Monday, January 10, 2011

EXPLOSION OF MEXICAN POPULATION IN OUR BORDERS - It's How Mexico "Anchors" Its OCCUPATION & WELFARE STREAM IN OUR BORDERS!

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
*
Some Interesting Quotes from Hispanic "Leader” :
“Through love of having children, we are going to take over.” AUGUSTIN CEBADA, BROWN BERETS, THE LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY

*
"We have an aging white America.
They are not making babies.
They are dying.
The explosion is in our population and
I love it.
They are shitting in their pants with fear.
I love it."
---Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas

*
SURGE OF HEAVY BREEDING MEXICANS
More immigrants
While the census information did not include demographic breakouts, immigration groups were quick to claim that immigrants, and particularly Latinos, accounted for much of the population growth, both here and across the country.
"Today's data, coupled with recently released Census Bureau estimates, demonstrate that the Latino population has significantly influenced how congressional seats are apportioned among the states," the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said in a statement.
But the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports controlled immigration, called the population increase "enormous and unwelcome" and a further strain on the country's natural resources.
"It is increasingly clear that our immigration policies are divorced from the social, economic and environmental realities that face our nation," said its president, Dan Stein.
Latinos represent the fastest-growing demographic group in the United States as well as in Washington state. Census estimates for the 2005-2009 period released this month show the Latino population in Washington grew 41 percent since 2000.
Nationally, one-quarter of all births are to Latino mothers, compared with 19 percent in Washington state, according to state figures.
*


“Walsh stated. Walsh said his analysis indicating there are 38 million illegal aliens in the U.S. was calculated using the conservative estimate of three illegal immigrants entering the U.S. for each one apprehended.”


Illegal alien population may be as high as 38 million

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

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

http://www.capsweb.org/action/activist_tool_kit.html http://www.cap-s.org/newsroom/newsletters/nlsummer07.pdf


*

Every Citizen of the USA is paying dearly for this invasion. They should be shipped back home for their care and stay there. Our kids are learning less in school, they are being dumbed down by the invasion of non-English speaking children. Our next generation is suffering.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-mprenatal1107mar11,0,4990201.story?page=2

Prenatal cases flood local clinics for poor Robyn Shelton Sentinel Medical Writer March 11, 2007 Medical clinics that serve the poor in Florida are being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants and other uninsured women needing prenatal services, creating a looming crisis that already has forced at least one health department to close its doors to pregnant patients. Two groups that serve the poor in Orange County say they are booked to capacity for prenatal services, with women waiting up to five weeks to get an initial appointment at the busiest locations. That's the good news. Mark S. Williams worries that local women may not get care in the future because providers do not have the staff, money or ability to meet the rising need. In Orange County, the number of women seeking prenatal services from these groups has climbed 65 percent since 2002. "We are at our limit; we have to begin to look at how we can just maintain what we have or reduce the number of patients that we see for prenatal care," said Williams, chief executive officer of Community Health Centers Inc. "If the growth in the region continues -- and we have no reason to believe that it won't -- there will be patients who just aren't going to be seen." Counties throughout Central Florida are reporting an increasing demand for prenatal services, but Orange stands out for its sheer volume. Its main providers for poor women are the Orange County Health Department and Community Health Centers, a nonprofit organization that offers a variety of health services. Combined, the agencies treated more than 6,300 pregnant women in 2006, up from about 3,800 in 2002. But doctors say the number of individual women doesn't tell the whole story. Each patient needs ongoing care during her pregnancy, accounting for a combined 36,292 prenatal visits to both agencies in 2006, an 84 percent increase from 19,718 in 2002. The Orange County Health Department, which has a higher patient load, has opened two additional sites for obstetrics care in recent months and is trying to recruit more nurse practitioners. "Almost as soon as we open [a new location], we're fully booked with appointments," said Patricia Nolen, the department's program director for women's health. Yet the problem is not simply the rising numbers -- it's that more patients are uninsured. Many are illegal immigrants, who do not qualify for government coverage for the poor through Medicaid. But there's also a growing number of uninsured U.S. citizens who earn slightly too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to buy private insurance. As a result, providers are treating more women but getting paid for a smaller proportion of their clients. For example, about 80 percent of the prenatal patients at the Orange County Health Department were covered by Medicaid in the past, leaving about 20 percent who were uninsured. Today, the breakdown is closer to 50-50, said Dr. Kevin Sherin, Health Department director. Statewide, an estimated 650,000 women of childbearing age have no coverage. "There's a significant number of moms who cannot access health insurance for a variety of reasons," Sherin said. This creates crushing budget demands for centers that serve these women. Demand keeps growing Danielle Phillips, 21, is among the thousands of prenatal patients at the Orange County Health Department. She works in a clothing store and didn't have medical insurance when she became pregnant. Phillips now is covered by Medicaid and grateful for the care she receives at a clinic near her home. "I really like it there," she said. "I was surprised at how well they take care of you." It's expensive to provide the services. This fiscal year, the Orange County Health Department expects to bring in about $3 million from a variety of funding sources to cover women's-health expenditures. However, the total cost of the services is expected to run about $3.4 million, creating a $400,000 shortfall. Officials say illegal immigrants are contributing to the crisis because of their growing numbers and lack of insurance because of restrictions on the use of Medicaid for non-U.S. citizens. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates there are about 850,000 illegal immigrants in Florida and about 12 million nationwide. In Florida, these women can get short-term Medicaid coverage for prenatal care while their paperwork is processed, but they quickly drop off the rolls when they do not have valid Social Security numbers and required documentation. As a result, the bulk of their pregnancy care is uncovered. One way to gauge the growing burden in Florida is through the state's "emergency Medicaid deliveries" that cover births by non-U.S. citizens. Many of these emergency patients are undocumented, and state statistics show a fourfold increase in their numbers since 1996. That year, Medicaid paid for 4,556 emergency deliveries at a cost of more than $10 million in state and federal funds. By 2006, the number surged to 20,099 deliveries costing more than $85 million. Turning away patients Illegal immigrants are just part of the prenatal-care picture. The overall population boom in Florida has been straining the system for years, said Ann Davis, immediate past president of the Florida Association of Healthy Start Coalitions. The coalitions are private, nonprofit groups that help poor, pregnant women and their babies throughout the state. Davis said Healthy Start's budget was flat for years, and even with an increase last year, there aren't enough funds. "For years, we did not have any increases, and yet, the fastest-growing segment of our population are young women of child-bearing age," Davis said. "This is not rocket science. There's not going to be enough" money to serve everyone. Many counties are sounding the alarm about the problems they see down the road. In Okaloosa County, the crisis already forced the Health Department to stop offering prenatal care in July. The small county went from an average of 30 to 40 prenatal cases each month to more than 130 a month in recent years. Dr. Karen Chapman, the department director, said her local Healthy Start coalition was providing about $167,000 annually to help pay for prenatal services, but the actual cost was almost four times that much. After covering the shortfall for years, the department couldn't do it anymore. Chapman said poor women now must travel to clinics in other counties or see private doctors willing to put them on payment plans. In the end, she said, some women surely are falling through the cracks. "It was a very painful and difficult and traumatic decision for us," Chapman said, "but even as a government agency, we still have to make payroll and pay our bills. It's just a real tragic situation." A look at solutions In Orange County, advocates for the poor are pushing for a number of changes: The state could increase the income limits for Medicaid eligibility, as other states have done, so more poor women would qualify for coverage, said Linda Sutherland, executive director of the Orange County Healthy Start Coalition. Florida could fund prenatal care for illegal immigrants. Williams said this would be a cost-saver in the long run because women with inadequate prenatal care are more likely to have low-birthweight babies, who often require expensive hospitalizations. Taxpayers end up footing the bill for their care one way or another, he said. "The immigrant issue is a tough one that people aren't going to agree on," Williams said. "I think there are moral issues here, and there's a right thing to do, but you don't even have to feel that way to see that there are also economic issues." Private doctors could bring much-needed manpower to the system. In Brevard County, the Health Department has recruited local obstetricians to work for hourly wages in its clinics. Dr. Heidar Heshmati, department director, said the system is financially viable because the hourly compensation is slightly less than what the department can bring in through Medicaid reimbursements. Until something is done, medical providers expect to grapple regularly with the prenatal-care demands of their communities. More closings are possible. "It's clearly one of the options that [groups] have to keep in mind," said Dr. William Sappenfield, state epidemiologist with the Florida Department of Health. "They do have a limited budget, so they have to figure out how to provide services, and if they spend money in one direction," then less remains for other needs.





*

THIS FIGURE IS DATED. LAST COUNT IT WAS HOVERING AROUND $50 MILLION AND GOING UP AS FAST AS THE MEXICAN CAN GET PREGNANT!


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

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

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949085/posts

15 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE FASTEST GROWING POLITICAL PARTY IN AMERICAN .... And No, It's Not the TEA BAGGERS!

THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA "THE RACE" FOR MEXICAN SUPREMACY

FIFTEEN THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT LA RAZA “THE RACE”
by Michelle Malkin
(get Malkin’s book on OBAMA NOTED below!)
Only in America could critics of a group called "The Race" be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all opposition as "hate."
Both Barack Obama and John McCain will speak this week in San Diego at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, the Latino organization whose name is Spanish for, yes, "The Race." Can you imagine Obama and McCain paying homage to a group of white people who called themselves that? No matter. The presidential candidates and the media have legitimized "The Race" as a mainstream ethnic lobbying group and marginalized its critics as intolerant bigots. The unvarnished truth is that the group is a radical ethnic nationalist outfit that abuses your tax dollars and milks PC politics to undermine our sovereignty.
*
Here are 15 things you should know about "The Race":
*
15. "The Race" supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
*
14."The Race" demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.
*
13. "The Race" vehemently opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state and federal authorities.
*
12. "The Race" opposes a secure fence on the southern border.
*
11. "The Race" joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent the feds from entering immigration information into a key national crime database -- and to prevent local police officers from accessing the data.
*
10. "The Race" opposed the state of Oklahoma's tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.
*
9. "The Race" joined other open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Proposition 227, California's bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.
*
8. "The Race" bitterly protested common-sense voter ID provisions as an "absolute disgrace."
*
7. "The Race" has consistently opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.
*
6. Former "Race" president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton's Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: "U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks." He was referring to U.S. English, the nation's oldest, largest citizens' action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. "The Race" also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while avoiding the terms "illegal" and "amnesty."
*
5. "The Race" gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized the organization as "a radical racist group … one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West."
*
4. "The Race" is currently leading a smear campaign against staunch immigration enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves -- in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes. The New York Times reported that current "Race" president Janet Murguia believes "hate speech" should "not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights."
*
3. "The Race" sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: "We don't want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don't need a White water fountain … ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction."
*
2. "The Race" has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal "mortgage counseling" grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.
*
1. "The Race" thrives on ethnic supremacy -- and the elite sheeple's unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: "[The] organization's very nomenclature 'The National Council of La Raza' is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of 'race' in Spanish, not 'the people' -- and that's precisely why we don't hear of something like 'The National Council of the People,' which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism."
*
The fringe is the center. The center is the fringe. Viva La Raza.
*
LA RAZA – “THE (MEXICAN) RACE”….
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA
1126 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
202-785 1670
Get on La Raza’s email list to find out what this fascist party is doing to expand the Mexican occupation. NCLR.org
FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE, AND MEXICAN SUPREMACY
LA RAZA is the virulently racist political party for ILLEGALS (only Mexicans) and the corporations that benefit from illegals, and the employers of illegals. IT IS ILLEGAL TO HIRE AN ILLEGAL.
LA RAZA IS THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of AMERICA and has contempt for AMERICANS, AMERICAN LAWS, AMERICAN LANGUAGE, AMERICAN BORDERS, and the AMERICAN FLAG.
However LA RAZA does like the AMERICAN WELFARE SYSTEM. The welfare system in the country is so good that Mexico has dumped 38 million of their poor, illiterate , criminal and frequently pregnant over our border.
*
FAIRUS.org
FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM
FAIR CHARACTERIZES THE OBAMA, AND LA RAZA DEMS PLAN FOR AMNESTY AS FOLLOWS:
That's why, throughout 2009 FAIR has been tracking every move the administration and Congress has made to undermine our immigration laws, reward illegal aliens and burden taxpayers.
• Foot-dragging on proven methods of immigration law enforcement including border structures and E-Verify.
• Appointment of several illegal alien advocates to important administration posts.
• Watering down of the 287(g) program to limit local law in their own jurisdictions.
• Health care reform that mandates a “public option” for newly-arrived legal immigrants as well as illegal aliens.

OBAMA'S LA RAZA "THE RACE" INFESTED ADMINISTRATION - Part of His Hispandering Agenda

Guess LA RAZA his happy with OBAMA’S endless hispandering! THEY SHOULD BE!
There are only eight states with a larger population than LOS ANGELES COUNTY, where 47% of those with a job are ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS! This same mex gang infested county puts out $600 million in welfare to illegals!
*
“The inspections have determined that hundreds of companies throughout the U.S. have significant numbers of illegal immigrants on their payroll yet none have been punished, according to a Houston newspaper that obtained internal ICE records through the Freedom of Information Act. At least 430 audit cases listed as “closed” by the agency had high percentages of workers with “questionable” documents yet they faced no consequences.”
THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!

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

The California Budget Project, a liberal study group in Sacramento, brought the income squeeze down to the state level in its Labor Day analysis.
Using state tax data, the project said that the average adjusted gross income of all California taxpayers - whether filing individually or jointly - fell from $82,268 in 2000 to $68,434 in 2008, after adjusting for inflation. TOM ABATE SFGATE.com
*
Labor secretary: Obama doing good job on economy
Monday, September 6, 2010
(09-06) 04:36 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is defending President Barack Obama's efforts to combat the recession and unemployment, saying his focus has been on helping the jobless and underemployed.
In a Labor Day appearance on ABC News'"Good Morning America," Solis said Obama is doing a good job.
Solis says the Obama administration knows people are hurting from the weak economy. She pointed to last year's $814 billion economic recovery act and administration proposals for job training and hiring incentives for businesses.
On CBS'"Early Show," she said that over the last eight months, the U.S. economy has added some 90,000 private sector jobs each month.
Critics have cited persistent unemployment rates of nearly 10 percent and only faint signs that businesses are rehiring workers.
*
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, a former California congresswoman with close ties to the influential La Raza movement, announced the “We Can Help” project with great fanfare a few days ago.”
FROM JUDICIAL WATCH. org – get on their emails!
Labor Dept. Helps Illegal Alien Workers
Last Updated: Tue, 04/06/2010 - 11:04am
The Department of Labor has launched a special program to assist and protect illegal immigrant workers in the U.S., referred to as “vulnerable” and “underpaid” by the presidential cabinet member who heads the agency.
Hundreds of new field investigators have been deployed to reach out to Latino laborers in areas with large numbers of illegal alien employees. Their message, in Spanish, is “we can help” bring workplace protections to the nation’s most vulnerable and underpaid workers, including those who have no legal right to live in the Untied States.

(THE OBAMA PLAN TO PUT ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS AND VOTING BOOTHS!)

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, a former California congresswoman with close ties to the influential La Raza movement, announced the “We Can Help” project with great fanfare a few days ago. A total of 1,000 investigators from her agency will focus on enforcing labor and wage laws in industries that typically hire lots of illegal aliens without reporting anyone to federal immigration authorities.
(WHO WORKS FOR THE RIGHTFUL JOBS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS? WHO ENFORCES THE LAWS THAT PROHIBIT THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS, EVEN IF THEY HAVE A STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER? NOT THE LA RAZA DEMS, OR HISPANDERING BARACK OBAMA!)
Solis told Latino workers 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.” She assured illegal immigrants that “if you work in this country, you are protected by our laws.”
The same day Solis publicly announced the Obama Administration’s new project, a Labor Department investigator visited a day laborer center in northern California to promote it. The federal employee actually chatted warmly with the illegal immigrants about how to find jobs without being exploited, according to a local newspaper report. “We’re the feds but the good ones,” he told the day laborers in Spanish. “We’re here to help workers.”
The agency has also launched a Spanish television advertising campaign to spread the word and created a web site. Workers in industries from construction to food service are urged to contact the Labor Department of wage and hour violations. An investigator may be deployed to the work site or the employer may be taken to court.
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
OBAMA HAS FILLED HIS ADMINSTRATION WITH PRIMARILY LA RAZA PARTY MEMBERS.
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.
*

UNFETTERED IMMIGRATION = POVERTY FOR AMERICANS - By Robert Rector HERITAGE.org

DO THE MATH ON THIS ADDING ALL THE MILLIONS THAT HAVE WALKED OVER OUR BORDER SINCE 2006! WE ARE NOW LIVING IN THE AMERICAN POVERTY YEARS AS WE DAILY EXPAND MEXICO'S WELFARE SYSTEM IN OUR BORDERS.

ONE IN SEVEN AMERICANS NOW ON FOOD STAMPS!

JOBS? NO LEGAL NEED APPLY!

IT'S HERE, IT'S NOW... AND NOTHING ON THE HORIZON SUGGEST IT WILL BE ADDRESSED. CERTAINLY NOT BY THE HISPANDERING PRESIDENT, BARACK OBAMA!


Unfettered Immigration = Poverty
By Robert Rector

Heritage.org | May 16, 2006

This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper.
Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty.
An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.
Current Trends in Immigration
Over the last 40 years, immigration into the United States has surged. Our nation is now experiencing a second “great migration” similar to the great waves of immigrants that transformed America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 2004, an estimated 35.7 million foreign-born persons lived in the U.S. While in 1970 one person in twenty was foreign born, by 2004 the number had risen to one in eight.
About one-third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are illegal aliens. There are between 10 and 12 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S.[1] Illegal aliens now comprise 3 to 4 percent of the total U.S. population. Each year approximately 1.3 million new immigrants enter the U.S.[2] Some 700,000 of these entrants are illegal.[3]
One third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are Mexican. Overall, the number of Mexicans in the U.S. has increased from 760,000 in 1970 to 10.6 million in 2004. Nine percent of all Mexicans now reside in the U.S.[4] Over half of all Mexicans in the U.S. are illegal immigrants,[5] and in the last decade 80 to 85 percent of the inflow of Mexicans into the U.S. has been illegal.[6]
The public generally perceives illegals to be unattached single men. This is, in fact, not the case. Some 44 percent of adult illegals are women. While illegal men work slightly more than native-born men; illegal women work less. Among female illegals, some 56 percent work, compared to 73 percent among native-born women of comparable age.[7] As well, Mexican women emigrating to the U.S. have a considerably higher fertility rate than women remaining in Mexico.[8]
Immigrants and EducationOn average, immigrants have low education levels relative to native-born U.S. citizens. One-quarter of legal adult immigrants lack a high school degree, compared to 9 percent among the native-born population. However, there is a well educated sub-group within the legal immigrant population. Some 32 percent of legal immigrant adults have a college degree, compared to 30 percent of native-born adults.[9]
The education levels of illegal aliens are lower than those of legal immigrants. Half of all adult illegal immigrants lack a high school degree.[10] Among Latin American and Mexican immigrants, 60 percent lack a high school degree and only 7 percent have a college degree. By contrast, among native-born workers in the U.S., only 6 percent have failed to complete high school degrees and nearly a third have a college degree.[11]
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)
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 OffspringOne 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]
Amnesty and the Hagel/Martinez Bill
Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) have proposed a compromise immigration plan to offer amnesty and citizenship to current illegal aliens (S.2611). This plan would offer amnesty and citizenship to between 60 and 85 percent of the nation’s current 11.9 million illegal immigrants.
Under the plan, illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. five years or more (60 percent of the total) would be granted immediate amnesty. Illegal immigrants who have been in the country between two and five years (25 percent of the total) would travel to one of 16 “ports of entry” where they would receive work permits that would bestow permanent residence and allow the bearers to become citizens. Overall, the plan is likely to grant citizenship to 85 percent of the current illegal alien population, or some 9 to 10 million individuals.
As noted, illegal aliens in the U.S. have very low education levels: at least half lack a high school education and a third have less than a ninth grade education. Illegal immigrants earn low wages similar to the wages of other low-skill workers in the economy. This means they are prone to poverty and welfare dependence.
Illegal immigrants are currently ineligible for most federal welfare benefits. Granting citizenship would provide eligibility to welfare programs such as the Earned Income Credit, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. This would greatly increase welfare costs. The added government costs can be estimated by assessing government benefits and tax payments among current illegal immigrants compared to government benefits and tax payments among legal immigrants of similar national and educational backgrounds. This comparison shows that granting citizenship to 85 percent of current illegal immigrants would increase net federal fiscal costs by some $16 billion per year. Granting citizenship to 60 percent of current illegal immigrants would increase welfare costs by some $11.4 billion per year.[62]
These costs would not occur immediately. The Hagel/Martinez plan imposes a prospective six-year waiting period prior to granting legal permanent residence to illegal immigrants. Individuals would wait another five years after receiving permanent residence before becoming citizens. Thus, much of the cost of the plan might be delayed; however, once millions of individuals are put on the path to citizenship there would be enormous (and probably irresistible) political pressure to grant them the same benefits that are available to the general population quickly, rather than enforce a long delay.
In addition, the cost estimates presented above are based on a static analysis that assumes that amnesty will not alter behavior. In reality, illegal immigrants are likely to have significantly more children once they are permanently settled in the U.S. These children will increase welfare costs and child poverty further.
Family Chain Migration
The impact and cost of the Hagel/Martinez amendment would extend well beyond the ten million or so individuals initially granted amnesty. When an individual is granted citizenship, he is given the unrestricted right to bring his spouse, minor children, and parents into the country. Each of these individuals would have the right to become a citizen after he or she has lived in the country five years. Thus, each individual granted amnesty under the Hagel/Martinez bill could bring five or more additional immigrants, all of whom could become citizens.
As noted, many of the individuals who would be granted amnesty under the amendment have families abroad. Illegal immigrants granted permanent residence would have the immediate right to bring spouses and minor children into the country. Once here, the spouses and children would receive government services and have the right to become citizens. The total number of foreign-born persons who would ultimately be granted citizenship under Hagel/Martinez could be far more than 10 million, and if so, government costs would swell far above the $16 billion figure given above.
But the fiscal problem gets worse; when an illegal immigrant has obtained citizenship through the amnesty process, he or she would have the right to bring his or her parents in the U.S. as permanent lawful residents. (Currently one-tenth of the annual flow of legal immigrants to the U.S. are parents of recent immigrants who have naturalized.) If ten million current illegal immigrants were granted amnesty and citizenship under Hagel/Martinez, as many as twenty million foreign born parents would be given the right to immigrate to the U.S. Once in the U.S., the immigrant parents would receive social services and government funded medical care, much of it paid for through the Medicaid disproportionate share program.
These immigrant parents coming to the U.S. would also be eligible to apply for citizenship themselves. On attaining citizenship, most would become eligible for benefits from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid programs, at an average cost of over $18,000 per person per year. While it is true that the language requirements of the citizenship test would serve as a barrier to immigrant parents becoming citizens, the tests are not very difficult and the financial rewards of citizenship would be very great. If only ten percent of the parents of those receiving amnesty under Hagel/Martinez became citizens and enrolled in SSI and Medicaid, the extra costs to government would be over $30 billion per year.
Obviously, these costs would not begin for some time, but the long-term potential of amnesty to raise government spending is quite real.
While no one can predict how many spouses, children, and parents of the beneficiaries of amnesty would enter the country, the pool of those who could enter is enormous, and the potential long-term government costs would be staggering.
Granting Amnesty is Likely to Further Increase Illegal Immigration
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens. The primary purpose of the act was to decrease the number of illegal immigrants by limiting their inflow and by legalizing the status of illegal immigrants already here.[63] In fact, the act did nothing to stem the tide of illegal entry. The number of illegal aliens entering the country increased five fold from around 140,000 per year in the 1980s to 700,000 per year today.
Illegal entries increased dramatically shortly after IRCA went into effect. It seems plausible that the prospect of future amnesty and citizenship served as a magnet to draw even more illegal immigrants into the country. After all, if the nation granted amnesty once why wouldn’t it do so again?
The Hagel/Martinez legislation would repeat IRCA on a much larger scale. This time, nine to ten million illegal immigrants would be granted amnesty. As with IRCA, the bill promises to reduce future illegal entry but contains little policy that would actually accomplish this. The granting of amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants is likely to serve as a magnet pulling even greater numbers of aliens into the country in the future.
If enacted, the legislation would spur further increases in the future flow of low-skill migrants. This in turn would increase poverty in America, enlarge the welfare state, and increase social and political tensions.
Permanent “Guest Worker” Program
Finally, the Hagel/Martinez bill would issue 325,000 new visas per year to “guest workers.” The number of visas available could increase by 20 percent annually, reaching two million per year within ten years. By 2017, the guest worker program would have admitted some eight million new workers. Illegal aliens who have been in the country for less than two years would be eligible to become guest workers and would probably be the primary recipients of these supposedly temporary (H2C) visas. Recipients of these visas could bring spouses and children into the country immediately, increasing the number of entrants over ten years well above eight million. Because nearly all of the guest workers and their families would within a few years become eligible for government welfare and other services, the fiscal costs from the program could rival those stemming from the direct amnesty provisions of the bill.
On the surface, individuals in the guest worker program would be limited to a six-year stay in the U.S. But they would have the option to convert to legal permanent residence (LPR) after four years. This would make them permanent residents with the right to naturalize. In addition, all children born to guest workers would automatically become U.S. citizens. This would make it very unlikely that the parent would ever be forced to leave the country.
As structured, the Hagel/Martinez guest worker program could, within a decade, double the inflow of legal permanent immigrants into the U.S. Many or most of these immigrants would be low-skill and would thus impose fiscal costs on U.S. taxpayers. It is true that while many employers would benefit from additional low-skill laborers; however, if such laborers are granted citizenship and permanent residence, their employment is likely to generate negative externalities that impose costs on the rest of society. A guest worker program that, in fact, provides permanent residence and citizenship would not be beneficial to the nation’s finances.
Policy Implications
Immigration to the U.S. is a privilege, not a right. Immigrants should be net contributors to the government and society and should not be a fiscal burden on the native-born. While highly educated immigrants, on average, make positive fiscal contributions, the overall fiscal impact of low-skill immigrants is negative.
Over the last 20 years, around 10 million individuals without a high school degree have entered the United States. Many of these also have a high probability of out-of-wedlock childbearing, a key predictor of poverty and welfare dependence. Unless U.S. immigration policy is changed, these trends are likely to continue. Granting amnesty to current illegal immigrants exacerbates the problem.
Sound immigration policy should be based on two principles. The first is respect for the rule of law. American citizens should determine who is allowed to enter the country, to become a citizen, and to vote in our elections. Lax border enforcement and the non-enforcement of laws against employing illegal immigrants have encouraged over 10 million individuals to enter the country unlawfully. Past and pending amnesties reward this behavior. Under the current system, decisions about who will live in the U.S. and who will become a citizen tend to be made unilaterally by foreigners. Hagel/Martinez would further undermine the rule of law and put the U.S. on the path of uncontrolled immigration punctuated by recurring amnesties.
Second, recognizing the fact that low-skill immigrants are likely to be a fiscal burden on society, government should increase the average skill and education levels of incoming immigrants. Currently, the average skill level of immigrants is significantly reduced by two factors: largely uncontrolled border crossings and the high priority on kinship ties in the issuance of permanent residence visas. Only 7.6 percent of individuals granted visas for permanent entry into the U.S. are selected on the basis of their educational attainment and skills.[64] To the increase the skill levels of future immigrants, the U.S. should stop the inflow of illegal immigrants, reduce the number of family reunification visas, and increase the number of employment- and skill-based visas.
Five specific policies follow from these principles:
1. The influx of illegal immigrants should be stopped by rigorous border security programs and strong programs to prevent employers from employing illegals.
2. Amnesty and citizenship should not be given to current illegal immigrants. Amnesty has negative fiscal consequences and is manifestly unfair to those who have waited for years to enter the country lawfully. Amnesty would also serve as a magnet, drawing even more future illegal immigration.
3. Any guest worker program should grant temporary, not permanent, residence and should not be a pathway to citizenship. A guest worker program should not disproportionately swell the ranks of low-skill workers.
4. Children born to parents who are illegal immigrants or to future guest workers should not be given citizenship status. Granting citizenship automatically confers welfare eligibility and makes it unlikely the parent will ever leave the U.S.[65]
5. The legal immigration system grants lawful permanent residence to some 950,000 persons each year. This system should be altered to substantially increase the proportion of new entrants with high levels of education and skills in demand by U.S. firms. Under current law, foreign-born parents and siblings of naturalized citizens are given 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.

The Pillage of American INSIDE JOB - LIKE FROM INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE?

The economic crisis was an 'inside job'
By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, October 13, 2010; A19
If you haven't been humming tunes from "Les Misérables," you haven't seen "Inside Job," the new documentary about how our economic crisis evolved.
The most forgiving American will want to seize a pitchfork and march on Wall Street. Or Harvard Square. Or in front of the White House. There are so many despicable parties, it's hard to pick a favorite. Is it time to reconsider the Axis of Evil?
The film, written and directed by Charles Ferguson (and narrated by Matt Damon), will be opening in select cities this week. Although much of the story is familiar, Ferguson manages to weave together decades of bits and pieces into a dramatic narrative that plays like a whodunit. Names have faces, and storytelling combined with graphic illustrations helps explain the complex series of events that led to the global meltdown. Here are a few takeaways:
One, trying to assign blame to either Democrats or Republicans is pointless. Everyone is culpable. From the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan deregulated banks, through the two Bushes, Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama, each administration has endorsed -- and each Congress has helped tweak -- laws and rules that made systemic abuses and the meltdown not only possible but, looking back, inevitable.
Two, many investment bankers knew the mortgage loans they were packaging and selling were junk. They knew because their own analysts told them so. Tens of thousands of loans failed to meet basic underwriting standards, according to recent testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a bipartisan group created to examine the causes of the meltdown. Not only that, Wall Street insiders were betting against their own customers and institutions.
Throughout the system, from the lending institutions to federal regulators to congressional overseers, those charged with protecting consumers averted their eyes.
Three, the cozy relationship between Wall Street and Ivy League academia, wherein economists push policies that benefit them financially, is eye-opening. In some cases, business professors and economists at America's top schools were shown to have conflicts of interest as they advanced policies for which they had been paid directly or that otherwise benefited them.
In other instances, we see that the same people who created policies that ultimately led to these abuses are still -- or were until recently -- running the show. Notably missing from the film, declining to be interviewed, are Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin.
This is not to say that what benefits Wall Street necessarily hurts average Americans or that all bankers are corrupt, but the system clearly enabled the abuses that have led to current circumstances. The attitude seemed to be that everyone was doing it.
When the big banks failed, of course, taxpayers were left holding the bag. Even though there was wide consensus that the bailouts were necessary to get credit moving again, there is simply no justification for the bonuses and golden parachutes that went to the very people who drove their institutions -- and us -- off a cliff. Reward for failure was the best gig in town.
Although most of what the movie highlights is familiar, there's something jarring about seeing the culprits up close in all their taxpayer-subsidized, suntanned splendor -- their multiple estates and private jets juxtaposed against shuttered homes and unemployed Americans living in tents. Obscene is the word that comes to mind.
I'm not one to advance class warfare, and most Americans still want to preserve a market system that leaves open the possibility that they, too, can work hard and achieve wealth. But it's clear from "Inside Job" that the game has been rigged so that only a few were in positions to get rich at the expense of the middle class, not just here but globally.
The movie isn't perfect. One wonders what was left on the editing floor. Some of those interviewed, who dodged questions or gave unacceptable answers, also looked stupid. None of these guys is stupid.
And, at the end, Ferguson couldn't resist making an editorial comment as the camera panned the Statue of Liberty. "Some things are worth fighting for."
We get it. The film is so well done and presented so factually that no Hollywood prodding was needed. Anyone who sees this movie will be furious. Thus, the only remaining question is why some of these people aren't being prosecuted for fraud or at least shirking fiduciary duty.
It would seem as never before that the White House should hire a special prosecutor. Ferguson's movie, which the president and his economic team had best watch -- and soon -- could use a sequel: "The Perp Walk."

OBAMAnation: Foreclosures Up! Unemployment Up! Bankters' Profits Up! TWO MORE YEARS TO GO!

Oct 12, 2010
Wall St to give record payout

The payout, covering bonuses, premiums and stock options for the firm's executives and employees, is a four-per cent raise over the previous record $139 billion that was handed over in 2009. -- PHOTO: REUTERS
WASHINGTON - FINANCIAL institutions on Wall Street are preparing to pay a record US$144 billion (S$189 billion) in compensation and benefits, according to a study published on Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal.
The payout, covering bonuses, premiums and stock options for the firm's executives and employees, is a four-per cent raise over the previous record $139 billion that was handed over in 2009, said the financial daily.
The study, which covers 35 Wall Street firms - including banks, investment banks, hedge funds and money managing groups - found that 29 of the institutions were also expected to see revenue rise by three per cent, from $433 billion to $448 billion.
The 2010 profit for the firms of some $61 billion is still a 20 per cent decline on the $82 billion in 2006 - despite in that time compensation at the institutions soared 23 per cent, according to the Journal.
Wall Street banks and funds have already come under withering criticism for their actions during the 2008 financial crisis and faced the fury of the US public for paying out huge bonuses even though some were propped up by taxpayer funds to keep afloat.
In June US authorities announced guidelines aimed at countering pay and bonus practices blamed for the excessive risk taking that fueled the global financial crisis. -- AFP
*
*
*

*
“Wells Fargo, for instance, which has leeched $25 billion in bailout money, bought an inadvertently hilarious full-page ad in The Times to whine about the junkets to Las Vegas and elsewhere it was forced to cancel because of public outrage.” --- Maureen Dowd, NYTimes

*
US banks and corporations announce huge pay packages for 2009
Wells Fargo executives double their compensation
By Andre Damon
11 March 2010
US corporations are beginning to release figures on CEO pay for last year. Multi-million dollar packages are the norm in a year that saw the continued deterioration in the living conditions of the vast majority of the population.
Each of the top five executives at Wells Fargo at least doubled their compensation last year over 2008. The five men each received over $11 million in 2009, while Wells Fargo’s chief executive, John Stumpf, took home $21.3 million, far higher than his 2008 package of $8.8 million.
Mark Oman, the head of consumer business for Wells Fargo, nearly quadrupled his previous pay package to $13.5 million. Howard Atkins, the chief financial officer, received $11.6 million. The other Wells Fargo executives who received huge payouts were David Carroll, the head of the brokerage unit ($14.3 million), and David Hoyt, the head of wholesale banking ($13.5 million).
These latest reports come in the wake of Barack Obama’s statement last month that he does not “begrudge” the bonuses of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. Blankfein got a $9 million bonus lat year, while Dimon received $16 million. (Their total packages have not yet been released).
“I’M NOT HERE TO PUNISH MY BANKSTER DONORS THAT DESTROYED THE LIFE SAVINGS OF MOST OF THIS NATION. I’M HERE TO SERVICE THEM FOR ANY AND ALL THEY WANT!” Barack Obama, the Bankster President (La Raza Party).
Obama defended the bonuses on the grounds that Blankfein and Dimon are “savvy businessmen.” This statement gave what amounted to official carte blanche for the multi-million-dollar bonuses paid to hundreds of other “savvy businessmen,” even as the government oversees a massive attack on the living conditions of the vast majority of the population.

OBAMA'S PHANTOM IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT - But Is His Assault On Legals In Arizona Phantom?

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

Townhall.com

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.”
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, September 28, 2009

And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is headed.
*

SHOULD ILLEGALS BE DEPORTED? Obama Says Not Until They've Voted, and Voted Often!

U.S. Spares “Noncriminal” Illegal Immigrants
Wed, 10/06/2010 - 11:18am
As federal immigration officials celebrate an increase in the removal of illegal aliens with criminal records, the reality is that there has been a drastic decline in deportations of undocumented aliens deemed “noncriminal” by the government.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) revealed in a news story this week that more illegal immigrants with criminal convictions have been deported in recent years. This is driving up the number of people being removed from the United States, according to the article which was published in a northern California paper.
The story has a colorful graph that helps illustrate how convicted criminals have made up an increasing percentage of U.S. deportations in the past few years. Of the 350,000 removed this year, the story says, more than half were convicted for crimes. That marks a 55% increase since 2008, according to ICE data provided for the article.
While this may sound wonderful, the agency admits it’s essentially ignoring illegal immigrants who don’t have serious criminal histories, leading to a 30% drop in the number of so-called “noncriminal deportations.” Those figures include what ICE refers to as “voluntary departures,” illegal aliens who are actually given an option to return to their home country willingly.
The statistics demonstrate a shift in the agency’s priorities to focus on extracting the most dangerous criminals, according to the feds’ public relations campaign. “But if we are looking at a guy who’s just here with his family trying to better his life vs. a repeat offender, our priority is the criminal,” said a northern California ICE field director.
Americans will never know the magnitude of the agency’s selective deportation program because it’s illegally withholding data about its overall enforcement performance, despite President Obama’s promise to create an unprecedented level of openness in government.
Earlier this week an independent research center that monitors the federal government revealed that ICE has committed serious legal and procedural violations for failing to disclose performance data on how the agency is enforcing immigration laws. In doing so, ICE is violating long standing provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as well as its own administrative rules and policies set by the Department of Justice.
*
REALITY CHECK: HOMELAND SECURITY is now HOMELAND SECURITY = PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP… Obama has no intentions of keeping illegals out. For him and the La Raza dems, Boxer, Feinstein, Clinton, Pelosi and Reid… they’re only “UNREGISTERED VOTERS”!
*
The numbers come in the middle of a heated national debate on immigration. Republicans and Democrats alike have called on the administration to pursue more vigorous enforcement, both on the border and in the interior, but Ms. Napolitano said federal officials have to use their limited resources to try to take the biggest public safety threats off the streets, which means focusing on aliens with serious criminal records.

More criminal aliens deported last year


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/6/more-criminal-aliens-deported-last-year/

President Obama's new immigration enforcement strategy led to a record number of criminal aliens being deported last year, but removals of other illegal immigrants fell to the lowest rate since 2007, before the Bush administration began a crackdown.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 392,862 aliens in fiscal year 2010, slightly less than a 1 percent increase over 2009 but short of the agency's goal to remove 400,000 this year.

Still, the administration said its new focus on immigrants with criminal records is paying off, with about half of those deported in 2010 being convicted criminals. In 2009, when 389,834 immigrants were deported, only about one-third of them had criminal records.

"This administration takes very, very seriously the responsibility to secure the borders and enforce immigration laws," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in announcing the numbers Wednesday. The fiscal year ended Sept. 30.

The numbers come in the middle of a heated national debate on immigration. Republicans and Democrats alike have called on the administration to pursue more vigorous enforcement, both on the border and in the interior, but Ms. Napolitano said federal officials have to use their limited resources to try to take the biggest public safety threats off the streets, which means focusing on aliens with serious criminal records.

She and Mr. Obama have tried to cut a middle ground between those who favor a crackdown and the immigrant rights groups who want to see fewer deportations.

But by following that new course, ICE has fallen down on other basic enforcement, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

He said administrative arrests of illegal immigrant workers are down 77 percent under Mr. Obama, criminal arrests are down 60 percent and convictions are down 68 percent.

"Worksite enforcement has been all but forgotten by the Obama administration," the Texas Republican said. "Millions of Americans are struggling to find work, while an estimated 7 million illegal immigrants are working in the U.S. Worksite enforcement could help make those much-needed jobs available for U.S. citizen and legal immigrant workers."

Meanwhile, immigrant rights groups said the government is still not doing enough to limit deportations.
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
FAIRUS.org
JUDICIALWATCH.org
ALIPAC.us

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION & THE FEDERAL BUDGET - Just Transfer the Staggering Cost of All That "CHEAP" Mex Labor to States!

ARE CALIFORNIANS OVERTAXED? WELL WHO DID YOU THINK HAS TO PAY FOR THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION FOR ALL THAT “CHEAP” LABOR? YOU STUPID GRINGO!

$20 BILLION A YEAR PAID BY CA IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS!

$50 MILLION PER MONTH PAID TO ILLEGALS ON WELFARE IN LOS ANGELES!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
$30 BILLION GOES BACK TO NARCO DRUGS IN MEXICO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

47% OF THOSE EMPLOYED IN MEXICAN OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES ARE ILLEGALS!

THE TAX-FREE MEXICAN UNDERGROUND ECONOMY IN LOS ANGELES CALCULATED TO BE $2 BILLION PER YEAR!

2000 CALIFORNIANS MURDERED BY MEXICANS THAT FLED BACK OVER THE BORDER!

LARGEST PRISON SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY, HALF OF ALL INMATES ARE ILLEGALS!

MEXICAN GANGS HAVE NOW SPREAD ALL OVER THE STATE!

GO TO THE LOS ANGLES TIMES AND DO A SEARCH FOR “MEXICO UNDER SIEGE” and “MEXICAN GANGS”. Then do a search in your own local paper. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE MEXICAN DUMPSTER!

*
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget

Executive Summary

This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.


Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).


With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.


On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.


Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.


If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.


Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.


Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.


The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.


The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.


The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant.

FOR REAL! OBAMA SAYS ILLEGALS MAKE THIS NATION SMARTER - Even As Most Mexican Loathe English & Literacy!

White House Says Amnesty Will Make U.S. Smarter
Last Updated: Mon, 12/06/2010 - 1:37pm
As it pushes the lame-duck Congress to pass an amnesty bill, the White House claims that legalizing millions of illegal immigrants will help the U.S. economy, support military troops and make the nation smarter.
In its desperate attempt to convince Americans that the soon-to-expire Congress should approve the contentious DREAM Act, the White House compares the measure to a popular Chinese herb known to improve cognitive function. Like Ginkgo Biloba, the DREAM Act will make the country smarter, according to the No. 1 argument on a White House list titled “10 Reasons We Need The DREAM Act.”
Scheduled for vote in the U.S. Senate this week, the DREAM Act offers illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship if they obtain an American high school diploma and enter college or the military. It also provides heavily discounted tuition at the nation’s public colleges and universities, leaving U.S. taxpayers with a monstrous $6.2 billion annual tab, according to a recent study of the tuition subsidies that will be provided under the law.
Most Americans resoundingly oppose the DREAM Act, which not surprisingly has the strong support of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano who says it will help “separate the bad guys from the good guys.” In a last-ditch effort to sway public opinion, the White House issued its laughable argument for enacting the amnesty bill, which it refers to as a “common-sense piece of legislation” to help “those brought to the United States as minors through no fault of their own.”
Besides, “Uncle Sam says the DREAM Act supports our troops,” because it represents an opportunity to expand the recruiting pool, according to the White House. The economy boost theory comes from a study conducted by a notoriously liberal California university that advocates for open borders. It claims that the DREAM Act could add up to $3.6 trillion in taxable income over the course of the careers of the legalized illegal aliens.
Evidently, the folks in the Oval Office ran out of creative ideas to advocate for the amnesty law because the No. 10 reason is…drum roll….”It’s the right thing to do: ”It’s just plain common sense and it’s the right thing to do.” Sounds convincing, doesn’t it?

RASMUSSEN POLLS - The American People Demand Border Security - HASN'T OBAMA PUNKED US ON THAT ALSO?

THE PEOPLE SAY NO TO OBAMA’S OPEN BORDERS, however, such as no impact on Obama’s endless hispandering for the illegals’ votes!

*
(“voters” means legal voters!)

Voters Still Put Border Control Well Ahead of Legalizing Those Here Illegally
Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Voters still strongly believe that gaining control of the border should be the legislative priority.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of Likely U.S. Voters say gaining control of the border is more important in terms of immigration legislation that legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States. Twenty-seven percent (27%) disagree and say legalizing the status of illegal workers is more important. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
These numbers are consistent with findings for years.
Voters are evenly divided over whether young people brought to this country illegally by their parents should be viewed as breaking the law. Making a distinction between illegal immigrants and their children is at the heart of the so-called DREAM Act that some in Congress are hoping to pass before the end of the lame duck session.

THE LOOTING of AMERICA CONTINUES ON WITH OBAMA'S HELP

THE REASON OUR BORDERS ARE KEPT OPEN IS TO FACILITATE ILLEGALS CLIMBING THEM AND HOPPING OUR JOBS.
EMPLOYERS ALL OVER AMERICA ARE AT WAR WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OVER PAYING LIVING WAGES WITH BENEFITS.
THE LARGEST EMPLOYER IN THE NATION IS SADLY WAL-MART. FIVE MEMBERS OF THE WALTON FAMILY HAVE ASSETS OF $20 BILLION. THAT’S $20 BILLION EACH! AND YET WAL-MART PAYS SOME OF THE WORST WAGES IN THE NATION, AND HAS IN THE PAST EVEN HAD OFFICES TO DIRECT THEIR EMPLOYEES TO PUBLICS SOURCES (WELFARE) FOR HEALTHCARE.
LA RAZA ENDORSED HILLARY CLINTON WAS ONCE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WAL-MART, AND DID NOTHING ABOUT THE EXPLOITATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES. SHE HAS PUSHED FOR NON-ENFORCEMENT, NO E-VERIFY, NO WALL, NO ENGLISH ONLY, DRIVERS LICENSES FOR ILLEGALS SO AN ILLEGALS CAN MORE EASILY DENY THEIR ILLEGAL STATUS, AND JOBS TO ILLEGALS FIRST.
*

Robert Reich. Former Secretary of Labor; Professor at Berkeley; Author, 'Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future'

The Secret Big-Money Takeover of America

Not only is income and wealth in America more concentrated in fewer hands than it's been in 80 years, but those hands are buying our democracy as never before -- and they're doing it behind closed doors.

Hundreds of millions of secret dollars are pouring into congressional and state races in this election cycle. The Koch brothers (whose personal fortunes grew by $5 billion last year) appear to be behind some of it, Karl Rove has rounded up other multimillionaires to fund right-wing candidates, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is funneling corporate dollars from around the world into congressional races, and Rupert Murdoch is evidently spending heavily.

No one knows for sure where this flood of money is coming from because it's all secret.

But you can safely assume its purpose is not to help America's stranded middle class, working class, and poor. It's to pad the nests of the rich, stop all reform, and deregulate big corporations and Wall Street -- already more powerful than since the late 19th century when the lackeys of robber barons literally deposited sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators.

Credit the Supreme Court's grotesque decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, which opened the floodgates. (Even though 8 of 9 members of the Court also held disclosure laws constitutional, the decision invited the creation of shadowy "nonprofits" that don't have to reveal anything.)

According to FEC data, only 32 percent of groups paying for election ads are disclosing the names of their donors. By comparison, in the 2006 midterm, 97 percent disclosed; in 2008, almost half disclosed.

Last week, when the Senate considered a bill to force such disclosure, every single Republican voted against it -- thereby revealing the GOP's true colors, and presumed benefactors. (To understand how far the GOP has come, nearly ten years ago campaign disclosure was supported by 48 of 54 Republican senators.)

Maybe the Disclose Bill can get passed in lame-duck session. Maybe the IRS will make sure Karl Rove's and other supposed nonprofits aren't sham political units. Maybe pigs will learn to fly.

In the meantime we face an election that marks an even sharper turn toward plutocratic capitalism than before -- a government by and for the rich and big corporations -- and away from democratic capitalism.

As income and wealth has moved to the top, so has political power. That's why, for example, it's been impossible to close the absurd tax loophole that allows hedge-fund and private-equity managers to treat much of their income as capital gains, subject to a 15 percent tax (even though they're earning tens or hundreds of millions a year, and the top 15 hedge-fund managers earned an average of $1 billion last year). Why it proved impossible to fund expanded health care by limiting the tax deductions of the very rich. Why it's so difficult even to extend George Bush's tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent of Americans without also extending them for the top 2 percent - even though the top won't spend the money and create jobs, but will blow a $36 billion hole in the federal budget next year.

The good news is average Americans are beginning to understand that when the rich secretly flood our democracy with money, the rest of us drown. Wall Street executives and top CEOs get bailed out while under-water homeowners and jobless workers sink.

A Quinnipiac poll earlier this year found overwhelming support for a millionaire tax.

But what the public wants means nothing if our democracy is secretly corrupted by big money.

Right now we're headed for a perfect storm: An unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top, a record amount of secret money flooding our democracy, and a public in the aftershock of the Great Recession becoming increasingly angry and cynical about government. The three are obviously related.

We must act. We need a movement to take back our democracy. (If tea partiers were true to their principles, they'd join it.) As Martin Luther King once said, the greatest tragedy is "not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

What can you do?

1. Read Justice Steven's dissent in the Citizens United case, so you're fully informed about the majority's pernicious illogic.

2. Use every opportunity to speak out against this decision, and embarrass and condemn the right-wing Justices who supported it.

3. In this and subsequent elections, back candidates for congress and president who vow to put Justices on the Court who will reverse it.

4. Demand that the IRS enforce the law and pull the plug on Karl Rove and other sham nonprofits.

5. If you have a Republican senator, insist that he or she support the Disclose Act. If they won't, campaign against them.

6. Support public financing of elections.

7. Join an organization like Common Cause, that's committed to doing all this and getting big money out of politics. (Personal note: I'm so outraged at what's happening that I just became chairman of Common Cause.)

8. Send this post to your friends (including any tea partiers you may know).

Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
*
“Obama defended the bonuses on the grounds that Blankfein and Dimon are “savvy businessmen.” This statement gave what amounted to official carte blanche for the multi-million-dollar bonuses paid to hundreds of other “savvy businessmen,” even as the government oversees a massive attack on the living conditions of the vast majority of the population.”


REALITY OF BARACK OBAMA:
BANKSTER PROFITS, WELFARE AND BONUSES UP! WAY UP! SO ARE FORECLOSURES!
SOCIAL SECURITY CUT FOR SECOND YEAR, AS THE LA RAZA DEMS TRY TO ADD ILLEGALS TO THE SYSTEM!
JOBS PLAN IS CALLED… AMNESTY!

HOW HE PUNKED US!

*

Oct 12, 2010
Wall St to give record payout

The payout, covering bonuses, premiums and stock options for the firm's executives and employees, is a four-per cent raise over the previous record $139 billion that was handed over in 2009. -- PHOTO: REUTERS
WASHINGTON - FINANCIAL institutions on Wall Street are preparing to pay a record US$144 billion (S$189 billion) in compensation and benefits, according to a study published on Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal.
The payout, covering bonuses, premiums and stock options for the firm's executives and employees, is a four-per cent raise over the previous record $139 billion that was handed over in 2009, said the financial daily.
The study, which covers 35 Wall Street firms - including banks, investment banks, hedge funds and money managing groups - found that 29 of the institutions were also expected to see revenue rise by three per cent, from $433 billion to $448 billion.
The 2010 profit for the firms of some $61 billion is still a 20 per cent decline on the $82 billion in 2006 - despite in that time compensation at the institutions soared 23 per cent, according to the Journal.
Wall Street banks and funds have already come under withering criticism for their actions during the 2008 financial crisis and faced the fury of the US public for paying out huge bonuses even though some were propped up by taxpayer funds to keep afloat.
In June US authorities announced guidelines aimed at countering pay and bonus practices blamed for the excessive risk taking that fueled the global financial crisis. -- AFP
*
The economic crisis was an 'inside job'
By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, October 13, 2010; A19
If you haven't been humming tunes from "Les Misérables," you haven't seen "Inside Job," the new documentary about how our economic crisis evolved.
The most forgiving American will want to seize a pitchfork and march on Wall Street. Or Harvard Square. Or in front of the White House. There are so many despicable parties, it's hard to pick a favorite. Is it time to reconsider the Axis of Evil?
The film, written and directed by Charles Ferguson (and narrated by Matt Damon), will be opening in select cities this week. Although much of the story is familiar, Ferguson manages to weave together decades of bits and pieces into a dramatic narrative that plays like a whodunit. Names have faces, and storytelling combined with graphic illustrations helps explain the complex series of events that led to the global meltdown. Here are a few takeaways:
One, trying to assign blame to either Democrats or Republicans is pointless. Everyone is culpable. From the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan deregulated banks, through the two Bushes, Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama, each administration has endorsed -- and each Congress has helped tweak -- laws and rules that made systemic abuses and the meltdown not only possible but, looking back, inevitable.
Two, many investment bankers knew the mortgage loans they were packaging and selling were junk. They knew because their own analysts told them so. Tens of thousands of loans failed to meet basic underwriting standards, according to recent testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a bipartisan group created to examine the causes of the meltdown. Not only that, Wall Street insiders were betting against their own customers and institutions.
Throughout the system, from the lending institutions to federal regulators to congressional overseers, those charged with protecting consumers averted their eyes.
Three, the cozy relationship between Wall Street and Ivy League academia, wherein economists push policies that benefit them financially, is eye-opening. In some cases, business professors and economists at America's top schools were shown to have conflicts of interest as they advanced policies for which they had been paid directly or that otherwise benefited them.
In other instances, we see that the same people who created policies that ultimately led to these abuses are still -- or were until recently -- running the show. Notably missing from the film, declining to be interviewed, are Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin.
This is not to say that what benefits Wall Street necessarily hurts average Americans or that all bankers are corrupt, but the system clearly enabled the abuses that have led to current circumstances. The attitude seemed to be that everyone was doing it.
When the big banks failed, of course, taxpayers were left holding the bag. Even though there was wide consensus that the bailouts were necessary to get credit moving again, there is simply no justification for the bonuses and golden parachutes that went to the very people who drove their institutions -- and us -- off a cliff. Reward for failure was the best gig in town.
Although most of what the movie highlights is familiar, there's something jarring about seeing the culprits up close in all their taxpayer-subsidized, suntanned splendor -- their multiple estates and private jets juxtaposed against shuttered homes and unemployed Americans living in tents. Obscene is the word that comes to mind.
I'm not one to advance class warfare, and most Americans still want to preserve a market system that leaves open the possibility that they, too, can work hard and achieve wealth. But it's clear from "Inside Job" that the game has been rigged so that only a few were in positions to get rich at the expense of the middle class, not just here but globally.
The movie isn't perfect. One wonders what was left on the editing floor. Some of those interviewed, who dodged questions or gave unacceptable answers, also looked stupid. None of these guys is stupid.
And, at the end, Ferguson couldn't resist making an editorial comment as the camera panned the Statue of Liberty. "Some things are worth fighting for."
We get it. The film is so well done and presented so factually that no Hollywood prodding was needed. Anyone who sees this movie will be furious. Thus, the only remaining question is why some of these people aren't being prosecuted for fraud or at least shirking fiduciary duty.
It would seem as never before that the White House should hire a special prosecutor. Ferguson's movie, which the president and his economic team had best watch -- and soon -- could use a sequel: "The Perp Walk."

*
“Wells Fargo, for instance, which has leeched $25 billion in bailout money, bought an inadvertently hilarious full-page ad in The Times to whine about the junkets to Las Vegas and elsewhere it was forced to cancel because of public outrage.” --- Maureen Dowd, NYTimes

*
US banks and corporations announce huge pay packages for 2009
Wells Fargo executives double their compensation
By Andre Damon
11 March 2010
US corporations are beginning to release figures on CEO pay for last year. Multi-million dollar packages are the norm in a year that saw the continued deterioration in the living conditions of the vast majority of the population.
Each of the top five executives at Wells Fargo at least doubled their compensation last year over 2008. The five men each received over $11 million in 2009, while Wells Fargo’s chief executive, John Stumpf, took home $21.3 million, far higher than his 2008 package of $8.8 million.
Mark Oman, the head of consumer business for Wells Fargo, nearly quadrupled his previous pay package to $13.5 million. Howard Atkins, the chief financial officer, received $11.6 million. The other Wells Fargo executives who received huge payouts were David Carroll, the head of the brokerage unit ($14.3 million), and David Hoyt, the head of wholesale banking ($13.5 million).
These latest reports come in the wake of Barack Obama’s statement last month that he does not “begrudge” the bonuses of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. Blankfein got a $9 million bonus lat year, while Dimon received $16 million. (Their total packages have not yet been released).
“I’M NOT HERE TO PUNISH MY BANKSTER DONORS THAT DESTROYED THE LIFE SAVINGS OF MOST OF THIS NATION. I’M HERE TO SERVICE THEM FOR ANY AND ALL THEY WANT!” Barack Obama, the Bankster President (La Raza Party).
Obama defended the bonuses on the grounds that Blankfein and Dimon are “savvy businessmen.” This statement gave what amounted to official carte blanche for the multi-million-dollar bonuses paid to hundreds of other “savvy businessmen,” even as the government oversees a massive attack on the living conditions of the vast majority of the population.