Thursday, July 29, 2010

OBAMA TRIES TO TURN AROUND BAD POLLS ... By Giving Our Jobs To Illegals?


“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.”


Obama White House tries to turn around bad poll number

President Obama and press secretary Robert Gibbs, from last year.CAPTIONBy Pete Souza, The White HouseThe polls aren't looking good for President Obama.

ABC News says 51% would prefer to see a Republican Congress elected in November, as a check on Obama. A CBS News poll says only 13% of Americans say Obama's economic plan has helped them personally.

And so on, and so forth.

The White House sees the same data and relates them to another set of numbers, particularly the high unemployment rate. "There is, rightly so, a great frustration in this country with where we are economically," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

Its political response until the elections Nov. 2: Ask voters for more time to let the $862 billion stimulus bill create more jobs -- and argue that the Republicans got the country into this mess in the first place.

Gibbs cast the election as "the choice between what got us here and what is getting us out ... that's exactly the type of choice that we'll have come November."

Republicans can be counted on to emphasize the high unemployment rate -- 9.5% -- and rising federal debt that tops $13 trillion.

The Obama approach isn't novel, of course. Back in 1982, having launched an economic plan and facing a tough set of first-term congressional elections, President Ronald Reagan urged voters to "stay the course." Most did not, and the Democrats scored big.

We'll find out in November how well Obama does with such slogans as "moving forward or falling back."

"The political numbers change when the numbers of unemployed Americans decrease," Gibbs said. "And that's what the president is focused on each day."

AN UNSERIOUS PRESIDENCY ON VIEW - He's Only Serious About Bankster Donors and La Raza Illegals!


An Unserious Presidency On View

Posted 07/28/2010 07:00 PM ET

President Barack Obama appears on the ABC's television show "The View" in New York, Wednesday, July 28, 2010. From left are, Barbara Walters, the... View Enlarged Image
Leadership: As Americans suffer economically, President Obama golfs, vacations, campaigns, appears on a frivolous talk show — and vacations some more. Gee, don't we have a war and other problems to attend to?

Will history record that Barack Obama's only great achievement as president was getting his golf handicap down to the teens? The president played more than two dozen rounds of golf in his first year in office — as many as George W. Bush did over his entire eight years.

This week, he traveled to New York City to be swooned at on ABC's daytime gal fluff-fest "The View." It led Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell to remark, "I think there should be a little bit of dignity to the presidency... I think the president of the United States has to go on serious shows."

The city's Transit Authority warned that between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m. at least 32 bus lines in Manhattan and the Bronx "could be either severely delayed or detoured" as a result of the president's trip.

And while tying up traffic in the Big Apple, the president also headlined fundraisers at the Four Seasons Hotel and at a big donor's home. This week has him on for two other moneymaking events for the Democratic National Committee too. He will soon travel to Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas and Austin for more.

With the unemployment rate near double digits, in spite of over $800 billion in a misguided Keynesian stimulus, and two-thirds of Americans believing the country is headed in the wrong direction — that direction being global decline — the man elected on a platform of "Change" with a capital C seems to think his job is to neglect his job and have a blast.

His vacation in Bar Harbor, Maine is followed by another vacation in that elitest of lefty locales, Martha's Vineyard, where he can tee off on Mink Meadows, a "classic 1936 Wayne Stiles design" that "is a challenge to both novices and low-handicappers."

Next month, the first lady and nine-year-old Sasha will meet the king and queen of Spain on yet another vacation.

At taxpayer expense, this president flies to Broadway to take the first lady on a date.

Among the stars he's summoned to the White House to play court jester are Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, Emmylou Harris, Herbie Hancock, Elvis Costello, Jerry Seinfeld, "three of country music's biggest acts" including Charley Pride, and earlier this month a Broadway cavalcade of stars that was "the sixth in a series of evenings celebrating the music that helped to shape America."

Why so much luxury as so many suffer and there are so many monumental problems to solve? Because, according to the president, "part of what gets us through tough times is music, the arts, the ability to capture that essential kernel of ourselves, that part of us that sings even when times are hard."

Millions of Americans have little to sing about as they seek to re-enter the work force and earn a few kernels.

Our present challenges demand more than a part-time president.

His hand-picked commander in the war in Afghanistan, which candidate Obama said must be won, recently self-destructed, and has been followed by a hemorrhage of secret documents damaging the war effort. Former CIA director Michael Hayden this week said military action against Iran may soon be the only option.

Domestically, the president has let the Gulf Coast oil cleanup effort be bungled by conflicts with the affected states, and he imposed a moratorium on oil drilling that has sparked popular discord among area residents whose livelihoods depend on oil.

At a time when the entitlements of Social Security and Medicare are headed for a fiscal train wreck, he imposes a new entitlement in the form of ObamaCare. And he signs a Wall Street "reform" that strengthens rather than scraps the too-big-to-fail policy at the root of the financial crisis.

Rather than working hard to solve problems — and perhaps knuckling down to re-assess his own failed policies — this president, in whom so many placed so much faith, is saddling us with new problems.

But hey, thanks to the taxpayers, at least he's leading the good life.


Friends of ALIPAC,

Please read and respond to this entire email very carefully.

We are activating ALIPAC's emergency email backup system today to assure that this message reaches all of our supporters. (Please contact us, if you DO NOT RECEIVE 2 copies of this email.)

We are ready to fight back against Obama and we are ready to make him and all of his open border allies pay for siding with illegal aliens against Americans in the Arizona court case. ALIPAC is entering a state of emergency operations to address acute challenges.

All ALIPAC activists who are online and in Arizona are asked to help us monitor the tense situation in Phoenix, where illegal alien supporters are threatening to storm Sheriff Joe Arpaio's jail house. If you pick up information about this, please post at this tracking link. ALIPAC will quickly inform our supporters by email, of any significant civil unrest that could pose a threat in the Phoenix area.

Emergency operations tracking link....

Action Item 1
We only have about 12 days left to reach our minimal funding levels for our base budget. We must raise $14,000 in twelve short remaining days. We need each of you to make a donation of some amount immediately to get this funds drive on course so we can fight back against Obama and the other supporters of Amnesty.


Action Item 2
ALIPAC was on FOX NEWS for the first time in a long time yesterday before the court ruling came down. Please help us spread the word further by watching this video, voting thumbs up, making a supportive comment, and circulating it to others.

Anti Illegal Immigration Group Pushes 'Safe Passage' for illegals leaving America

Action Item 3
A wave of anger and anguish is sweeping America. People now realize that President Obama has just helped illegal aliens win over Americans who are trying to defend their homes, jobs, communities, and lives.

We need you to reach out to others in person, online, and on talk radio shows to channel that backlash into ALIPAC and the elections.

Obama has won a battle that will cost him dearly in the war. We are 96 days away from midterm elections and the number of politicians who will lose their jobs in November has just risen due to the actions taken by Obama and this Clinton appointed Judge Susan Bolton. We all must organize to assure the backlash is structured.

Help us channel the wave of anger into a political revolution in the 2010 elections! Let's throw out all these pro-Amnesty politicians on both the state and federal levels!


ALIPAC was fighting against Amnesty supporters on MSNBC today at 12 noon Eastern time. We were on FOX yesterday. We will upload the MSNBC coverage soon.

A Fox News article about our 'Safe Departure' recommendation was the top story on the Drudge Report for most of the day yesterday. Drudge is one of the most well read news websites in the world.

Special thanks to all of you who have helped ALIPAC spread versions of Arizona's SB 1070 to 20 other states that are now considering the proposal. ALIPAC's map showing your work was used on CBS news with Katie Couric last light. Our goal of showing the nation Arizona does not stand alone has been accomplished and the state map they displayed sourced "Americans for Legal Immigration PAC"

ALIPAC comments opposing Obama and McCain's Amnesty plans, opposing Judge Bolton's ruling against Arizona, supporting Arizona, and encouraging illegal aliens to leave America on their own have been reported widely in the last 48 hours.

ALIPAC's recent efforts can be seen in AOL News, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, The Washington Post, World Net Daily, and many other publications. We are collecting these reports on the homepage at www.ALIPAC.usfor you to review.

ALIPAC has also conducted interviews on more than 15 talk radio shows across America in the last 48 hours!

We are representing you and showing that while we win some battles and lose others we are fighting hard and being successful with our efforts to reach out to America on your behalf.

New supporters are streaming in due to our high level of media exposure.

ALIPAC's mass media message has helped in several ways. More people know illegals are and will continue to self-deport. More people know that Obama is a traitor. More people know that Americans like us are organized and fighting back. More people know that Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty is not necessary to deal with illegal immigration.

Volunteer assembled letters are arriving in many of your mailboxes to help us do what we must do to win in 96 days! ALIPAC volunteers plan to assemble to create a phone bank to help us support our candidates starting next week!

We are on the move, please respond to these emergency alerts and take action to help save America NOW!

William Gheen and The ALIPAC Team
Post Office Box 30966, Raleigh, NC 27622-0966
Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 703-0864
FEC ID: C00405878

PS: Please help us raise the funds we need to carry on this fight. We need as many donations as possible by Sunday night, Aug. 1. If you value our organization fighting against Amnesty and illegal immigration on CBS, MSNBC, FOX, AOL, etc... Please visit this secure link to donate online or by mail soon.


Dear Judicial Watch Supporter,

As you’re undoubtedly aware by now, the Obama Justice Department’s lawsuit against the State of Arizona has TEMPORARILY stopped portions of its tough new illegal immigration enforcement law, SB 1070, from taking effect.

Since Judicial Watch is representing Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of Arizona’s law, we are now gearing up for what I expect to be a legal battle of epic proportions.

Will you make a donation today to support this effort?

Our work to defend SB 1070 may well be the most important piece of litigation we have undertaken in our 16 year history?

As well as potentially being the most important piece of litigation in defense of our nation’s immigration laws period.

The way I see it, it comes down to a fight between those who want to enforce federal immigration laws and those who do not.

The Obama White House wants to kill this law because it doesn’t want to bear its constitutional responsibility to secure the border and enforce our nation’s immigration laws.

We are proud to stand with Arizona State Sen. Pearce, Governor Brewer and the citizens of Arizona in support of the rule of law.

The people of Arizona and their leaders need all the help they can get.

And as the author and driving force behind the enactment of SB 1070, Senator Pierce has every right to defend it.

And we will do everything we can to help him defend and enforce SB 1070. The ruling yesterday was a TEMPORARY injunction and the battle has just begun in the courts.

I deeply hope you can help us today in this looming and expensive battle as we continue to represent Senator Pearce!

Please help us stand with the people of Arizona today to help us defend their new law with your best tax-deductible contribution to Judicial Watch.

This is a critical and potentially defining moment in the fight against illegal immigration.

Losing this battleground in Arizona is not an option. This TEMPORARY setback in federal court is just the beginning of a long and critical struggle that is sure to wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Other, key portions of SB 1070 were upheld yesterday — like the provision that bans “sanctuary” policies in all of Arizona. You can be sure Judicial Watch will seek to enforce this provision in the courts, too!

Judicial Watch is uniquely qualified to do this job.

But we need everyone to stand shoulder to shoulder.

Arizona’s SB 1070 is under attack not only from the Obama administration, but also from radical groups like La Raza and the ACLU, as well as the thoroughly corrupt Mexican government.

Please stand with us today.

Our friends and neighbors in Arizona urgently need our help to defend the rule of law at this pivotal and challenging time (If we can turn back the tide in Arizona, all the country benefits because Arizona is a major thoroughfare for illegal alien smuggling to the rest of the nation!)

Please help now.


Tom Fitton

P.S. Currently, similar laws are being drafted or considered in nearly 20 states, and it is a safe bet that they, like Arizona, will face hostile legal challenges from radical Hispanic groups, the ACLU and the Obama administration. We want to be able to support their efforts as well.

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation’s public life.

MONTANA - 60% DISAGREE WITH OBAMA'S ASSAULT ON ARIZONA - Only Illegals Will Vote For Obama Again???

60% in Montana Disagree with Legal Challenge of Arizona Law
Wednesday, July 28, 2010

By a two-to-one margin, voters in Montana disagree with the U.S. Department of Justice’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona's new immigration law.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state finds that just 29% agree with the decision to challenge the law, but 60% disagree. These findings are similar to those found on the national level.
Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters in Montana, in fact, favor passage of an Arizona-like immigration law in their own state, slightly higher than the national average. Twenty-seven percent (27%) oppose such legislation.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters in the state also favor repeal of the new national health care bill, while 40% are opposed. These findings are comparable to voter views nationwide and include 45% who Strongly Favor repeal and 28% who Strongly Oppose it.
But then just 42% of all Montana voters now approve of the job President Obama is doing. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove. This is slightly lower than Obama’s approval ratings nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. John McCain edged Obama 49% to 47% in Montana in the 2008 election.
(Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 500 Likely Voters in Montana was conducted on July 18, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of all voters in Montana favor a welcoming immigration policy that excludes only national security threats, criminals and those who come to the United States to live off the welfare system. Twenty-five percent(25%) disagree with a policy that has those limitations, and another 16% are not sure.
Like voters in most states, those in Montana hold a pessimistic view of the economy. Only six percent (6%) rate the U.S. economy as good or excellent, while roughly half (49%) rate it as poor. Just 27% feel the economy is getting better these days, but 44% say it’s getting worse.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) say the United States is in a recession.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of Montana homeowners say their home is worth more than what they still owe on their mortgage. But 34% say they owe more than their house is worth. This, too, is comparable to findings nationally.
Thirty-one percent (31%) of the state's voters believe the $787-billion economic stimulus plan helped the economy, but 37% say it hurt.
Support for both offshore and deepwater oil drilling is slightly higher in Montana than it is nationally.
Thirty-four percent (34%) rate the president’s response to the Gulf oil leak as good or excellent, but 45% say his response has been poor. Nearly as many (43%) rate the response of the companies responsible for the oil leak, BP and Transocean, as poor, while just 15% think they've done a good or excellent job.
In November 2008, incumbent Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer was elected to his second term over Republican Roy Brown by a 66% to 33% margin. The governor still remains popular in Montana, with 63% of voters in the state approving of the job he is doing. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disapprove of his job performance.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook.Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

AZTLAN INVADERS THANK OBAMA! He's the Best Thing Illegals Could Have Voted For!

Please post this and email broadcast




“The radicals seek nothing less than secession from the United States whether to form their own sovereign state or to reunify with Mexico. Those who desire reunification with Mexico are irredentists who seek to reclaim Mexico's "lost" territories in the American Southwest.”


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

One of the standard arguments invoked by those in favor of massive immigration into the United States is that our country is founded on immigrants who have always been successfully assimilated into America's mainstream culture and society. As one commentator put it, "Assimilation evokes the misty past of Ellis Island, through which millions entered, eventually seeing their descendants become as American as George Washington."1 Nothing more vividly testifies against that romantic faith in America's ability to continuously assimilate new members than the events of October 16, 1994 in Los Angeles. On that day, 70,000 people marched beneath "a sea of Mexican flags" protesting Proposition 187, a referendum measure that would deny many state benefits to illegal immigrants and their children. Two weeks later, more protestors marched down the street, this time carrying an American flag upside down. Both protests point to a disturbing and rising phenomenon of Chicano separatism in the United States — the product of a complex of forces, among which are multiculturalism and a generous immigration policy combined with a lax border control. The Problem Chicanos refer to "people of Mexican descent in the United States" or "Mexican Americans in general." Today, there are reasons to believe that Chicanos as a group are unlike previous immigrants in that they are more likely to remain unassimilated and unintegrated, whether by choice or circumstance — resulting in the formation of a separate quasi-nation within the United States. More than that, there are Chicano political activists who intend to marry cultural separateness with territorial and political self-determination. The more moderate among them aspire to the cultural and political autonomy of "home rule". The radicals seek nothing less than secession from the United States whether to form their own sovereign state or to reunify with Mexico. Those who desire reunification with Mexico are irredentists who seek to reclaim Mexico's "lost" territories in the American Southwest.

Whatever their goals, what animates all of them is the dream of Aztlan. According to legend, Aztlan was the ancestral homeland of the Aztecs which they left in journeying southward to found Tenochtitlan, the center of their new civilization, which is today's Mexico City. Today, the "Nation of Aztlan" refers to the American southwestern states of California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, portions of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, which Chicano nationalists claim were stolen by the United States and must be reconquered (Reconquista) and reclaimed for Mexico. The myth of Aztlan was revived by Chicano political activists in the 1960s as a central symbol of Chicano nationalist ideology. In 1969, at the Chicano National Liberation Youth Conference in Denver, Rodolfo "Corky" Gonzales put forth a political document entitled El Plan de Aztlan (Spiritual Plan of Aztlan). The Plan is a clarion call to Mexican-Americans to form a separate Chicano nation: In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historial heritage, but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the nothern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers ...declare that the call of our blood is...our inevitable destiny.... Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops, and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent.... Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come .... With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan.

How Chicanos are Unlike Previous Immigrants Brent A. Nelson, writing in 1994, observed that in the 1980s America's Southwest had begun to be transformed into "a de facto nation" with its own culture, history, myth, geography, religion, education, and language. Whatever evidence there is indicates that Chicanos, as a group, are unlike previous waves of immigrants into the United States. In the first place, many Chicanos do not consider themselves immigrants at all because their people "have been here for 450 years" before the English, French, or Dutch. Before California and the Southwest were seized by the United States, they were the lands of Spain and Mexico. As late as 1780 the Spanish crown laid claim to territories from Florida to California, and on the far side of the Mississippi up to the Great Lakes and the Rockies. Mexico held title to much of Spanish possessions in the United States until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American war in 1848. As a consequence, Mexicans "never accepted the borders drawn up by the 1848 treaty."

That history has created among Chicanos a feeling of resentment for being "a conquered people," made part of the United States against their will and by the force of arms. Their resentment is amply expressed by Voz Fronteriza, a Chicano student publication,
which referred to Border Patrol officers killed in the line of duty as "pigs (migra)" trying to defend "the false frontier."
Chicanos are also distinct from other immigrant groups because of the geographic proximity of their native country. Their physical proximity to Mexico gives Chicanos "the option of life in both Americas, in two places and in two cultures, something earlier immigrants never had." Geographic proximity and ease of transportation are augmented by the media. Radio and television keep the spoken language alive and current so that Spanish, unlike the native languages of previous immigrants into the United States, "shows no sign of fading."

A result of all that is the failure by Chicanos to be fully assimilated into the larger American society and culture. As Earl Shorris, author of Latinos: A Biography of the People, observed: "Latinos have been more resistant to the melting pot than any other group. Their entry en masse into the United States will test the limits of the American experiment...." The continuous influx of Mexican immigrants into the United States serve to continuously renew Chicano culture so that their sense of separateness will probably continue "far into the future...." There are other reasons for the failure of Chicano assimilation. Historically, a powerful force for assimilation was upward social mobility: Immigrants into the United States became assimilated as they rose in educational achievement and income. But today's post-industrial American economy, with its narrower paths to upward mobility, is making it more difficult for certain groups to improve their socioeconomic circumstances. Unionized factory jobs, which once provided a step up for the second generation of past waves of immigrants, have been disappearing for decades. Instead of the diamond-shaped economy of industrial America, the modern American economy is shaped like an hourglass. There is a good number of jobs for unskilled people at the bottom, a fair number of jobs for the highly educated at the top, but comparatively few jobs for those in the middle without a college education or special skills. To illustrate, a RAND Corporation study forecasts that 85 percent of California's new jobs will require post-secondary education. For a variety of reasons, the nationwide high-school dropout rate for Hispanics (the majority of whom are Chicano) is 30 percent — three times the rate for whites and twice the rate for blacks. Paradoxically, the dropout rate for Hispanics born in the United States is even higher than for young immigrants. Among Chicanos, high-school dropout rates actually rise between the second and third generations. Their low educational achievement accounts for why Chicanos as a group are poor despite being hardworking. In 1996, for the first time, Hispanic poverty rate began to exceed that of American blacks. In 1995, household income rose for every ethnic group except Hispanics, for whom it dropped 5 percent. Latinos now make up a quarter of the nation's poor people, and are more than three times as likely to be impoverished than whites. This decline in income has taken place despite high rates of labor-force participation by Latino men, and despite an emerging Latino middle class. In California, where Latinos now approach one-third of the population, their education levels are far lower than those of other immigrants, and they earn about half of what native-born Californians earn. This means that, for the first time in the history of American immigration, hard work is not leading to economic advancement because immigrants in service jobs face unrelenting labor-market pressure from more recently arrived immigrants who are eager to work for less. The narrowing of the pathways of upward mobility has implications for the children of recent Mexican immigrants. Their ascent into the middle-class mainstream will likely be blocked and they will join children of earlier black and Puerto Rican migrants as part of an expanded multiethnic underclass. Whereas first generation immigrants compare their circumstances to the Mexico that they left — and thereby feel immeasurably better off — their children and grandchildren will compare themelves to other U.S. groups. Given their lower educational achievement and income, that comparison will only lead to feelings of relative deprivation and resentment. They are unlikely to be content as maids, gardeners, or fruit pickers. Many young Latinos in the second and third generations see themselves as locked in irremediable conflict with white society, and are quick to deride successful Chicano students as "wannabes." For them, to study hard is to "act white" and exhibit group disloyalty. That attitude is part of the Chicano culture of resistance — a culture that actively resists assimilation into mainstream America. That culture is created, reinforced, and maintained by radical Chicano intellectuals, politicians, and the many Chicano Studies programs in U.S. colleges and universities. As examples, according to its editor, Elizabeth Martinez, the purpose of Five Hundred Years of Chicano History, a book used in over 300 schools throughout the West, is to "celebrate our resistance to being colonized and absorbed by racist empire builders." The book calls the INS and the Border Patrol "the Gestapo for Mexicans."
For Rodolfo Acuna, author of Occupied America: The Chicano's Struggle Toward Liberation, probably the most widely assigned text in U.S. Chicano Studies programs, the Anglo-American invasion of Mexico was "as vicious as that of Hitler's invasion of Poland and other Central European nations...." The book also includes a map showing "the Mexican republic" in 1822 reaching up into Kansas and Oklahoma, and including within it Utah, Nevada, and everything west and south of there.


At a MEChA conference in 1996, Acuna referred to Anglos as Nazis: "Right now you are in the Nazi United States of America." The effect of books such as those is to radicalize young Chicanos. As an example, although Chicano undergraduates at Berkeley lacked any sort of strong ethnic identity before entering college, in Berkeley they became "born again" as Chicanos because of MEChA and Chicano Studies departments. The strident rhetoric of intellectuals is echoed by some Mexican-American politicians. Former California state senator Art Torres called Proposition 187 "the last gasp of white America" and spoke of "reclaiming" Southern California. The Mexican government also contributes to the Chicano sense of separateness through its recent decision that migrants will not forfeit their Mexican citizenship by becoming U.S. citizens and are allowed to vote in Mexican elections. Multiculturalism and Immigration All of this is exacerbated by the U.S. government's immigration policy and a new ethic of multiculturalism that has become almost an official dogma in the mass media and in academe. Exponents of multiculturalism maintain that all cultures are equal, and that the United States must accept its destiny as a universal nation, a world nation, in which no one culture — especially European culture — will be dominant. "The ideal of multiculturalism is a nation which has no core culture, no ethnic core, no center other than a powerful state apparatus." The social ethic of multiculturalism is actively supported by an official government policy of "corporate pluralism" which militates against America's earlier ideal of assimilation. According to Gunnar Myrdal, "corporate pluralism" refers to a society where racial and ethnic entities are accorded formal recognition and standing by the state as groups in the national polity, and where political power and economic reward are based on a distributive formula that postulates group rights and defines group membership as an important factor in the outcome for individuals. By replacing individual meritocracy with group rewards, corporate pluralism "strongly discourages assimilation in the conventional sense because if a significant portion of one's rational interests are likely to be satisfied by emphasis on one's ethnicity, then one might as well stay within ethnic boundaries and at the same time enjoy the social comforts of being among people of one's own kind." Corporate pluralism is realized through such government policies as affirmative action, court-ordered busing, and bilingual education. In the case of the latter, by the late 1970s, bilingual education has become "a Hispanic institution." A bilingual establishment has been formed which "fights for jobs and perks" and is determined to maintain Spanish as both language and culture.* Being supported by government laws, that establishment cannot easily be dislodged.

Conclusion Chicanos are not the only ethnic groups in the United States who resist assimilation and are geographically concentrated in certain areas and cities. The Cubans in Miami and Chinese in Monterey Park are other examples, but neither group is large enough to practice autonomism or separatism. Chicanos in the Southwest, however, are great in numbers and "are producing spokesmen for...autonomism, separatism, and even irredentism." Since 1977, INS has apprehended over a million illegals a year, the majority Hispanics; anywhere from 2 to 5 million eluded the INS. By the early 1980s, the number of illegal aliens in the United States, mostly Hispanic, totalled 3 to 12 million. In 1980, the Census Bureau counted 14.6 million Hispanics in the United States, increasing to 15.8 million by 1982, and 17.3 million by 1985 — making America the 5th or 4th largest Spanish-speaking country in the world.27 According to the 1990 Census, Latin America accounted for 38 percent of America's foreign-born, well over half of whom were from Mexico. The real percentage is probably higher because illegal aliens avoid the census and most illegals are from Latin America. According to a report by the Urban Institute in 1984 entitled The Fourth Wave: California's Newest Immigrants, by the year 2000, 42 percent of Southern California's residents will be Caucasian, 41 percent Hispanic, 9 percent Asian and 8 percent black. Demographers Leon F. Bouvier and Cary B. Davis in Immigration and the Future Racial Composition of the United States expect that, by 2080, Hispanics (more than half Chicano) will constitute 34.1 percent of the total U.S. population, even if immigration were restricted to 2 million entrants a year from all areas of the world and birthrates of Hispanics converge with those of non-Hispanics. In 2080, Hispanics will be either a plurality or a majority of the population in California and Texas at 41.4 percent and 53.5 percent, respectively, assuming an influx of a conservative one million immigrants a year. Former Senator Eugene McCarthy, writing in 1987, had warned of a "recolonization". McCarthy's warning was sounded five years earlier by a historian of race relations, George Fredrickson. Speaking at a colloquium on race relations in 1982, Fredrickson observed that: There are two ways that you can gain territory from another group. One is by conquest. That's essentially the way we took California from Mexico and... Texas as well. But what's going on now may end up being a kind of recolonization of the Southwest, because the other way you can regain territory is by population infiltration and demographic dominance .... The United States will be faced with the problem that Canada has been faced with... and which our system is not prepared to accomodate. Mario Barrera, a faculty member of U.C. Berkeley's Department of Ethnic Studies, admitted that multiculturalism "would help prepare the ideological climate for an eventual campaign for ethnic regional autonomy." In January 1995, El Plan de Aztlan Conference at UC Riverside resolved that "We shall the vote if possible and violence if necessary." The rise of Mexican irredentism as a serious political movement "awaits only the demographic transformation of the Southwest." As an article entitled "The Great Invasion: Mexico Recovers Its Own" in 1982's Excelsior, Mexico's leading daily newspaper, put it: The territory lost in the 19th century by...Mexico...seems to be restoring itself through a humble people who go on settling various zones that once were ours on the old maps. Land, under any concept of possession, ends up in the hands of those who deserve it.... [The result of this migration is to return the land] to the jurisdiction of Mexico without the firing of a single shot. Multiculturalism and United States government's immigration policy have contributed towards the rise of Chicano ethnic separatism within the American Southwest that has all the makings of an incipient Nation of Aztlan. NOTES * Paper presented at the Second Alliance for Stabilizing America's Population Action Conference, Breckenridge, CO, August 6, 1999. 1. Scott McConnell, "Americans No More?" National Review (December 31, 1997), p. 30. 2. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), pp. 19, 20. 3. Mario Barrera, Beyond Aztlan: Ethnic Autonomy in Comparative Perspective (NY: Praeger, 1988), p. 7. 4. "It is not clear whether most Chicano nationalists favor independence for Aztlan itself or seek its annexation by Mexico." Brent A. Nelson, America Balkanized: Immigration's Challenge to Government (Monterey, VA: American Immigration Control Foundation, 1994), pp. 31, 26. 5. Reconquista! The Takeover of America (California Coalition for Immigration Reform, 1997), p. 2. 7. 1.
A bilingual establishment has been formed which "fights for jobs and perks" and is determined to maintain Spanish as both language and culture.*




Antonio Villaraigosa, Chair of MEChA (student wing of Aztlan movement) at UCLA, former CA assemblymember, former CA Assembly speaker, currently Los Angeles City Mayor, and formerly Councilman at Southwest Voter Registration Project Conference in Los Angeles, 6/1997 "Part of today's reality has been propositions like 187 (to deny public benefits to illegal aliens, 1994), propositions like 209 (to abolish affirmative action, 1996), the welfare reform bill, which targeted legal immigrants and targeted us as a community. That's been the midnight. We know that the sunny side of midnight has been the election of a Latino speaker - was the election of Loretta Sanchez, against an arch-conservative, reactionary hate-mongering politician like Congressman Dornan! Today in California in the legislature, we're engaged in a great debate, where not only were we talking about denying education to the children of undocumented workers, but now we're talking about whether or not we should provide prenatal care to undocumented mothers. It's not enough to elect Latino leadership. If they're supporting legislation that denies the undocumented driver's licenses, they don't belong in office, friends. They don't belong here. If they can't stand up and say, 'You know what? I'm not ever going to support a policy that denies prenatal care to the children of undocumented mothers', they don't belong here."
10. Gloria Molina, one of the five in Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors at Southwest Voter Registration Project Conference, 6/1996 "This community is no longer going to stand for it. Because tonight we are organizing across this country in a single mission, in a plan. We are going to organize like we've never organized before. We are going to go into our neighborhoods. We are going to register voters. We are going to talk to all of those young people that need to become registered voters and go out to vote and we're are politicizing every single one of those new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country. And what we are saying is by November we will have one million additional Latino voters in this country, and we're gonna march, and our vote is going to be important. But I gotta tell you, there's a lot of people that are saying, 'I'm gonna go out there and vote because I want to pay them back!' And this November we are going to remember those that stood with us and we are also going to remember those that have stood against us on the issues of immigration, on the issues of education, on the issues of health care, on the issues of the minimum wage."
11. Vicky Castro, former member of Los Angeles Board of Education at Southwest Voter Registration Project Conference, 6/1996 "Que viva la raza, que viva la raza (long live our race)! I'm here to welcome all the new voters of 18 years old that we're registering now in our schools. Welcome, you're going to make a difference for Los Angeles, for San Antonio, for New York, and I thank Southwest for taking that challenge. And to the Mechistas (MEChA students) across this nation, you're going to make that difference for us, too. But when we register one more million voters I will not be the only Latina on the Board of Education of Los Angeles. And let me tell you here, no one will dismantle bilingual education in the United States of America. No one will deny an education to any child, especially Latino children. As you know, in Los Angeles we make up 70% of this school district. Of 600,000 -- 400,000 are Latinos, and our parents are not heard and they're going to be heard because in Los Angeles, San Antonio and Texas we have just classified 53,000 new citizens in one year that are going to be felt in November!"

12. Ruben Zacarias, former superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District at Southwest Voter Registration Project Conference, 6/1997 "We have 27 centers now throughout LAUSD. Every one of them has trained people, clerks to take the fingerprints. Each one has the camera, that special camera. We have the application forms. And I'll tell you what we've done with I.N.S. Now we're even doing the testing that usually people had to go to INS to take, and pretty soon, hopefully, we'll do the final interviews in our schools. Incidentally, I started this very quietly because there are those that if they knew that we were creating a whole new cadre of brand new citizens it would have tremendous political impact. We will change the political panorama not only of L.A., but L.A. County and the State. And we do that we've changed the panorama of the nation. I'm proud to stand here and tell you that in those close to three years we have processed a little over 78,000 brand new citizens. That is the largest citizenship program in the entire nation."
13. Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico announcing the Mexican constitutional amendment allowing for dual citizenship on 6/23/97 "I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican national extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders, and that Mexican migrants are an important - a very important part of it. For that reason my government proposed a constitutional amendment to allow any Mexican with the right as he desires to acquire another nationality to do so without being forced to first give up his or her Mexican nationality. Fortunately, the amendment was passed almost unanimously by our federal Congress and is now part of our constitution. I am also here today to tell you that we want you to take pride in what each and every one of your Mexican brothers and sisters are doing back home.

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


VIVA RECONQUISTA - The Ever Expanding Mex Welfare State

L.A.County's $48 Million Monthly Anchor Baby Tab
Last Updated: Wed, 08/12/2009 - 11:24am
Taxpayers in the nation’s most populous county dished out nearly $50 million in a single month to cover only the welfare costs of illegal immigrants, representing a whopping $10 million increase over the same one-month period two years ago.
In June 2009 alone Los Angeles County spent $48 million ($26 million in food stamps and $22 million in welfare) to provide just two of numerous free public services to the children of illegal aliens, which will translate into an annual tab of nearly $600 million for the cash-strapped county.
The figure doesn’t even include the exorbitant cost of educating, medically treating or incarcerating illegal aliens in the sprawling county of about 10 million residents. Los Angeles County annually spends more than $1 billion for those combined services, including $400 million for healthcare and $350 million for public safety.
The recent single-month welfare figure was obtained from the county’s Department of Social Services and made public by a county supervisor (Michael Antonovich) who assures illegal immigration continues to have a “catastrophic impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers.” The veteran lawmaker points out that 24% of the county’s total allotment of welfare and food stamp benefits goes directly to the children of illegal aliens—known as anchor babies—born in the United States.
A former fifth-grade history teacher who has served on the county’s board for nearly three decades, Antonovich has repeatedly come under fire for publicizing statistics that confirm the devastation illegal immigration has had on the region. Antonovich represents a portion of the county that is roughly twice the size of Rhode Island and has about 2 million residents.
Numerous other reports have documented the enormous cost of illegal immigration on a national level. Just last year a renowned economist, who has thoroughly researched the impact of illegal immigration, published a book breaking down the country’s $346 billion annual cost to educate, jail, medically treat and incarcerate illegal aliens throughout the U.S.


As I see it, and in my humble opinion, the recent decision by the federal court in Arizona, a decision which to many clearly put the rights and concerns of non-citizens over those of actual USA citizens, will only speed up the day of violent revolt against the central government that now seems unavoidable.

Many will now believe that extreme violence is the only solution to the existing situation. This will manifest itself as attacks against central government officials, as well as attacks against members of any security apparatus (federal, state, local, and even private).

The central government has already shown its deep concern for leaderless resistance revolution by virtue of its issuing of the report expressing anxiety over the drifting of combat veterans into what it characterized as right wing movements. The government should be very concerned about this reality. The majority of the best military talent returning from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, do not align themselves politically with the current trend towards socialism. The returning military talent is far superior in weapons and explosives capabilities, and tactics, than that of the personnel of federal, state and local security entities. Plus these returning combatants have seen firsthand how the most powerful military in the world can be thwarted by common, run of the mill insurgents who have no access to sophisticated equipment. And that’s a military in which individual soldiers are almost uniformly united against such insurgents, but would never be so against America’s own citizens.

Using the leaderless resistance model, these combat hardened veterans who now clearly see that the United States government no longer represents them, have a marked capability of making any treks outside of their bases of operations fraught with peril, to the point that security apparatus personnel will fear leaving base. If one reads the news out of Iraq everyday, one can see the powerful insurgent tactic of killing security apparatus personnel in their homes, often along with their entire families. At the moment many security apparatus agencies cannot even fill the vacant positions they presently have available. How in the heck are they going to be able to fill such positions when cells of American revolutionaries create a scenario in which security personnel fear having their limbs blown off their bodies, and the liquidation of their entire families? How will security apparatus personnel contend with false calls for assistance designed solely to lead them into precision ambushes from which there will be no return except in body bags? And have you seen the lowest common denominator of individual security apparatus officers and agents that now proliferates out there in American society? I already find it utterly amazing that there is anybody who already entrusts their security and well being to government security agencies.

Certainly if security apparatus personnel cannot combat such an insurgency, then the citizenry that completely relies upon them for their protection has not a prayer of doing so. Who will protect them from backpack bombs at soft targets like the mall and restaurants? How will businesses financially survive attacks that result in a customer base that completely disappears out of fear?

My sense is that the mood of the population that has the ability to bring violent resistance to bear against the institutions of the government they perceive as repressive, is close to that of the mood of the colonists just before they launched their revolution against the British. The above ground resistance is already manifesting itself in such activist groups as the Tea Party. The Supreme Court has now twice confirmed the premise that the Second Amendment applies to the individual, and was so written so as to be a specific check on the predicted tendency of the central government to expand beyond its license. However, I sense that under the hood the leaderless resistance of ubiquitous, violence oriented cells of American insurgents is already undergoing a preparatory boom.

I see tough times coming our way.


Pinal County Sheriff: Mexican drug cartels now control parts of Arizona
Posted: 06/11/2010
By: MaryEllen Resendez
CASA GRANDE, AZ - Two men shot earlier this week could be the result of the ongoing battle between Mexican drug cartels now spilling over deep into Arizona, officials say.
Pinal County investigators say an area known as the smuggling corridor now stretches from Mexico's border to metro Phoenix.
The area , once an area for family hiking and off road vehicles has government signs warning residents of the drug and human smugglers.
Night vision cameras have photographed military armed cartel members delivering drugs to vehicles along Highway 8.
"We are three counties deep. How is it that you see pictures like these, not American with semi and fully automatic rifles. How is that okay?" asked Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu.
Babeu said he no longer has control over parts of his county.
"We are outgunned, we are out manned and we don't have the resources here locally to fight this," he said at a Friday news conference.
Five weeks ago Deputy Louie Puroll was ambushed and shot as he tracked six drug smugglers.
Sheriff Babeu said the ambush mirrored military tactics.
Even more disturbing, Babeu said the man who called in to 911 operators for help seemed to know a lot about the sheriff deputy's case.
"He told operators they could find him where the deputy was shot and talked about our search helicopter. Things that were talked about on the news," Babeu said.
When operators asked the fatally wounded man how he knew the area, he claimed he sold cantelope near mile post 150.
Both men were found dead several hours later.
Detectives say next to them was a Bushmaster automatic rifle used by police officers for patrolling. It does not appear to be stolen.
Investigators also revealed that an autopsy showed strap marks on one of the men that likely came from hauling heavy loads, they suspect were drugs.
One of the men, deputies say, was voluntarily deported seven times.
Babeu said he doesn't believe the drug cartel problems will not be solved when SB 1070 becomes a law, or with President Obama's promise of 1,200 troops spread out among four border states.
"It will fall short. What is truly needed in 3,000 soldiers for Arizona alone," Babeu said.


high cost of illegals
Date: 2010-05-25, 10:58AM PDT
Reply to: see below

Arizona’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers even more than once thought -- a whopping $2.7 billion in 2009, according to researchers at the public interest group that helped write the state's new immigration law.

Researchers at FAIR – The Federation for American Immigration Reform -- released data exclusively to that show a steady cost climb in multiple areas, including incarceration, education and health, in the last five years.

FAIR’s cost estimates – compiled for a comprehensive national immigration report it plans to release next month – include several new cost areas, including welfare and the justice system, that weren’t in previous reports.

FAIR admits that the cost to implement the new law in some of those categories, such as incarceration, will add to the economic strain on the state. But overall, it says, the loss of immigrants either from the deterrent effect of the law, voluntary exodus or from mass deportations, will help the state financially.

Also, the savings to the state will far overwhelm any fallout from boycotts (estimated at between $7 million and $52 million) being threatened in the wake of the law's passage, according to FAIR spokesman Bob Dane.

FAIR's new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.

The organization concedes that enforcing Arizona SB1070, the new law that allows local police to ask for immigration documents and arrest those who don’t have them, will increase the state’s incarceration costs, police training budgets and prosecution expenses -- but it says those numbers can’t yet be estimated with certainty. Also, it says, some of those costs will be offset by revenues from fines levied against businesses charged with knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, as well as from immigrants themselves who might be charged with minor crimes and fined before being deported.

But the Immigration Policy Center, a major opponent of the new law, says FAIR's data do not accurately portray SB1070's potential outcome. “They count the costs and don’t look at the benefits. We tend to look at the benefits more closely,” said Council spokeswoman Wendy Sefsaf.

“It is like having a roommate and counting how much they cost in toilet paper and incidentals without looking at the benefits of having help with the rent,” she said.

“Overall, every comprehensive study has shown that immigrants are a net benefit to states. If you add their children, they are a very great benefit.”

The Center’s cost crunching found that "if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product and approximately 140,324 jobs,” -- a disaster for the Grand Canyon State.

But FAIR’s numbers tell a far different story.

(Because of the polarizing nature of the debate and the lack of solid figures on everything from the number of illegal immigrants in the state to how to accurately figure their share of the costs, there are no numbers either side agrees on or has not challenged.)

Jack Martin, the chief researcher on the report, says his data, in fact, do include benefits like the estimated $142.8 million in taxes paid by an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants, and he says the Council’s numbers are unrealistic.

“They assume every illegal alien will leave right away," Martin said. "That is not going to happen.”

He said FAIR'S new estimates far exceed the report he wrote in 2004, which helped gain support for the passage of the Arizona law. In 2004, he said, he estimated that illegal immigrants cost the state $1.3 billion -- less than half the new estimate.

He said the new numbers put a reliable cost estimate on the economic impact of illegal immigration -- not just in Arizona, because the debate there largely ended with the passage of the immigration law, but nationally, as the debate spreads across the country.

”The numbers just keep growing,” Dane said.

Both Dane and Martin said that among FAIR’s most important findings was an estimate that tax revenues to the state will actually increase if illegal immigrants leave.

“We discovered after looking at places where big raids were made that salaries went up after the raids because employers now had to pay competitive wages to Americans.” Martin said. “And that will mean more money for the state.”


Apparently no one has told FEINSTEIN, BOXER, PELOSI, WAXMAN!

Congressional study shows illegal immigrants sap tax dollars
The Business Journal of Phoenix - by Ty Young Phoenix Business Journal

A study by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday backs up the view that undocumented immigrants sap more tax dollars than they provide, especially in education, health care and law enforcement.

The study pulled together reports from the past five years, using data from sources including the Pew Hispanic Center, the Rand Corp., the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and various universities. The Congressional study also incorporated facts from states, including Arizona, but its authors acknowledged there was no aggregate estimate that could be applied to the entire country.

The report says that in 1990, 90 percent of undocumented immigrants primarily were in six states: California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas.

By 2004, undocumented immigrants had increased tenfold in other states, most notably Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee, according to statistics from the Pew Hispanic Center.

The report estimates there are 12 million undocumented immigrants nationwide. Of those, 60 percent are uninsured and 50 percent of the children are uninsured. Again using 2004 statistics from the Pew Hispanic Center the average income of undocumented immigrants was $27,400 while Americans earned $47,800. The difference puts undocumented immigrants in a lower tax bracket, thus reducing the amount of federal and state income taxes generated.

The study also showed that while undocumented workers represented just 5 percent of state and federal service costs, their tax revenue did not offset the amount spent by government. The authors of the study stated that, "the general consensus is that unauthorized immigrants impose a net cost on state and local budgets. However, no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost at a national level."

In education, which the study notes is the largest single expenditure in state and local budgets, multiple states reported 20 to 40 percent higher costs educating non-English speaking students, many of whom come from the homes of undocumented immigrant parents. Using New Mexico statistics from 2004 as a model, education spending on undocumented immigrants comprised $67 million of the state's $3 billion education budget.

The study estimates there are 53.3 million school-age children in the U.S., 2 million of whom are undocumented immigrants and another 3 million who are legal citizens, but whose parents are not.

Undocumented immigrants are more likely to access emergency rooms and urgent care facilities because most do not have health care, the study said. In Arizona and other border areas, states paid nearly $190 million in health care costs for undocumented immigrants in 2000, the study reported. The amount, which the study says likely has risen since then, represented one-quarter of all uncompensated health care costs in those states that year.

While the report found that undocumented immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than American natives, it said states still bear a large cost for the legal process. Based on a report from the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition from 2001, counties from the four states that border Mexico spent more than $108 million on law enforcement activities involving undocumented immigrants. San Diego County in California spent nearly half of that, with more than $50 million going into law enforcement activities involving undocumented immigrants.




Ariz. Saves Millions Cutting Illegal Immigrant Perks

Last Updated: Mon, 08/10/2009 - 2:48pm

A U.S. border state that stopped giving illegal immigrants discounted public college tuition a few years ago reports saving millions of dollars after terminating the program that essentially subsidized illegal behavior with public money.
Fed up with the toll that illegal aliens were having on its state, Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed a law in late 2006 to deny them heavily discounted resident college tuition and other state-funded benefits draining the budget. Approved by more than 70% of voters, the measure also requires state agencies to verify the immigration status of applicants for public services such as child care and adult education as well as financial aide for college students.
Regardless, thousands of illegal aliens continue to annually apply for the costly perks which used to cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars each year. Since the law passed more than 3,400 community college students and nearly 300 university students paid the much higher nonresident tuition because they couldn't prove they were in the country legally.
This represented a savings of nearly $8 million for one of the state’s community college districts (Maricopa County Community College District) alone. Combined with Arizona’s other junior college districts and its three public universities the savings are estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars.
Arizona’s State Treasurer says the money is being appropriately used for programs that benefit legal residents rather than to subsidize the education of those who live in the state illegally. A handful of other states—including Texas, California, Utah, Maryland and Wisconsin—offer illegal immigrants discounted tuition at public colleges.
Earlier this month, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott ruled that allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition breaks federal law though the state annually grants the coveted benefit to thousands of undocumented students. The opinion was a no brainer considering that a 1996 immigration reform law forbids states from giving illegal aliens in-state tuition unless it provides the same for all students regardless of residency.
It was that law that led a group of out-of-state students to successfully challenge the practice in California. The students argued that California’s public university and community college system violated the law by charging them higher tuition and fees than undocumented immigrants. A state appellate court ruled in favor of the American students and the case is pending before the state Supreme Court.