impose large costs on American society. This means that immigrants should be net contributors to government: the taxes they pay should exceed the cost of the benefits they receive. In calculating the fiscal impact of an individual or family, it is necessary to distinguish between public goods and private goods. Public goods do not require additional spending to accommodate new residents.[44] The clearest examples of government public goods are national defense and medical and scientific research. The entry of millions of immigrants will not raise costs or diminish the value of these public goods to the general population. Other government services are private goods; use of these by one person precludes or limits use by another. Government private goods include direct personal benefits such as welfare, Social Security benefits, Medicare, and education. Other government private goods are “congestible” goods.[45] These are services that must be expanded in proportion to the population. Government congestible goods include police and fire protection, roads and sewers, parks, libraries, and courts. If these services do not expand as the population expands, there will be a decrease in the quality of service. An individual makes a positive fiscal contribution when his total taxes paid exceed the direct benefits and congestible goods received by himself and his family.[46] The Fiscal Impact of Low Skill Immigration The 1997 New Americans study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examined the fiscal impact of immigration.[47] It found that, within in a single year, the fiscal impact of foreign-born households was negative in the two states studied, New Jersey and California.[48] Measured over the course of a lifetime, the fiscal impact of first-generation immigrants nationwide was also slightly negative.[49] However, when the future earnings and taxes paid by the offspring of the immigrant were counted, the long-term fiscal impact was positive. One commonly cited figure from the report is that the net present value (NPV) of the fiscal impact of the average recent immigrant and his descendents is $83,000.[50] There are five important caveats about the NAS longitudinal study and its conclusion that in the long term the fiscal impact of immigration is positive. First, the study applies to all recent immigration, not just illegal immigration. Second, the finding that the long-term fiscal impact of immigration is positive applies to the population of immigrants as a whole, not to low-skill immigrants alone. Third, the $83,000 figure is based on the predicted earnings, tax payments, and benefits of an immigrant’s descendents over the next 300 years.[51] Fourth, the study does not take into account the growth in out-of-wedlock childbearing among the foreign-born population, which will increase future welfare costs and limit the upward mobility of future generations. Fifth, the assumed educational attainment of the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of immigrants who are high school dropouts or high school graduates seems unreasonably high given the actual attainment of the offspring of recent Mexican and Hispanic immigrants.[52] The NAS study’s 300-year time horizon is highly problematic. Three hundred years ago, the United States did not even exist and British colonists had barely reached the Appalachian Mountains. We cannot reasonably estimate what taxes and benefits will be even 30 years from now, let alone 300. The NAS study assumes that most people’s descendents will eventually regress to the social and economic mean, and thus may make a positive fiscal contribution, if the time horizon is long enough. With similar methods, it seems likely that out-of-wedlock childbearing could be found to have a net positive fiscal value as long as assumed future earnings are projected out 500 or 600 years. Slight variations to NAS’s assumptions used by NAS greatly affect the projected outcomes. For example, limiting the time horizon to 50 years and raising the assumed interest rate from 3 percent to 4 percent drops the NPV of the average immigrant from around $80,000 to $8,000.[53] Critically, the NAS projections assumed very large tax increases and benefits cuts would begin in 2016 to prevent the federal deficit from rising further relative to GDP. This assumption makes it far easier for future generations to be scored as fiscal contributors. If these large tax hikes and benefit cuts do not occur, then the long-term positive fiscal value of immigration evaporates.[54] Moreover, if future tax hikes and benefit cuts do occur, the exact nature of those changes would likely have a large impact on the findings; this issue is not explored in the NAS study. Critically, the estimated net fiscal impact of the whole immigrant population has little bearing on the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants, who are primarily low-skilled. As noted, at least 50 percent of illegal immigrants do not have a high school degree. As the NAS report states, “[S]ome groups of immigrants bring net fiscal benefits to natives and others impose net fiscal costs [I]mmigrants with certain characteristics, such as the elderly and those with little education, may be quite costly.”[55] The NAS report shows that the long-term fiscal impact of immigrants varies dramatically according to the education level of the immigrant. The fiscal impact of immigrants with some college education is positive. The fiscal impact of immigrants with a high school degree varies according to the time horizon used. The fiscal impact of immigrants without a high school degree is negative: benefits received will exceed taxes paid. The net present value of the future fiscal impact of immigrants without a high school degree is negative even when the assumed earnings and taxes of descendents over the next 300 years are included in the calculation.[56] A final point is that the NAS study’s estimates assume that low skill immigration does not reduce the wages of native-born low-skill workers. If low-skill immigration does, in fact, reduce the wages of native-born labor, this would reduce taxes paid and increase welfare expenditures for that group. The fiscal, social, and political implications could be quite large. The Cost of Amnesty Federal and state governments currently spend over $500 billion per year on means-tested welfare benefits.[57] Illegal aliens are ineligible for most federal welfare benefits but can receive some assistance through programs such as Medicaid, In addition, native-born children of illegal immigrant parents are citizens and are eligible for all relevant federal welfare benefits. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens would have two opposing fiscal effects. On the one hand, it may raise wages and taxes paid by broadening the labor market individuals compete in; it would also increase tax compliance and tax receipts as more work would be performed “on the books,”[58] On the other hand, amnesty would greatly increase the receipt of welfare, government benefits, and social services. Because illegal immigrant households tend to be low-skill and low-wage, the cost to government could be considerable. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty.[59] This study found that illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and currently pay little in taxes. Illegal immigrant households also receive lower levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that, on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes.[60] Granting amnesty would render illegal immigrants eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payment among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic backgrounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around $5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per year.[61] preference for entry visas. The current visa allotments for family members (other than spouses and minor children) should be eliminated, and quotas for employment- and skill-based entry increased proportionately.


Report Illegals & Employers Toll Free... (866) 347-2423
INS National Customer Service Center Phone: 1-800-375-5283.
You can contact President Obama and let him know of your opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens (HOWEVER OBAMA IS ACTIVELY WORKING ON AMNESTY = ILLEGALS’ VOTES): UNLESS YOU’RE A BANKSTER, OBAMA DOESN’T TAKE CALLS!

WANT A JOB IN MEXICO? After All, Illegals Have Taken Half of Ours!



“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”

If all businesses did this, fewer illegals (would have US jobs)
Date: 2010-06-27, 1:16PM MST
Reply to: [Errors when replying to ads?]

This is what I have to go through to get a job in the USA:
Please Note: Should you be invited to interview, you MUST bring ALL the below items with you.
Obtaining these items can take time if you do not already have them in your possession.

A copy of your Birth Certificate from the Bureau of Vital Statistics.
A copy of your High School Diploma, approved G.E.D. or Transcripts
A copy of your Professional Degree/Transcripts.
Bring your current Florida Driver's License and proof of insurance
Bring your Social Security card
A copy of all documented Name Changes, i.e.; Marriage License, Divorce Decree, Adoption, etc.
(if you have had 2 marriages, we will need the first marriage certificate and divorce decree and then the second marriage certificate)

A copy of your Military Discharge papers (DD-214), only if applicable
A copy of your Professional License.
A copy of your CPR card
A copy of your resume
A copy of a list of 3 professional references and 3 other references.

If this was made standard, don't you think that there would be a lot less illegal aliens working in the USA?
(I agree, it's a hassle....a time consuming, big hassle.....but, it's what I have to do + get a physical which must
say I am "free of communicable disease" and get a PPD (TB skin test) PLUS show proof I have all my CEU's
current for HIV, Medical Errors, Domestic Violence, Communicable Diseases, OSHA.

Can't even get in foran interview without all this...

If all this was required.....what chance then of illegals working here in the USA?




Date: 2010-06-28, 8:07AM MST
Reply to: [Errors when replying to ads?]



*This is an interesting view of what happens if all the illegal aliens should be deported.

*Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, "Mexican visitor's lament" --

She interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, "They (illegal aliens) pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes...what happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?"

That's a good question - it deserves an answer. Over 80 percent of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers may surprise you!

In California , if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico , it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupted hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominate language again.

In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grand-kids - would move back "home," mostly to Mexico . That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 BIL) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.

Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.

Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop out/flunk out rate via thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado . Denver 's four percent unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.

In Florida , 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America , the rule of law and English.

In Chicago , Illinois , 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner
and more crime-free experience.

If 20 million illegal aliens returned "home," the U.S. economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local state and city coffers.

No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.

We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country. In cities like L.A, 20,000 members of the "18th Street Gang" would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!

Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!

Drain on America 's economy; taxpayers harmed, employers get rich:

Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to their home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America 's economy - which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion debt.

At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupted out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act. Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country-brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.

Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the "progressives" on the horns of a,dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11 percent of our greenhouse gases.

Over one million of Mexico's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville , Texas to San Diego , California in what the New York,Times called, "colonias" or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, electricity, roads or any kind of sanitation. The New York Times reported them to be America 's new " Third World " inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I've seen them personally in Texas and,Arizona ; it's sickening beyond anything you can imagine.) By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico .

High integrity, ethical invitation:

We invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico . We invite a million people into our country legally more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation.

It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our
civilization and our way of life.




No Citizenship for Babies born in US to illegals

Next on Arizona's agenda? No citizenship for babies born in US to illegal immigrants
By Michelle Price

PHOENIX (AP) -- Emboldened by passage of the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents.

Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce's proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.

But Pearce brushes aside such concerns. And given the charged political atmosphere in Arizona, and public anger over what many regard as a failure by the federal government to secure the border, some politicians think the idea has a chance of passage.

"I think the time is right," said state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican from suburban Phoenix who is chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. "Federal inaction is unacceptable, so the states have to start the process."

Earlier this year, the Legislature set off a storm of protests around the country when it passed a law that directs police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. The measure, which takes effect July 29 unless blocked in court, has inflamed the national debate over immigration and led to boycotts against the state.

An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.

Pearce, who has yet to draft the legislation, proposes that the state of Arizona no longer issue birth certificates unless at least one parent can prove legal status. He contends that the practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. encourages illegal immigrants to come to this country to give birth and secure full rights for their children.

"We create the greatest inducement for breaking our laws," he said.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." But Pearce argues that the amendment was meant to protect black people.

"It's been hijacked and abused," he said. "There is no provision in the 14th Amendment for the declaration of citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens."

John McGinnis, a conservative law professor at Northwestern University, said Pearce's interpretation is "just completely wrong." The "plain meaning" of the amendment is clear, he said.

Senate candidate Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and darling of the tea party movement, made headlines last month after he told a Russian TV station that he favors denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

A similar bill was introduced at the federal level in 2009 by former Rep. Nathan Deal, a Georgia Republican, but it has gone nowhere.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, based in Washington, said Pearce's idea would stop immigrants from traveling to the U.S. to give birth.

"Essentially we are talking about people who have absolutely no connection whatever with this country," spokesman Ira Mehlman said. "The whole idea of citizenship means that you have some connection other than mere happenstance that you were born on U.S. soil."

Citizenship as a birthright is rare elsewhere in the world. Many countries require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident.

Adopting such a practice in the U.S. would be not only unconstitutional but also impractical and expensive, said Michele Waslin, a policy analyst with the pro-immigrant Immigration Policy Center in Washington.

"Every single parent who has a child would have to go through this bureaucratic process of proving their own citizenship and therefore proving their child's citizenship," she said.

Araceli Viveros, 27, and her husband, Saul, 34, are illegal immigrants from the Mexican state of Guerrero. He has been in Phoenix for 20 years, she for 10, and their 2- and 9-year-old children are U.S. citizens.

"I am so proud my children were born here. They can learn English and keep studying," Viveros said in Spanish.

She said her husband has been working hard in Phoenix as a landscaper, and their children deserve to be citizens. The lawmaker's proposal "is very bad," she said. "It's changing the Constitution, and some children won't have the same rights as other children."


Associated Press writers Jacques Billeaud and Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report.


No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

| Leave a comment
GrizzledOleMan | June 17, 2010 10:45 AM | Reply
"Emboldened by passage of the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents."

I'd like to know where you think that this is the toughest law against illegal immigration when all it does is follow exactly what the federal law says and does. IF the government would enforce it's own law, we wouldn't be in the mess that we're in right now. DUH!!

Mike | June 17, 2010 11:00 AM | Reply
Mrs. Viveros says her children "deserve to be citizens." The word 'deserve' is subjective. We are a nation of laws and not of men. This is good because laws are objective and men can be subjective when they make decisions. Men making subjective decisions about who 'deserves' something and who does not is a very dangerous thing. We do this enough already and we need to stop.

seattlesuckers | June 17, 2010 12:01 PM | Reply
As always the LAW professers says that the interpretation of the law is wrong, but one only need look at the time and place for passage of the law to see it's intent... Mrs Viveros says" In SPANISH ... That she has been here for 10 years, She obviuosly came here for the specific goal of having a baby and hooking in to the endless benifits of being an illeagal with an anchor baby... Some of these benifits are not even extended to the citizens of the USA which in itself is un-constitutional.. When do we fix that Mr Law professor ??? It is a shame that she says she or her children "DESERVE" any thing she doesn't even have enough respect for the country to learn the language and I got $100.00 bill says she has a Mexican flag in every room of her house and a same said bumper sticker on every car or window ... GO HOME and take your flag with you.. This is AMERICA. Just try and take that attitude to Mexico and become a citizen...I say it is time to fix it and adopt some real effective change.

NC-BeagleLover | June 17, 2010 12:38 PM | Reply
Okay folks, re-read the end of this article carefully. *He has been in the country for 20 years, making him 14 at the time of entry. She has been here for 10 years, making her 17. Both are ILLEGAL they say. Obviously his family or parents entered illegally as well - hence a 14 yr old kid doesn't often make the trip without some relative included. At 17 she might be another story. Their own statements show how this Illegal Entry is perpetuated. Yet after a combined total of 30 YEARS in the USA neither one of them has bothered to become LEGAL citizens! What's wrong with this picture? And they want their kids to have rights? (yes they were born here but..) They are breaking the law themselves, but worry about "rights" of their kids? NAH! Don't think so! Teaching your kids to break the law by their own example, great job as deadbeat parents. They make the case for the "Anchor Babies" in their own words - and as you see they DO live in Arizona! Any wonder why the US Citizens of that state want some relief? How many states are suffering this same debacle?
I support state sovereignty and state rights. If AZ can pass the law, do it! Fed's beware, this union of 50 states will unravel if the Feds don't do their job as the Founding Fathers intended. I am also glad to see your article pointed out the rarity of this law worldwide - most countries DO require at least 1 parent to be a legal citizen. Try pulling this crap in Mexico, see what their law is! Wake Up Congress! Revolution is brewing across America, can't you smell it in the air?

Mort_f | June 17, 2010 2:53 PM | Reply
Yes, the Deal Bill went nowhere. Thank Pelosi and Hoyer for that. A pox on both their heads.

That the 14th Amendment did not countenance Illegal Aliens is obvious, at the time of its adoption there was no such animal as an Illegal Alien. And while there may have been children born of foreign ambassadors, those parents were obviously ' not under US jurisdiction', and therefore would not be considered US citizens.

FlaJim | June 17, 2010 4:27 PM | Reply
Many countries do not grant citizenship to some kid born there just because its parent(s) had been lucky enough to sneak across the border in time for delivery.

This would be another disincentive for illegal aliens. We've already read numerous reports of them moving out of AZ by the thousands, most back to Mexico.

The 14th Amendment applied only to those who'd been imported here and their descendents, not to those who illegally entered in the future.

marcyr | June 17, 2010 4:36 PM | Reply
In Elk v Wilkins 1884 the Supreme Court said parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the US and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. Obviously, immigrants must follow our laws, but that is not the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14th. There are further legal cases which are on point.

But let's go back to those who wrote and voted for the 14th Amendment:

Sen. Lyman Trumbull in 1866 declared: "The provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means".

Sec 1992 of US Revised Statutes 1866 defined "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as "not owing allegiance to any other." "[E]every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

In 1866, Representative John Bingham of Ohio said the following in a speech before the House of Representatives:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (NOTE plural parents)

The writers of the 14th had no intention of giving citizenship to just any alien who could illegally crash the border, who had no allegiance to the US.

Hal | June 17, 2010 6:02 PM | Reply
Perhaps we are the only country in the world granting citizenship based on location of birth rather than on the citizenship of the parents.

While it might be difficult to implement, foreign parents should be required to obtain a birth certificate from their home consulate to validate their child's birth (and, perhaps, have the home country pay for hospital expenses, as well, if the parents cannot).

I know I am tired of paying hospital expenses for illegal immigrant births.

Read more:

forward to a friend





AZ is shelling out $150 million a year to incarcerate illegals (The Feds paid ONLY 12.8 million )

Time for Arizona to file a lawsuit of its own
by Laurie Roberts, columnist - Jun. 27, 2010 09:10 PM
The Arizona Republic
President Barack Obama's emissaries are expected in Arizona on Monday to meet with Gov. Jan Brewer.

When they arrive, I hope she has some suitable gifts on hand to welcome them to the Grand Canyon State. A bola tie perhaps, and maybe one of those handy scorpion paperweights.

And definitely a bill for $750 million.

This week, it's widely expected that the United States of America is going to sue the state of Arizona. It seems we rank right up there with Osama bin Laden and British Petroleum as enemies of the state.

So I'm thinking we ought to return the favor.

For a couple of months now, we've been the nation's punching bag as politicians across the country have proclaimed us the spawn of Hitler, given this state's embrace of Senate Bill 1070. It doesn't help when state Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, pops up on TV every other day, talking about alien invasions.

Me? I don't like SB 1070. It opens the door to profiling and even if it didn't, it just seems silly for the cops to be chasing around town busting landscapers while heavily armed drug smugglers march through our deserts and into our neighborhoods. But I understand the frustration that led a majority of this state's residents to look to people like Pearce for answers, because the feds seem far, far away from Arizona - both in mileage and mind-set.

These days, even Janet Napolitano - who just two years ago was asking her predecessor in Homeland Security to leave National Guard troops at the border - is repeating the new mantra that the border is more secure than it's ever been. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Land Management is posting signs in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, about 80 miles south of Phoenix, warning visitors about drug and human traffickers passing through the area.

I remember the good old days when then-Gov. Napolitano was sending bills to the Justice Department, asking to be reimbursed for the hundreds of millions of dollars Arizonans pay to house illegal immigrants who are in our prisons because the feds aren't doing their job.

"Arizonans already pay a high price for illegal immigration," she wrote in a 2005 letter accompanying an invoice. "I'm demanding that the federal government live up to its obligations and stop pushing the burden onto the taxpayers of Arizona."

I don't think she ever got much response out of the Bush administration and Team Obama doesn't seem anymore inclined to pay its bills. In fact, Obama last year recommended eliminating funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which is intended to reimburse states for their costs associated with jailing illegal immigrants. In the end, Congress defied him and allocated $300 million to the program.

In Arizona, 6,100 of the state's 41,000 prison inmates are here illegally, according to Tasya Peterson, a spokeswoman for Brewer.

The last time the feds kicked in to help, she said, was in 2008. According to figures provided by the state, it cost Arizona $120.4 million to incarcerate illegal immigrants that year, not counting the expense of arrest and prosecution. The feds picked up about 10 percent of the tab: $12.8 million, leaving Arizona taxpayers to shoulder the rest of a burden that exists because the federal government can't - or won't - do its job.

Brewer last week informed Obama that we are now shelling out $150 million a year to incarcerate illegal immigrants.

Instead of our own government suing us this week - what, five lawsuits over SB 1070 isn't enough? - perhaps the Justice Department might like to conserve its resources and pay its bills which, in Arizona, are long, long past due.

According to Brewer's office, the feds now owe us $750 million to cover prison costs dating as far back as 2003.

Who knows? Maybe Obama's staffers will be bringing a pile of gold today when they meet with Brewer, to satisfy their debt. If not, were I governor I might be inclined to toss in one more gift for Obama's staffers to deliver to the White House . . . a summons.

Maybe it's time for us to file a lawsuit of our own.

Reach Roberts at or 602-444-8635. Read her blog at

Make your voice heard

andycJun-28 @ 5:35 AM Report abuse 449
Please stop using the false assertion that police will be busy "chasing around busting landscapers". This feeds the false perception of the law. It does NOT require or even allow police to stop or arrest people solely concerning immigrant status. It only requires police to make a "reasonable" effort to determine immigrant status if they have "reasonable suspicion" they are here illegally only AFTER they have been arrested or detained for another crime.

niggieone Jun-28 @ 9:14 AM Report abuse119
It's really difficult to see the racism assertions...but I also wonder why a very simple solution isn't implemented. Make it mandatory to ask everyone that gets stopped what their country of citizenship is. If they were to do that then it would not be selective enforcement.

Jane2042 Jun-29 @ 1:52 PM Report abuse01
That is what SB1070 will require...EVERYONE WHO IS STOPPED...WILL BE ASKED THEIR CITIZENSHIP. This is what takes the so-called prejudice and race bateing out of the arguments. For instance, all whites should be asked, look at the instance which has just occured in NYC regarding the Russian spies...they look like anyone else in this country who is white. Color of skin should have nothing to do with who gets asked and who doesn't...anyway, when they run your car license, drivers license, they will have all of the information on file. However, there has been so many FALSE I.D.'S created over the last 20 years, we do need a biometric means of telling who the person is or is not.

SouthernLadyJun-28 @ 6:22 AM Report abuse 237
A racist cop will be stupid and arrest a person because they are hispanic even without SB 1070. That's the nature of racism. If someone gets arrested in any town in the US, they are asked for identification. If an American is arrested in Mexico, they are asked for their passport or "papers." Just as they are required to present in any European country.

I agree that it's time for Arizona to file its own lawsuit. The people of Arizona have a right to be protected against invasion. The United States is fighting against drug lords in Afghanistan, but won't protect its OWN citizens against an invasion of foreign drug lords on American land. That's just plain o' CRAZY!

There is 1 reply to this comment. Expand Collapse
Ju1985 Jun-28 @ 8:15 AM Report abuse204
You're forgetting the fact that Americans are the number one consumers of narcotics, therefore you get what what you ask for. Instead of whining and complaining get out there and help out your fellow Americans get off the addiction and reach out to your community. Volunteer for once, spend time helping out troubled youth, educate your children.

TheBadGuy Jun-28 @ 8:52 AM Report abuse010
Please get off the #1 consumers of drugs line. It's just a talking point aimed at taking the focus off of 1) fighting against illegal drugs and 2) trying to stop illegal immigration. I don't use them, my friends and family don't, and we would all like something done to stop it. We are tired of politicians spinning everything to protect their spot and to protect those who are funding their campaigns. So before you keep judging people you don't know, asking them to get involved, perhaps you should wake the hell up to reality.

Your Reply to TheBadGuy's Comment:
We are dealing with a FLOOD of drugs. Like a real flood, you must FIRST divert and drain the flood and only then can you repair and remidate the propety damaged. Remember, Drug users begin with a weakened condition. And to attend their addiction while doing nothing to stem the rising tide that fuels their addiction is moronic and dishonest. It's like saying more ethics classes will rid us of corrupt politicians. We know that's not true. It's the force of good law that does the most good for the most number of people. Keep Standing Tall Arizona. The majority of our Country's Citizens support you. Continue the fight to remain a nation of laws and borders.

DHM51Jun-28 @ 6:30 AM Report abuse 227
Keep in mind that Nappy tried this when she was guv and Bush was the President. She was very unhappy when Bush said no.

But now that she is a member of Obama's inner circle it's a completely different story. For some reason the change in political party removed her belief that the Feds should pay...funny how that happens, huh?

jimk2500Jun-28 @ 7:04 AM Report abuse 316
It's like the poor doctors waiting on payment from Medicare or Medicaid. We give the feds a bill and if they decide to pay it will be on their terms in their time.

Jane2042 Jun-29 @ 1:58 PM Report abuse00
The place to solve many of our problems is listening to less B.S. from politicians, and using our commonsense in the voting booth!!!

Read more:

•Location: The Feds paid ONLY 12.8 million
•it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

PostingID: 1822782737



“Four bodies were hung early Sunday from bridges in Chihuahua city, the capital of the state that includes Ciudad Juarez. Police took them down before daybreak.”

Mexicans vote elections besieged by drug violence

By OLGA R. RODRIGUEZ AND ALEXANDRA OLSON, Associated Press Writers Olga R. Rodriguez And Alexandra Olson, Associated Press Writers – 39 mins ago
CIUDAD VICTORIA, Mexico – More than a dozen Mexican states held elections Sunday after campaigning besieged by assassinations and scandals that displayed drug cartels' power. The party that ruled Mexico for 71 years hoped to capitalize on frustrations over the bloodshed and gain momentum in its bid to regain the presidency in two years.
The elections for 12 governors, 14 state legislatures and mayors in 15 states are the biggest political challenge yet for the government of President Felipe Calderon, who is deploying troops and federal police to wrest back territory from drug traffickers.
The Institutional Revolutionary Party, which held on to power for seven decades through a system of largess and corruption that many considered a quasi-dictatorship, has recovered popularity amid frustration with Mexico's surging drug gang violence.
The party, known as the PRI, held up the assassination of its gubernatorial candidate in the northern state of Tamaulipas as evidence Calderon has failed to bring security despite the presence of tens of thousands of troops in drug trafficking hot spots.
Leaders of Calderon's conservative National Action Party, in turn, have insinuated the PRI protects drug traffickers in Tamaulipas, the birthplace of the Gulf cartel, and in the northern state of Sinaloa, the cradle of the cartel by the same name.
A new scandal enveloped outgoing Tamaulipas Gov. Eugenio Hernandez: On Sunday, federal prosecutors said they were questioning one of his bodyguards, Ismael Ortega Galicia, after the newspaper Reforma reported that the U.S. Treasury Department has listed the man as a key member of the Gulf or Zeta drug gangs. The former allies split this year and are fighting for turf in Tamaulipas.
Tamaulipas Public Safety director Jose Soberon said Mexican federal prosecutors had previously investigated Ortega and found no evidence against him. Officials at the Attorney General's Office said they had no immediate information on that claim.
Soberon also said Ortega had traveled to the U.S. several times with the governor and had never been detained, despite the U.S. Treasury Department listing.
Rodolfo Torre, the governor's hand-picked successor, was killed Monday along with four companions when gunmen ambushed his campaign caravan. The day before, he had pledged to make a security a priority, and supporters say that may have been what got him killed.
The PRI chose his brother, Egidio Torres, to run in his place. The new candidate arrived to vote in an elementary school wearing a bulletproof vest and escorted by heavily armed federal police in two trucks and a dozen bodyguards.
Turnout was thin in Tamaulipas, where dozens of poll workers quit in the last week, many because they were afraid to show up at voting stations. Low turnout was widely expected to benefit the PRI, which is more adept at mobilizing voters in the state.
Fernando Larranaga, voting in the same elementary school as Torre, said he remained loyal to the PRI and hoped the new candidate would fulfill his brother's promises of fighting poverty.
"They are trying to destabilize the government," Larranaga said. "Things are not the same. You are afraid to go out into the streets, but life must go on."
Voting lines also were short in Ciudad Juarez — across the border from El Paso, Texas — which has become one of the deadliest places in the world.
"Maybe people are scared and that's why they haven't come out to vote," said Arturo Gonzalez, a president of one nearly empty voting center in the city.
One elderly woman said she decided to vote at the last minute. "We saw on the television that everything was calm so we came quickly but we're leaving now," she said, refusing to give her name as she hurried home.
Former Ciudad Juarez Mayor Hector Murguia of the PRI was expected to win a new term despite facing allegations of drug ties ever since the director of police operations in his first administration was sentenced in 2008 to prison in Texas for facilitating marijuana smuggling. Murguia denies any links to organized crime.
Four bodies were hung early Sunday from bridges in Chihuahua city, the capital of the state that includes Ciudad Juarez. Police took them down before daybreak.
Calderon's National Action has allied with leftist parties to try to oust the PRI from some of its strongholds.
Among those is the small central state of Hidalgo, where tensions rose after state police raided a house where campaign workers were monitoring the election for National Action gubernatorial candidate Xochitl Galvez.
Police detained 12 people, including two with weapons, Hidalgo Attorney General Jose Rodriguez told Milenio television. He said police raided the house after receiving an anonymous tip from a neighbor that armed men were nearby.
Galvez called the raid as political intimidation.
The left-right alliance is also hoping to oust the PRI from its longtime bastion in Sinaloa.
The PRI gubernatorial candidate, Jesus Vizcarra, has long faced allegations of ties to the cartel led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted drug lord.
Reforma recently published a photograph of Vizcarra attending a party many years ago with El Chapo's second-in-command, Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada. Vizcarra, the mayor of state capital Culiacan and a distant relative of slain drug trafficker Ines Calderon, has dodged questions about whether Zambada is the godfather of one of his children.
Alexandra Olson reported from Mexico City. Associated Press Writers Olivia Torres in Ciudad Juarez and Emilio




“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”

He spent his entire first year in office handing out massive welfare for his bankster donors and promising them NO REAL REGULATION. His banksters are rolling in profits and destroying the economic posture of Americans all over the country!

“I’m not here to punish banks!”
When the bankster president wasn’t servicing banksters, he was LA RAZA! The Mexican fascist and racist political party of America!
There is not segment of American society more devastated by the Mexican invasion and occupation than BLACK AMERICA! Where’s Obama on jobs for blacks? HE’S OUT HISPANDERING FOR THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES!
Obama has filled his administration with LA RAZA RACIST DEMS, bent on expanding the Mexican occupation and Mex supremacy! Under LA RAZA NAPOLITANO Obama has turned Dept. of HOMELAND SECURITY into HOMELAND SECURITY = PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP” and then endlessly lied about border security! JUST AS HE LIED ABOUT OBAMACARE NOT INCLUDING ILLEGALS!!!
Obama nominated SONYA SOTOMAYER because she had a proven record as a lower judge of pandering to corporate interests, the same ones that own Obama. She’s also a racist self-declared “wise Latina bitch”. On the Supreme Court Sotomayer refers to illegals as “UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS”. Which differs from Obama referring to them as “UNREGISTERED VOTERS”.
Obama as put an OPEN BORDERS ADVOCATE HAROLD HURTT, LONG ADMIRED BY LA RAZA ILLEGALS, AS HEAD OF I.C.E. THE LA RAZA DEMS OF CA, INCLUDING FEINSTEIN, BOXER, LOFGREN, WAXMAN, AND PELOSI HAVE LONG CONDEMNED I.C.E. FOR DOING THEIR JOB! These LA RAZA DEMS hispander for the illegals’ votes by advancing Mexican supremacy above the law. This means NO enforcement against employers of illegals. NO enforcement of E-VERIFY as millions of illegals are using stolen social security numbers. There are only eight (8) states with a larger population than Los Angeles County, where 47% of those with a job are ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. Try to find some evidence employers of illegals there are being prosecuted! THEY AREN’T!
BOTH FEINSTEIN AND PELOSI HAVE LONG HIRED ILLEGALS! LA RAZA endorsed FEINSTEIN hires illegals at her S.F. hotel. Pelosi has long hired illegals at her $20 million Napa winery!
THE OBAMA JOBS PLAN? Or only more hispandering?

Where do you find any construction jobs that hire AMERICANS?

In Mexican occupied CA, you will not! ALL CONSTRUCTION jobs go only to illegals! When have you noted a construction site anywhere that had any workers that were not HISPANIC, and either could not speak the gringo’s language, or elected not to?
THE OBAMA – LA RAZA HARRY REID’S jobs plan provided tax benefits for new hires, INCLUDING ILLEGALLY HIRING ILLEGALS.
OBAMA DONOR, and BUSH WAR PROFITEER, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have twice pushed for a “SPECIAL AMNESTY” for “cheap” labor illegals farm workers on behalf of their rich corporate BIG AG BIZ donors! The FEINSTEIN- BOXER SPECIAL AMNESTY was for 1.5 million illegals despite MEXIFORNIA’S STAGGERING UNEMPLOYMENT AND MEXICAN GANG CRIME TIDAL WAVE! It is calculated that one-third of these “cheap” labor illegal farm workers end up on WELFARE. CA puts out nearly $20 BILLION A YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS.

Solar power funding will create jobs, Obama says
By Nicholas Johnston
Sunday, July 4, 2010; A04
President Obama announced the award of $1.85 billion in loan guarantees Saturday to two solar power companies that he said will create thousands of new jobs.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said the money from the Energy Department will help the U.S. transition to a "clean energy economy" that creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in the future.
"We're going to keep competing aggressively to make sure the jobs and industries of the future are taking root right here in America," Obama said.
The loan guarantees will come from money in the $862 billion economic stimulus program enacted early last year. Obama announced the funding the day after government figures showed private employers adding fewer workers than forecast in June, reinforcing concerns that the economic recovery will weaken.
"The recession from which we're emerging has left us in a hole that's about 8 million jobs deep," Obama said. "And as I've said from the day I took office, it's going to take months, even years, to dig our way out."
Abengoa Solar, a unit of the Seville, Spain-based engineering company, will receive a $1.45 billion loan guarantee to build a solar power plant in Arizona that will create 1,600 construction jobs and 85 permanent jobs, according to White House documents released in conjunction with Obama's address.
The power plant will be the first of its kind in the United States and could generate enough energy to power 70,000 homes, Obama said.
"After years of watching companies build things and create jobs overseas, it's good news that we've attracted a company to our shores to build a plant and create jobs right here in America," he said.
Abound Solar, based in Loveland, Colo., will receive a $400 million loan guarantee to expand a solar-panel manufacturing plant in Longmont, Colo., and to open a plant in Tipton, Ind. The two plants will employ about 1,500 people, according to the White House documents.
"When fully operational, these plants will produce millions of state-of-the-art solar panels each year," Obama said.
In the Republican address, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) warned that the national debt, which is more than $13 trillion, will be a burden on future generations that will have to pay higher taxes because of "out-of-control spending" by the government.
-- Bloomberg

Former HPD police chief takes job with ICE
June 23, 2010, 8:53PM
Mayra Beltran Chronicle
Former HPD Chief Harold Hurtt, 63, said Wednesday that he accepted the position as director of ICE's Office of State and Local Coordination.
Former Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt, who has been a vocal critic of a controversial program at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has taken a high-profile job at the federal agency.
At ICE, Hurtt will act as the new director in charge of outreach with local and state law enforcement and non-governmental organizations.
Hurtt, 63, said Wednesday that he accepted the position as director of ICE's Office of State and Local Coordination, which is primarily tasked with outreach efforts, not oversight of ICE's partnerships with local law enforcement. He will officially start the job, which he said pays about $180,000 a year, on July 6.
Hurtt, who served as chief in Houston until he resigned in December, criticized one of ICE's key programs involving local law enforcement during his tenure here and in his former role as head of the Major Cities Chiefs Association.
He said in his new role, he plans to focus on providing accurate information on illegal immigration to law enforcement partners to "avoid emotional responses" to the issue. He also said he hopes to create a stakeholder group to help improve ICE's outreach efforts.
Hurtt and former Mayor Bill White faced harsh criticism during their tenures over the city's role in immigration enforcement. Much of the conflict during the past year focused on HPD's participation — or lack thereof - in ICE's 287(g) program, which trains local law enforcement to assist ICE with immigration screening.
Backlash to policy
Hurtt and the former mayor announced in spring 2009 that the city would participate in 287(g), provided it was confined to the city's jails. Hurtt steadfastly opposed having Houston officers question people in the field about their immigration status.
That decision resulted in backlash from some members of the police union and anti-illegal immigrant advocates but won him praise of leaders in Houston's immigrant community.
Hurtt said Wednesday that his reluctance stemmed in part from HPD's "resource capabilities."
"I had concerns about officers in the field concentrating their efforts and resources on the enforcement of immigration," Hurtt said.
He also said he feared that having officers question suspects in the field could result in fewer members of immigrant communities coming forward to report crime.
"I think that was a legitimate concern and still is," Hurtt said.
The city eventually backed away from participating in 287(g) and instead chose another ICE partnership, called Secure Communities, which runs fingerprint-based immigration history checks on all suspects booked into the local jails and notifies ICE automatically of any "hits" in the system.
Hurtt said that in his new role, he will support local law enforcement agencies' decision to participate in any ICE program of their choosing, even if it involves questioning suspects on the street about their status.
"That's a decision that needs to be made at a local level," he said.


'Extremely hypocritical'
Curtis Collier, with the Spring-based U.S. Border Watch, said it was "extremely hypocritical" for Hurtt to take the position.
"There's no way you can head up an office if you don't believe in what the office is supposed to do," Collier said. "Immigration and Customs Enforcement's primary mission is to protect the American people. If this guy believes any of these programs should not be enforced, he's certainly going to be a very weak advocate for them."
Cesar Espinosa, a Houston immigrant advocate, said Hurtt was always "welcoming and open" to the concerns of immigrant advocates.
"We felt that as chief, he actually believed that the main focus of police should be to protect the community as a whole, regardless of immigration status," Espinosa said.
John Morton, Homeland Security assistant secretary for ICE, praised Hurtt's appointment.
"Chief Hurtt is a respected member of the law enforcement community and understands the concerns of local law enforcement leaders," Morton said.


Before heading up the 7,000-strong HPD in 2004, Hurtt served as the police chief in Phoenix, Ariz.
Here’s his Sec. Labor, HILDA SOLIS:

While in Congress, she opposed strengthening the border fence, supported expansion of illegal alien benefits (including driver's licenses and in-state tuition discounts), embraced sanctuary cities that refused to cooperate with federal homeland security officials to enforce immigration laws, and aggressively championed a mass amnesty. Solis was steeped in the pro-illegal alien worker organizing movement in Southern California and was buoyed by amnesty-supporting Big Labor groups led by the Service Employees International Union. She has now caused a Capitol Hill firestorm over her new taxpayer-funded advertising and outreach campaign to illegal aliens regarding fair wages:


Michelle Malkin
The U.S. Department of Illegal Alien Labor

President Obama's Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is supposed to represent American workers. What you need to know is that this longtime open-borders sympathizer has always had a rather radical definition of "American." At a Latino voter registration project conference in Los Angeles many years ago, Solis asserted to thunderous applause, "We are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not."
That's right. The woman in charge of enforcing our employment laws doesn't give a hoot about our immigration laws -- or about the fundamental distinction between those who followed the rules in pursuit of the American dream and those who didn't.
While in Congress, she opposed strengthening the border fence, supported expansion of illegal alien benefits (including driver's licenses and in-state tuition discounts), embraced sanctuary cities that refused to cooperate with federal homeland security officials to enforce immigration laws, and aggressively championed a mass amnesty. Solis was steeped in the pro-illegal alien worker organizing movement in Southern California and was buoyed by amnesty-supporting Big Labor groups led by the Service Employees International Union. She has now caused a Capitol Hill firestorm over her new taxpayer-funded advertising and outreach campaign to illegal aliens regarding fair wages:
"I'm here to tell you that your president, your secretary of labor and this department will not allow anyone to be denied his or her rightful pay -- especially when so many in our nation are working long, hard and often dangerous hours," Solis says in the video pitch. "We can help, and we will help. If you work in this country, you are protected by our laws. And you can count on the U.S. Department of Labor to see to it that those protections work for you."
To be sure, no one should be scammed out of "fair wages." Employers that hire and exploit illegal immigrant workers deserve full sanctions and punishment. But it's the timing, tone-deafness and underlying blanket amnesty agenda of Solis' illegal alien outreach that has so many American workers and their representatives on Capitol Hill rightly upset.

With double-digit unemployment and a growing nationwide revolt over Washington's border security failures, why has Solis chosen now to hire 250 new government field investigators to bolster her illegal alien workers' rights campaign? (Hint: Leftists unhappy with Obama's lack of progress on "comprehensive immigration reform" need appeasing. This is a quick bone to distract them.)
Unfortunately, the federal government is not alone in lavishing attention and resources on workers who shouldn't be here in the first place. As of 2008, California, Florida, Nevada, New York, Texas and Utah all expressly included illegal aliens in their state workers' compensation plans -- and more than a dozen other states implicitly cover them.
Solis' public service announcement comes on the heels of little-noticed but far more troubling comments encouraging illegal alien workers in the Gulf Coast. Earlier this month, in the aftermath of the BP oil spill, according to Spanish language publication El Diario La Prensa, Solis signaled that her department was going out of its way to shield illegal immigrant laborers involved in cleanup efforts. "My purpose is to assist the workers with respect to safety and protection," she said. "We're protecting all workers regardless of migration status because that's the federal law." She told reporters that her department was in talks with local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials who had visited coastal worksites to try to verify that workers were legal.
No word yet on whether she gave ICE her "we are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not" lecture. But it's a safe bet.
From the above blog, email articles to those concerned about Obama’s endless push for amnesty.
FAIR Slams Administration and Congressional Leadership for Rejecting Permanent Reauthorization of E-Verify

(Washington, D.C. October 8, 2009 ) House-Senate conferees finalizing the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, yesterday, undermined the long-term security of American workers by removing language that would have made the E-Verify program permanent. Instead, the conference agreement limits reauthorization to just three years.
E-Verify is the nation’s essential worksite verification tool that allows employers to voluntarily determine whether workers are legally authorized to work in the U.S. by electronically verifying their Social Security numbers. Over 140,000 employers are using the system, 1000 are joining each week, and according to the Department of Homeland Security, E-Verify has a 99.6 percent accuracy rate.
The decision to extend E-Verify for only three years is further evidence of the Obama administration's and the congressional leadership's effort to raise a smokescreen while it dismantles all effective controls against illegal immigration, charged the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
Conferees also stripped other safeguards in the Senate bill that were intended to protect American workers from losing jobs to illegal aliens. These provisions included a requirement that federal contractors use E-Verify to determine the employment eligibility of new and existing employees working on federal contracts, and language to prevent the repeal of a rule that required employers to take action upon the receipt of "no-match" letters, issued to employers whose workers' Social Security data cannot be confirmed. A third provision would have ensured all employers can use E-Verify to determine employment eligibility of existing workers in addition to new hires.
"A three-year extension of E-Verify was the bare minimum this administration and the congressional leadership could support and still make any credible claim that they are prepared to enforce U.S. immigration laws," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "All that would have been required to make E-Verify a permanent federal program is for conferees to have adopted provisions that were already part of the Senate bill. The fact that they did not speaks volumes about the priorities of this Congress and the Obama administration."
"Unfortunately, at a time when American workers most need the full commitment of their government to protect their jobs, what they got was a half-hearted gesture. E-Verify is the real meat and potatoes of worksite enforcement and dries up the jobs magnet which is the reason illegal aliens come and the reason they stay. The program offers a meaningful solution to our immigration crisis and needs a permanent reauthorization, not a temporary stay of execution. The Obama administration and congressional leaders demonstrated, once again, that their goal is to minimize the enforcement of laws against illegal immigration," concluded Stein.


The Administration's Phantom Immigration Enforcement Policy
According to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the department.
By Ira Mehlman
Published on 12/07/2009
The setting was not quite the flight deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln with a “Mission Accomplished” banner as the backdrop, but it was the next best thing. Speaking at the Center for American Progress (CAP) on Nov. 13, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared victory over illegal immigration and announced that the Obama administration is ready to move forward with a mass amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already living in the United States.
Arguing the Obama administration’s case for amnesty, Napolitano laid out what she described as the “three-legged stool” for immigration reform. As the administration views it, immigration reform must include “a commitment to serious and effective enforcement, improved legal flows for families and workers, and a firm but fair way to deal with those who are already here.”
Acknowledging that a lack of confidence in the government’s ability and commitment to effectively enforce the immigration laws it passes proved to be the Waterloo of previous efforts to gain amnesty for illegal aliens, Napolitano was quick to reassure the American public that those concerns could be put to rest.
“For starters, the security of the Southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007,” stated the secretary. Not only is the border locked up tight, she continued, but the situation is well in-hand in the interior of the country as well. “We’ve also shown that the government is serious and strategic in its approach to enforcement by making changes in how we enforce the law in the interior of the country and at worksites…Furthermore, we’ve transformed worksite enforcement to truly address the demand side of illegal immigration.”
If Rep. Joe Wilson had been in attendance to hear Secretary Napolitano’s CAP speech he might well have had a few choice comments to offer. But since he wasn’t, we will have to rely on the Department of Homeland Security’s own data to assess the veracity of Napolitano’s claims.
According to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the department. DHS claims to have “effective control” over just 894 miles of border. That’s 894 out of 8,607 miles they are charged with protecting. As for the other 7,713 miles? DHS’s stated border security goal for FY 2010 is the same 894 miles.
The administration’s strategic approach to interior and worksite enforcement is just as chimerical as its strategy at the border, unless one considers shuffling paper to be a strategy. DHS data, released November 18, show that administrative arrests of immigration law violators fell by 68 percent between 2008 and 2009. The department also carried out 60 percent fewer arrests for criminal violations of immigration laws, 58 percent fewer criminal indictments, and won 63 percent fewer convictions.
While the official unemployment rate has climbed from 7.6 percent when President Obama took office in January to 10 percent today, the administration’s worksite enforcement strategy has amounted to a bureaucratic game of musical chairs. The administration has all but ended worksite enforcement actions and replaced them with paperwork audits. When the audits determine that illegal aliens are on the payroll, employers are given the opportunity to fire them with little or no adverse consequence to the company, while no action is taken to remove the illegal workers from the country. The illegal workers simply acquire a new set of fraudulent documents and move on to the next employer seeking workers willing to accept substandard wages.
In Janet Napolitano’s alternative reality a mere 10 percent of our borders under “effective control” and sharp declines in arrests and prosecutions of immigration lawbreakers may be construed as confidence builders, but it is hard to imagine that the American public is going to see it that way. If anything, the administration’s record has left the public less confident that promises of future immigration enforcement would be worth the government paper they’re printed on.
As Americans scrutinize the administration’s plans to overhaul immigration policy, they are likely to find little in the “three-legged stool” being offered that they like or trust. The first leg – enforcement – the administration has all but sawed off. The second – increased admissions of extended family members and workers – makes little sense with some 25 million Americans either unemployed or relegated to part-time work. And the third – amnesty for millions of illegal aliens – is anathema to their sense of justice and fair play.
As Americans well know, declaring “Mission Accomplished” and actually accomplishing a mission are two completely different things. When it comes to enforcing immigration laws, the only message the public is receiving from this administration is “Mission Aborted.”
True Immigration Reformers Brief Capitol Hill Staff on Immigration Policy
On Monday, March 22, the newly-formed Reclaim American Jobs Caucus (see FAIR’s Legislative Update, March 22, 2010) invited representatives from pro-immigration enforcement organizations to brief Capitol Hill staff on immigration policy. The well-attended briefing gave various Congressional offices the opportunity to have a rational, informative dialog with organizations on immigration policy just one day after thousands of amnesty supporters staged a rally on the National Mall. (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, March 22, 2010). Participants in the Capitol Hill briefing included: Dan Stein, President of FAIR; Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS); Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University and author of Debating Immigration; Mike Cutler, a Fellow at CIS; and Roy Beck, CEO of NumbersUSA.
The briefing primarily focused on the adverse effect that mass immigration has on employment rates in the United States. Krikorian cited statistics debunking the pro-amnesty lobby’s argument that illegal aliens “do jobs Americans won’t do,” including the fact that more than 70 percent of employees in the service industry are native-born, according to the Department of Labor. Professor Swain presented a wealth of data proving that mass immigration harms the employment prospects of native-born minorities the most, and argued that E-Verify should be expanded and made mandatory. Cutler, a former agent with the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), focused on the national security implications of mass immigration, and Beck argued that lowering immigration rates would immediately get unemployed Americans back to work.
FAIR President Dan Stein noted: “Ultimately, this is about the American Dream and the ability of Americans right across the spectrum in our political society to feel that they’re working in a fair labor market where employers are required to hire those who are lawfully authorized to work. It’s about trust and respect. It’s about trusting that the government has the ability to manage immigration properly; that the laws against hiring illegal workers are going to be enforced properly; that employers in a sense have obligations to respect that law. And it’s about respecting the rule of law, and respecting our borders, respecting our sovereignty, and respecting us as a people; that we have the self-confidence…to stand firm and say that our immigration laws can and must

FAIR Legislative Update June 1, 2010

Senate Rejects Efforts to Secure the Border
The Senate rejected three border security amendments that were offered last week to H.R. 4899, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. (Roll Call Vote No. 165, May 27, 2010; Roll Call Vote No. 166, May 27, 2010; Roll Call Vote No. 167, May 27, 2010). (The Washington Post, May 27, 2010). These critical amendments would have used unspent stimulus funds to provide funding and personnel to address the increasing violence and illegal immigration on the U.S.-Mexico border. Democrats managed to defeat all three measures proposed by border state senators, as they each fell short of the 60 votes required to overcome objections made against the amendments.
The first amendment (S.Amdt.4214), sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and cosponsored by Senators Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), John Cornyn (R-Tex.), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), would have funded the deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops to support and secure the southern border of the United States. Arguing on behalf of his amendment, McCain stated, “Deploying the National Guard is essential to securing our U.S.-Mexico border. Families living in Arizona should not suffer from the daily threats caused by illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and human smuggling. It is the Federal government’s obligation to protect all Americans by securing the borders, and deploying 6,000 National Guard is a critical first step.” (McCain Press Release, May 27, 2010).
Senators Kyl and McCain also proposed an amendment (S.Amdt.4288) that would have provided $200 million for Operation Streamline, a program to prosecute illegal border crossers rather than release them. The program has been fully implemented in Del Rio, Texas, and Yuma, Arizona, and since its inception in 2005, has dramatically reduced the number of individuals illegally crossing the border in those sectors. (Kyl Press Release, May 27, 2010).
Senator Cornyn’s amendment (S.Amdt.4202), cosponsored by Senators Kyl, Hutchison, and McCain, was a multi-agency border security measure that would have provided $3 billion for the federal, state, and local law enforcement officers who work on the frontlines of the U.S.-Mexico border. The amendment would have funded six important priorities involving border security, which include border security and technology, state and local law enforcement, southwest border taskforces, border enforcement personnel, detention and removal activities, and ports of entry. Speaking on the Senate floor in support of his amendment, Senator Cornyn said, “Our children are living in fear, but the Obama White House is living in denial…I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help send a message to our border communities that the federal government accepts its responsibility to keep them safe.” (Cornyn Press Release, May 25, 2010).
Senator Kyl slammed the Senate’s rejection of efforts to secure the nation’s border: “On the heels of the President’s ‘announcement’ to send National Guard troops to the border, it’s unfortunate to once again see actions not matching up with words. What happened today in the Senate once again demonstrates the federal government’s failure, and apparent unwillingness, to do what is necessary to secure the border.” (Kyl Press Release, May 27,

FAIR Legislative Update February 9, 2010

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

Reid Jobs Bill Benefits Employers Who Hire Illegal Aliens!
Call your Senators today and tell them to stand up for the American Worker!
On Monday night, the Senate voted to move forward with debate on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) jobs bill, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act (S.AMDT.3310 to H.R.2847). The HIRE Act has two major tax provisions: (1) an exemption from payroll taxes for employers who hire new employees in 2010 and (2) a $1,000 tax credit for employers who keep those employees for at least 52 weeks. However, the bill does not require that these new workers be American workers or that employers use E-Verify to confirm that the workers hired are work authorized. (See FAIR’s Legislative Update)
To make matters worse, Senate Majority Leader Reid intends to block all amendments to the HIRE Act and to hold a vote on final passage tonight!
It’s not too late to make your voice heard! True immigration reformers in the Senate want to fix these problems, but they need our help! Here’s what you can do:
Call your Senators today and tell them:
• Jobs created by the HIRE Act should go to American workers, not illegal aliens;
• Employers should be prohibited from receiving tax benefits if they hire illegal aliens;
• Employers should be required to use E-Verify to qualify for these tax benefits; and
• You expect your Senators to demand that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fix this problem now!
To find your Senators’ phone numbers, click here and enter your five-digit zip code.
After you have called your own Senators, please call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and give him the same message! (202)-224-3452
Reid Jobs Bill Benefits Employers Who Hire Illegal Aliens!
Call your Senators today and tell them to stand up for the American Worker!
On Monday night, the Senate voted to move forward with debate on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) jobs bill, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act (S.AMDT.3310 to H.R.2847). The HIRE Act has two major tax provisions: (1) an exemption from payroll taxes for employers who hire new employees in 2010 and (2) a $1,000 tax credit for employers who keep those employees for at least 52 weeks. However, the bill does not require that these new workers be American workers or that employers use E-Verify to confirm that the workers hired are work authorized. (See FAIR’s Legislative Update)
To make matters worse, Senate Majority Leader Reid intends to block all amendments to the HIRE Act and to hold a vote on final passage tonight!
It’s not too late to make your voice heard! True immigration reformers in the Senate want to fix these problems, but they need our help! Here’s what you can do:
Call your Senators today and tell them:
• Jobs created by the HIRE Act should go to American workers, not illegal aliens;
• Employers should be prohibited from receiving tax benefits if they hire illegal aliens;
• Employers should be required to use E-Verify to qualify for these tax benefits; and
• You expect your Senators to demand that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fix this problem now!
To find your Senators’ phone numbers, click here and enter your five-digit zip code.
After you have called your own Senators, please call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and give him the same message! (202)-224-3452
Reid Jobs Bill Benefits Employers Who Hire Illegal Aliens!
Call your Senators today and tell them to stand up for the American Worker!
On Monday night, the Senate voted to move forward with debate on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) jobs bill, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act (S.AMDT.3310 to H.R.2847). The HIRE Act has two major tax provisions: (1) an exemption from payroll taxes for employers who hire new employees in 2010 and (2) a $1,000 tax credit for employers who keep those employees for at least 52 weeks. However, the bill does not require that these new workers be American workers or that employers use E-Verify to confirm that the workers hired are work authorized. (See FAIR’s Legislative Update)
To make matters worse, Senate Majority Leader Reid intends to block all amendments to the HIRE Act and to hold a vote on final passage tonight!
It’s not too late to make your voice heard! True immigration reformers in the Senate want to fix these problems, but they need our help! Here’s what you can do:
Call your Senators today and tell them:
• Jobs created by the HIRE Act should go to American workers, not illegal aliens;
• Employers should be prohibited from receiving tax benefits if they hire illegal aliens;
• Employers should be required to use E-Verify to qualify for these tax benefits; and
• You expect your Senators to demand that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fix this problem now!
To find your Senators’ phone numbers, click here and enter your five-digit zip code.
After you have called your own Senators, please call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and give him the same message! (202)-224-3452