Tuesday, January 18, 2011




“FAIR estimates that the illegal alien population residing in Illinois costs its taxpayers more than $4.5 billion annually.”




Chicago City Council Urges Feds to Halt Deportations

Last Thursday, the Chicago City Council unanimously adopted a resolution asking the federal government to halt deportations of illegal aliens. (ABC News, Jan. 13, 2011) Specifically, the resolution urged President Obama to use his executive powers to call an immediate end to the deportation of illegal workers whose families contain either a U.S. citizen or an individual who would be eligible for a stay of deportation or conditional resident status under the failed DREAM Act. (Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 14, 2011)

During debate of the resolution, the council members (called “aldermen”) called the deportation of illegal aliens “inhumane” and likened the enforcement of federal immigration laws to U.S. Marshalls tracking down fugitive slaves during the Civil War. (Id.) Alderman Edward M. Burke of Chicago’s 14th Ward commented at a City Hall Press Conference the day the resolution passed, “It is just unfathomable that the federal government persists in this cruel and unusual punishment to innocent members of our society….If Illinois can have a moratorium on the death penalty, the U.S. ought to have a moratorium on these cruel deportations.” (Id.)

Alderman Roberto Maldonado of the 26th Ward used the resolution as an opportunity to criticize President Obama for increasing the number of deportations over that of the Bush Administration. “This is the president [who] promised the Latino community and the immigrant community that he was gonna send a bill for immigration reform within the first 90 days of his administration. He’s just about to embark on his re-election campaign for his second term, and we’re still waiting.” (Id.)

The Chicago City Council’s resolution comes a day after Illinois lawmakers raised the State’s income tax by about 66 percent in an effort to balance the state budget. (NY Times¸ Jan. 12, 2011) Illinois has a current deficit of about $13 billion, $8 billion of which is partially attributable to unpaid bills to Illinois social service agencies. (Id.) FAIR estimates that the illegal alien population residing in Illinois costs its taxpayers more than $4.5 billion annually. (See FAIR’s National Cost Study, Table 15, July, 2010)






Rep. Luis Gutierrez is one of the most rabidly racist of the La Raza party


The Senate is set to vote on a controversial immigration bill. If it fails, Rep. Luis Gutiérrez tells Bryan Curtis he’s prepared to ditch Obama and the Democrats—and take the movement to the streets.

It’s zero hour for the DREAM Act, a bit of immigration legislation that has taken on a hulking importance among Hispanic leaders. For two years, Barack Obama failed—or, if you prefer, refused—to nudge along a major immigration bill. The last-ditch hope is that departing Democrats, and a few Republicans, somehow band together in the lame-duck session and pass a law allowing illegal immigrants who came to the United States as minors to gain citizenship. Harry Reid promised to bring up the bill for a Senate cloture vote this week. Republicans vowed to scuttle it, just as they did in September.

But as Chicago congressman Luis Gutiérrez prepares for a rally at a church in Brooklyn a few weeks before the vote, the DREAM Act seems like the end of his interest in congressional gamesmanship rather than the start. Gutiérrez is one of several Hispanic leaders who have found themselves politically estranged from the president. Moreover, they are numbed by the legislative process that denied them a vote on immigration reform, much less a victory, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. “If we couldn’t do it when Democrats were nearly 260 in the House and 59 in the Senate, how do we propose to tell people we can do it now?” Gutiérrez tells me. “The opportunity to have gotten it done is gone.”

The DREAM Act, Gutiérrez says, is for now his final legislative maneuver. He’s finished waiting for the mythical 60th vote to materialize in the Senate. No, when the lame duck ends, Gutiérrez and his movement allies will ask for a divorce—from the Democratic Party, from the entire lawmaking process. To hear Gutiérrez tell it, Hispanic leaders are about to stage a full-tilt campaign of direct action, like the African-American civil-rights movement of the 1960s. There will be protests, marches, sit-ins—what César Chávez might have called going rogue. The movement will operate autonomously, no longer beholden to wavering Democrats, filibustering Republicans, and—perhaps most tantalizingly—no longer beholden to Barack Obama.

Gutiérrez, 56, is a wiry, handsome man whose childlike features mask his penchant for roaring oratory. He is a master of the bilingual stemwinder, toggling between English and Spanish in alternating sentences, judo-chopping his applause lines. A recent Pew Hispanic Center poll named Gutiérrez as the second-most important Latino leader in America, behind only Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. As we speak in a room inside St. Brigid’s Church, a Mexican-Dominican-Ecuadorean congregation in Brooklyn, journalists from New York’s Spanish-language papers pry open the door to peek at us. They look at me and give me the cut sign across the neck so that they, too, can get a word with Gutiérrez.

Protestors participate in a "March For America" demonstration calling for immigration reform on Mar. 21, 2010 in Washington DC. (Photo: Astrid Riecken / Getty Images)

If Gutiérrez is leaving the legislative process behind, the move will follow a long and strange odyssey. Gutiérrez has been attempting to write reform legislation since the Bush administration. (George W. Bush, like Obama, supported immigration reform.) The election of a longtime ally who promised to push for reform within one year of taking office seemed to offer new hope.

But after the deadline expired, Hispanic leaders began to look at Obama less as an ally than an antagonist. In January, President Obama devoted only a single sentence of his State of the Union to immigration reform, when many reform advocates expected it to be a centerpiece of the speech. In the spring, after Obama excluded illegal immigrants from a provision of the Affordable Care Act, Gutiérrez blasted him in an op-ed. “Barack Obama has delivered ‘change,’” he wrote. “It’s been a change for the worse.” In a move to ratchet up pressure on Obama, Gutiérrez got himself arrested outside the White House at a May rally.

In September, Gutiérrez met with Obama in the Oval Office. Immigration reform still hadn’t budged, but he was thinking big. “Let’s do comprehensive in the lame duck,” Gutiérrez recalls telling Obama. “It’ll be our last chance, Mr. President. Because if things are bad now, imagine what it’s going to be like with new Republicans coming in, Tea Party, the Senate…” The key word here is “comprehensive.” Gutiérrez was suggesting that Obama bypass piecemeal reform like the DREAM Act and go for the whole enchilada—a path to citizenship for the country’s 11 million illegal immigrants. According to Gutiérrez, Obama agreed then to push a comprehensive plan in the lame duck. (The White House wouldn’t comment on the conversation.)

As the election neared, Gutiérrez was bent on holding the president to his word. On October 30, he collared Obama on the O’Hare tarmac as he stepped off the plane for a rally. Gutiérrez told the president he wanted to meet right after that Tuesday’s election to plot strategy. Obama apologized and said he couldn’t make it—he was off on a scheduled 10-day trip to Asia.

“We lost two weeks, which is probably half of the lame duck,” Gutiérrez laments now. In the push for immigration reform, it was a typically baffling setback. Gutiérrez and his allies shelved their grand plans and decided to make a play for the DREAM Act instead.

“It’s what we call Plan B,” says Jorge Ramos, a news anchor for the Spanish-language network Univision and an advocate for reform. These days, Ramos—who finished two spots behind Gutiérrez in the Pew survey of Latino leaders—speaks with the same wariness of the legislative process as the congressman. For it was Ramos, back in 2008, who extracted the promise from Obama to push immigration reform within one year.

“The real story behind everything has to be that we missed a great opportunity to have immigration reform approved when Barack Obama and the Democrats had true control of both chambers,” says Ramos.

“I think Hillary Clinton was right,” he adds. “When she was running for president, she said that immigration reform needed to be done during the first 100 days. Of course, she didn’t win and that didn’t happen, and look where we are right now.”

“If we couldn’t do it when Democrats were nearly 260 in the House and 59 in the Senate, how do we propose to tell people we can do it now?” Gutiérrez says. “The opportunity to have gotten it done is gone.”

None of this is to say Latino voters have dumped Obama. “The honeymoon is not quite over,” says Fernand Amandi, the managing partner of the polling firm Bendixen & Amandi. A June Gallup poll showed Obama down more than 10 points among Hispanics. But as the midterms neared, the immigrant salvos of candidates like Jan Brewer and Sharron Angle made the president seem more appealing to Hispanic voters. If Obama had once looked like the hesitator-in-chief, next to Brewer and Angle he looked like César Chávez. Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.

This, then, is the dilemma for Hispanic leaders: They find themselves wedded to a president and a party that is their only conceivable hope to pass immigration reform. But the president and the party—because of the GOP, or because of internal priorities—could not pass immigration reform.

Which brings us to the divorce. “I haven’t thought this out completely,” Gutiérrez says in the church. Then he begins tentatively spelling out a plan to sever the immigration-reform movement from the Democrats.

“We need to decouple the movement for comprehensive immigration reform and justice for immigrants from the legislative process and from the Democratic Party process,” Gutiérrez says. “They are too linked.”

“When black people in this country decided they were going to fight for civil rights and for voting rights, they didn’t ask if the majority leader was with them and when they were going to tee up the bill. They said, ‘We’re sitting where we need to sit on the bus! We’re integrating this counter! We’re going to march!'”

Gutiérrez is pacing around the room and his voice is rising. “Their actions propelled the nation. It’s the way changes are made. Look at John F. Kennedy—he was president. Martin Luther King, I don’t think he was real concerned whether he was going to reelected in 1964.”

This is a pretty radical notion, especially for a sitting congressman. And Gutiérrez is quick to suggest the goals of the Democrats and immigration movement may not jibe. “Is it reelect the president?” Gutiérrez asks. “Is that your priority? Or is it get comprehensive immigration reform? Those things can be in contradiction with one another.”

“The Democratic Party is the party of immigrants. But its leader—in this case, Barack Obama—has to continue to be challenged.”

“I’m not the only one thinking this way,” he adds.

In the broad strokes, the kind of divide Gutiérrez is talking about is not only reminiscent of the African-American civil-rights movement, but the arms-length distance the Chicano Movement kept from the political establishment during most of its late-1960s heyday.

As the rally begins in the sanctuary of St. Brigid’s Church, the extent of the divorce is already becoming clear. A letter is passed around demanding that Obama sign an executive order to stop deportations, one of the acts the president can authorize without Senate approval. “You just need a pen,” the petition reads. Gutiérrez’s dual roles as a powerful legislator and civil-rights leader put him in the crosshairs, too. Some of the students who would become eligible for citizenship under the DREAM Act have tweeted at Gutiérrez, asking him to stop appearing on cable TV on their behalf. When the immigration-reform movement has divorced Gutiérrez, it has truly gone rogue.

Gutiérrez says the moment for direct action to make its mark is now, and over the next several months, before a presidential campaign once again reduces the political world to a binary choice. Until then, Barack Obama will no longer have Luis Gutiérrez and his allies inside the tent raising a ruckus. They will be on the outside holding a sign.

Bryan Curtis is a national correspondent at The Daily Beast. He was a columnist at Play: The New York Times Sports Magazine, Slate, and Texas Monthly, and has written for GQ, Outside, and New York. Write him at bryan.curtis at thedailybeast.com.




“Wherever there’s a Mexican, there is Mexico!”... President Calderone.

As an American living under Spanish speaking Mexican occupation, I would add to this “Where there’s a Mexican, there’s a violent Mexican gang!”



Kentucky Senate Makes First Move in Immigration Crackdown

Wasting no time in the new legislative session, the Kentucky Senate has already acted on the issue of illegal immigration. The Kentucky Legislature convened on January 4, 2011, and within four days, the state Senate had already approved an immigration enforcement bill. The bill is modeled after Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law, SB 1070.

The Kentucky immigration enforcement bill (SB 6) requires local law enforcement to make a reasonable attempt check the immigration status of an individual during lawful contact, when there is reasonable suspicion the individual is an illegal alien. It also prohibits local governments from adopting a policy, ordinance, resolution, administrative regulation, or law “that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” SB 6 also creates new crimes for smuggling and aiding and abetting illegal aliens. (Id.)

State Senator John Schickel (R) said the bill was “designed to put heat on the feds” into taking action on enforcing immigration laws. (Blue Grass Politics, Jan. 7, 2011) Although many state democrats voiced concern about the unknown costs of the bill as their reason for voting against the measure, Schickel asserted that Kentucky cannot afford not to implement the law. He said that Kentuckians are already paying an unknown amount of money to educate illegal immigrants and pay for hospital room visits. (Id.) According to FAIR’s research, illegal immigration cost the state of Kentucky $326 million in 2010. This number includes the cost of education, welfare services, child healthcare provisions and justice system costs. (See FAIR, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers, p. 70)

As FAIR reported last week, Kentucky is one of many state legislatures who plan to pass immigration enforcement legislation this session. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Jan. 10, 2010) Led in part by State Legislatures for Legal Immigration (LSSI), state representatives nationwide hope to initiate immigration legislation that will result in federal action. Kentucky’s immigration bill will now move to the Democratic-controlled state House of Representatives.





Lou Dobbs Tonight

Friday, October 16, 2009

E-Verify- the single most successful federal program aimed at keeping illegal immigrants out of the workforce- is once again threatened. This time, E-Verify was stripped from a Senate Amendment behind closed doors and without explanation. Instead of becoming a permanent program E-verify has been reduced to only three years. Critics are calling this a stall tactic and an attempt at killing an employment enforcement system. We will have a full report tonight.



FAIR Legislative Update January 18, 2011

FAIR Releases Immigration Reform Agenda for the 112th Congress

To help members of the 112th Congress determine which immigration reform measures will have a positive impact on U.S. immigration policy, FAIR is releasing its Immigration Reform Agenda for the 112th Congress. This document provides new lawmakers with a brief summary of action taken during the previous Congress and a roadmap for moving forward with immigration reform measures. Specific suggestions for legislation include the following:

• Permanently authorize the E-Verify program and provide adequate funding to guarantee the future of the program;

• Make the E-Verify program mandatory for all existing and new hires;

• Reinstate or codify the “no-match” rule for employers who receive notice that their employees’ social security numbers do not match the Social Security Administration’s database;

• Deny certain federal funds to cities that have sanctuary policies;

• Prohibit employers from deducting wages paid to illegal aliens;

• Fully implement US-VISIT to provide for a comprehensive entry-exit system; and

• Amend the language of the INA to clarify that states may not offer illegal aliens in-state tuition under any circumstances.

The action items in FAIR’s Immigration Reform Agenda for the 112th Congress are by no means exhaustive, but they do highlight what FAIR considers to be the most urgent immigration-related matters facing lawmakers as they begin their work in 2011. To read FAIR’s Immigration Reform Agenda for the 112th Congress, click here.



OBAMA HAS HAD ONE AGENDA FROM DAY ONE: Service his big bankster donors and make sure they’re making staggering profits and safe from prison, and keeping our borders open for hordes more Mexican looters!



“The president's straddling can work for the time being. But unless he wants to end up in the sawdust, acrobat Obama will eventually have to hop on one horse and lead the way. That would have to be the horse named "Enforcement First." CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR


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




California must stem the flow of illegal immigrants

The state should go after employers who hire them, curb taxpayer-funded benefits, deploy the National Guard to help the feds at the border and penalize 'sanctuary' cities.

Illegal immigration is another matter entirely. With the state budget in tatters, millions of residents out of work and a state prison system strained by massive overcrowding, California simply cannot continue to ignore the strain that illegal immigration puts on our budget and economy. Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in our state billions of dollars each year. As economist Philip J. Romero concluded in a 2007 study, "illegal immigrants impose a 'tax' on legal California residents in the tens of billions of dollars."



But President Obama lit the fuse in February when he signed the massive expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). That law loosened eligibility requirements for legal immigrants and their children by watering down document and evidentiary standards – making it easy for individuals to use fake Social Security cards to apply for benefits with little to no chance of getting caught. In addition, Obama’s S-CHIP expansion revoked Medicaid application time limits that were part of the 1996 welfare reform law. Immigration activists see the provisions as first steps toward universal coverage for illegals.




With trillion dollar bailouts, government-run healthcare, banks and car companies, ACORN corruption, attacks on conservative media, illegal alien amnesty, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors—this is the Obama legacy—and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency!


New Stealth Federal Funding Bill for La Raza

Which brings us to an extraordinary matter of some urgency. Several weeks before the White House and its Senate allies announced their big "breakthrough" legislation (S.1348), radicals in the House quietly introduced legislation to pump $5 million directly into La Raza next year — and $10 million per year for "each fiscal year thereafter."

H. R. 1999, entitled the Hope Fund Act of 2007, should truthfully be labeled the "Perpetual Funding of La Raza Radicals Act."

"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!



Immigration will be Obama's Waterloo. We now know Obama is a closet leftist radical who has a tin ear when it comes to listening to the American people. Obama has appointed immigration radicals to high positions in his Administration such as Hilda Solis (Secretary of Labor), Senior White House Advisor Celia Munoz (former Sr. Vice President of La Raza), and ICE’s William Hurtt. These actions stand in stark contrast to the clearly expressed will of the vast majority of American people, who want our existing immigration laws enforced, our border brought under control, and no grant of amnesty to millions of law breaking illegal aliens who are wreaking havoc on our society -- and who cost taxpaying Americans a lot of money. The American public will not permit mass amnesty to be granted to illegal aliens -- before or after November. Too many American citizens and legal residents understand the enormous stakes at play (including the very future of this country). Obama sees 12-20 million new voter registration cards – and he does not care if they are submitted by people who have no right to be in our country, whose first act coming here was to break our laws, and who if granted amnesty will literally bankrupt us.


Obama soft on illegals enforcement

Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold.



“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



Lou Dobbs Tonight

CNN -- July 27 Pilgrim: Well presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama voiced support for yesterday's court ruling that struck down Hazleton's illegal immigration law. Senator Obama called the federal court ruling a victory for all Americans. The senator said comprehensive reform is needed so local communities do not continue to take matters into their own hands. Senator Obama was a supporter of the Senate's failed immigration bill, which would have given amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.


Lou Dobbs Tonight Friday, May 16, 2008

Some in Congress are once again trying to push piecemeal immigration reform through the back door. Sen. Diane Feinstein of California attached a farm worker program to the multibillion dollar Iraq war funding bill yesterday which would grant temporary amnesty to 1.3 million farm workers and their families over the next five years.


Lou Dobbs Tonight

Thursday, October 22, 2009

The federal government has declared war on Sheriff JOE ARPAIO of Maricopa County, Arizona, for enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. “America’s Toughest Sheriff” will give Lou an update.


Lou Dobbs Tonight

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

New attempts to put comprehensive immigration reform back on the front burner. Congressman Luis Gutierrez -- the chair of the Democratic Caucus Immigration Task Force -- is unveiling new legislation that would call for amnesty for the up to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country.

Congressman Gutierrez will join me tonight


Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The Obama administration could be weakening a successful joint federal and local program aimed at keeping illegal immigrants off our streets. "287 G" gives local police the training and authority to enforce federal immigration law. Supporters of the program believe the ministration wants to limit the program to criminal illegal immigrants already in custody -- limiting the investigative authority of police.


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.


Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Federal contractors now must use E-verify to check the status of their employees on federal projects. The rule which goes into effect today will affect almost 169,000 contractors and some 3.8 million workers. The E-verify program has an accuracy rating of 99.6% but has been repeatedly challenged by the U.S. Chamber of Congress. We will have a full report



Lou Dobbs Tonight

And there are some 800,000 gang members in this country: That’s more than the combined number of troops in our Army and Marine Corps. These gangs have become one of the principle ways to import and distribute drugs in the United States. Congressman David Reichert joins Lou to tell us why those gangs are growing larger and stronger, and why he’s introduced legislation to eliminate the top three international drug gangs.


illegals vs crime














206 Most wanted criminals in Los Angeles. Out of 206 criminals--183 are hispanic---171 of those are wanted for Murder.

Why do Americans still protect the illegals??





http://www.mexica-movement.org/ They claim all of North America for Mexico!

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103 Did you know illegals kill 12 Americans a day?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1738432/posts FBI Crime Statistics - Crimes committed by illegals.



Forty-five billion of the US economy is sent back home, primarily to Mexico while YOU pick up their hospital, housing, social services, anchor babies, crime and educations costs.

No wonder banks like WELLS FARGO and BANK of AMERICA support La Raza! These banks make big money illegally opening up accounts for illegals to get in on those transfer funds.

Illegals cost CALIFORNIA alone 20 billion per year. While you’re paying the illegals’ bills, including the birth of their anchor babies, they’re sending money back to Narco-Mex.

Although the government wants us to believe there’s only 12 million of them in the whole country, anyone that’s been in southern California knows there’s 12 million here alone, and there is no place in this country, from border to border, that is not overrun by Mexicans. Just look for the graffiti.

Our schools are in “meltdown” filled with people that have been taught contempt for the English language. So our legislators bring in third-worlders from China and India to take our jobs. Eighty hospitals in CA are in bankruptcy for providing illegals’ free (for them) medical help. Ten percent of the children born in this country are from pregnant Mexicans hopping the border.

And then we watch them wave their Mexican flags in our faces.

It’s all about the WALMARTing of America.... Oh, and Arnold the circus freak has taken piles of money from the Walton family who have made twenty billion each from Walmart.

I want my children to hear English when they walk out the door. I want them to have a job that are now given to illegals who work cheap. I don’t want to see the Mexican flag waved in our borders.

If it’s so great in Mexico, the illegals surely must be eager to return.


October 19, 2006

Flow of Immigrants’ Money to Latin America Surges


There is a common cycle to immigration from Latin America. Immigrants arrive in the United States and quickly find work. Several months later — in the case of illegal migrants, as soon as they have finished paying off the smuggler who brought them across the border — they start sending money home.

According to a new report about immigrants’ money transfers to Latin America, the remittances flow from almost every state. Even in states that had virtually no Latin American immigrants only a few years ago, like Mississippi and Pennsylvania, a growing trickle of money is making its way south to places like Tlalchapa, Mexico, or Panajachel, in the Guatemalan highlands.

“Twenty years ago the money was coming from four or five states; now it’s coming from every corner of the country,” said Sergio Bendixen, a Miami pollster who surveyed some 2,500 immigrants, legal and illegal, for the survey on which the report was based.

For the nation as a whole, the flow of money has become a torrent. According to the study, sponsored by the Multilateral Investment Fund of the 47-nation Inter-American Development Bank, remittances from the United States to Latin America this year will total more than $45 billion. That is 51 percent higher than they were only two years ago.

About three-quarters of Latino immigrants who were surveyed send money home regularly, up from some 60 percent in a similar survey in 2004. This may largely reflect growth in the population of illegal immigrants, who tend to send money home more often than others. They accounted for about 40 percent of remitters in the survey, up from a third in 2004.

Moreover, with immigration to the United States a regular part of the life cycle for large numbers of men and women in many parts of Latin America, sending money back to relatives at home has developed into a moral obligation.

“If you don’t send money to your mother, you are a bad son,” Mr. Bendixen said. “Remittances companies say this in their TV ads.”

The study’s estimates on remittances are in line with population figures from the Census Bureau, which found last year that Latin American immigrants made up 6.6 percent of the nation’s household population (that is, excluding people in jail, on military bases and such), more than half the total immigrant population.

The bureau also found that 1.2 percent of the household population of Pennsylvania was born in Latin America, as were 0.7 percent of the population of Ohio and 2 percent of the population of Indiana. These were states with virtually no Latino immigrants five years ago.

According to the data from the Inter-American Development Bank, money transfers from Indiana should approach $400 million this year, with the total from Pennsylvania above $500 million and from Ohio more than $214 million.

Indeed, the study found Latino immigrants sending money from 48 of the 50 states — excluding only Montana and West Virginia, where, Mr. Bendixen said, he did not survey because he expected very few remitters.

In addition to those two states, the survey suffers from very small samples in some with the most recent immigrant populations. But Mr. Bendixen said that in these states, the remittance figures should be off by no more than 10 percent.

The data are consistent with a known pattern in which Latino migrants move from immigrant-heavy states like Illinois to new frontiers like Pennsylvania in search of jobs.

“Somebody who is already here hears about a new plant opening and goes there,” observed Jeffrey S. Passel, a demographer at the Pew Hispanic Institute. “After a while, the word gets back to Mexico, and the migrant stream is no longer from California to a meatpacking plant in Iowa. It’s Mexico to a plant in Iowa.”

The reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina provides an example of how immigrant populations coalesce around jobs. Latino immigrants have flocked to New Orleans, where another study has found that by this summer, they accounted for half the reconstruction force, with 54 percent of them working in the United States illegally.

They too have begun to send money back. According to the bank’s survey, remittances to Latin America from Louisiana should top $200 million this year, a 240 percent increase since 2004.

HISPANIC FAMILY VALUES... the Mexican Occupiers

Heather Mac Donald

April 14, 2008 6:00 A.M.

The Hispanic Family: The Case for National Action

Looking at and for honest numbers.

Those of us who have documented the growing underclass culture among second- and third-generation Hispanic Americans have grown accustomed to being called bigoted “xenophobes” by open-borders conservatives. For some reason, these same conservatives don’t object to anyone decrying the consequences of black illegitimacy rates, or the toll of black gang culture on community life. But point out the high Hispanic illegitimacy and school drop-out rates, or the march of ever-younger Hispanics into gangs, and you can be sure of being accused of “anti-Hispanic cant” by people who work overtime to maintain the myth of the redemptive Hispanic.

The list of bigots just got longer. Add the Economist magazine to the group of entities and individuals who need scourging for their anti-Hispanic bias. In the March 19 issue, the magazine reports the “bad news from California: The vaunted Latino family is coming to resemble the black family.” The magazine has the temerity to offer facts that are fighting words in some precincts of the right: “Half of all Hispanic children were born out of wedlock last year.” “The birth rate among unmarried Latinas is now much higher than the rate among black or white women.” “In 1995 the unmarried teenage birth rate for Latinas was 20% lower than the rate for blacks. It is now 12% higher.” “More than half of all young Hispanic children in families headed by a single mother are living below the federal poverty line, compared with 21% being raised by a married couple.”

To be sure, The Economist notes, stating the obvious: the “Latino family is not in such a dire state as the black family, where 71% of children are born to single mothers.” But the trends are not favorable: “the gap appears to be closing.” And even if both Latino parents are living together, that arrangement is no guarantee of familial stability: “unmarried Mexican-American couples who have children while living together are slightly more likely to break up than are blacks or whites in similar circumstances.”

Conservatives of all stripes routinely praise Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s prescience for warning in 1965 that the breakdown of the black family threatened the achievement of racial equality. They rightly blast those liberals who denounced Moynihan’s report, “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” as an expression of bigotry. Conservatives are equally fond of Moynihan’s 1993 article “Defining Deviancy Down.” That essay, published in the American Scholar, observed that American culture had responded self-defeatingly to the breakdown of traditional social controls by redefining what was once deviant behavior, such as illegitimacy, as normal.

It turns out that open-borders conservatives are themselves flawless at defining deviancy down — when it suits their purposes. The black illegitimacy rate was 23.6 percent in 1965, when Moynihan declared a crisis in the black family. Today’s Hispanic illegitimacy rate is over twice that, yet purveyors of the redemptive Hispanic myth tell us that all is well. So was Moynihan’s analysis right then but wrong now?

I have invited my critics to leave their think tanks and actually do some field research in heavily Hispanic schools. Were they to do so, they would discover that the stigma around teen pregnancy and single parenting has all but disappeared. The apologists for the Hispanic family would have to add to their growing list of anti-Hispanic bigots teens like Liliana, an American-born senior at Manual Arts High School near downtown Los Angeles. “This year was the worst for pregnancies,” she told me in 2004. “A lot of girls got abortions; some dropped out.” There’s no stigma attached to getting pregnant, Liliana reported. The myth-makers might also talk to teachers, who say that for many Hispanic male students, being a “player” now includes fathering children out-of-wedlock.

I am unaware that any open-borders conservatives have taken up my suggestion, but the Economist somehow managed to get some sense of the culture. “Machismo” among young Latinos in Fresno, Ca., makes them less likely to use condoms in their teen trysts, the Economist learned. Cohabitation is seen as normal among the poor, and single parenthood merely regrettable, the magazine reports.

Here’s someone else who will have to be added to “the list:” the head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Samuel Rodriguez. He warns that the state of the Latino family is a greater problem for Latinos than immigration reform, according to The Economist.

No one would ever label the Economist as restrictionist on immigration matters. But it has shown that a commitment to the facts is compatible with a range of policy positions on immigration. And it is those facts that will ultimately determine the fate of Hispanic immigrants and their progeny in the U.S. — whether they climb America’s economic and social ladder or form an increasingly entrenched second underclass.

— Heather Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and co-author of The Immigration



Illegal Alien rapes 8 year old Maryland Girl

An illegal alien, Marcos Banegas, raped an 8 year old girl, for the second time and cops did not turn him over for deportation. The Sanctuary City of Montgomery County in Maryland has a D.A. that is refusing to call child rape a violent crime, even though the 8 year old girl was also sodomized by the illegal alien.


Montgomery Counrty in Maruland allowed an illegal alien to rape and sodomize an 8 year old girl twice but he was still not deported



By Frosty Wooldridge

Anyone understand why Mexicans fail at a successful civilization? Ever wonder why millions of them invade the United States in search of a better life? Have you noticed that once they arrive, they create the same kind of ‘society’ in the United States ? Unconsciously, they create the same conditions they left behind. You can take the boy out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the boy. For example, in Denver in December, illegal alien Navi dragged his girlfriend to death behind his car. Illegal alien Cruz shot his girlfriend dead in the back because she wouldn’t reconcile with him. Illegal alien Ruizz ran over and killed Justin Goodman, but Ruizz drove away from the scene leaving Goodman to die. In Greeley , Colorado they suffered 270 hit and run accidents in one year. Over 80 percent of hit and run wrecks in Denver involve illegal aliens. Denver boasts the drug smuggling capital of the West as well as the people smuggling mecca of the country. Illegals cheat, distribute drugs, lie, forge documents, steal and kill as if it’s a normal way of life. For them, it is. Mexico ’s civilization stands diametrically opposed to America ’s culture. Both countries manifest different ways of thinking and operating. With George Bush’s push to create the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” by dissolving our borders with Mexico , he places all Americans at risk. Would you become friends with neighbors who throw their trash on city streets and parks, create ghettoes wherever they enclave their numbers, promote corruption, deal in violence, encourage drug use, manifest poverty, endorse sexism and downgrade education? America ’s culture and Mexico ’s culture remain diametrically opposed to one another. America ’s fought Mexico and won. Today, Mexico invades America with sheer numbers of poor. However, cultures rarely change and neither do their people. As you can see from the ten points below, everything about Mexico degrades everything about America . For further information, you may visit www.immigrationshumancost.org and www.limitstogrowth.org where you will find a plethora of information by a brilliant journalist Brenda Walker. Her original report may be viewed on www.Vdare.com on January 17, 2007 under the title: “Ten Reasons Why America Should Not Marry Mexico .” I suggest you read more of her work. She exemplifies incisive, sobering and shocking information. These ten point stem directly from Brenda Walker’s work. Let’s examine why America must not entangle itself by merging with Mexico . The legal age of sexual consent in Mexico is 12 years old. Sex with children at this age and younger is socially acceptable in Mexico . For example: A Mexican Lopez-Mendez pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a 10 year old girl in West Virginia . His excuse: sex with young girls was common with his people. He said, “I was unaware that it was a crime.” Mexicans remain the most sexist males next to Islamic men. Both boast the most misogynous cultures in the world. Rape and other violence toward women are not treated as serious crimes. In Mexico , a custom known as “rapto” whereby men kidnap women for sex is regarded as harmless amusement. Mexican society regards women little more than objects. Crime and violence remain mainstays of Mexican culture. Drug cartels and the Mexican army coordinate their massive efforts to promote drug distribution not only in Mexico but into the USA . Mexico City suffers the second highest crime rate in Latin America . Kidnapping remains second only to Columbia for ransom money. Beheadings, killings and gun fire erupt at drug distribution points on the US/Mexican border. Spontaneous hanging continues in Mexico . A mob beat up and burned to death two policemen on live television in 2004 in Mexico City . As Brenda Walker wrote, “Mexicans do not have the same belief as Americans that the law is central to the equitable functioning of a complex nation. It’s the Third World .” Mexicans abhor education. In their country, illiteracy dominates. As they arrive in our country, only 9.6 percent of fourth generation Mexicans earn a high school diploma. Mexico does not promote educational values. This makes them the least educated of any Americans or immigrants. The rate of illiteracy in Mexico stands at 63 percent. Drunk driving remains acceptable in Mexico . As it stands, 44,000 Americans die on our nation’s highways annually. Half that number stems from drunken drivers. U.S. Congressman Steve King reports that 13 American suffer death from drunken driving Mexicans each day. Alcoholism runs rampant in Mexican culture. They suffer the most DUI arrests. Mexicans set the benchmark for animal cruelty. Mexicans love dog fighting, bullfighting, cock fighting and horse tripping. Those blood sports play in every arena and backyard in Mexico . They expand into America as more Mexicans arrive. They also engage in “steer-tailing” where the rider yanks the animal’s tail in an attempt to flip it to the ground. In horse tripping, they run the animals at full gallop around a ring, then, use ropes to trip them at full speed. It’s a death sentence as the horses break their legs, teeth, shoulders and necks—all to the delight of the cheering Mexican fans. As La Raza confirms, Mexicans maintain the most racist society in North America . “For the Hispanic race, everything; for anyone outside the race, nothing!” Guadalupe Loaeza, a journalist, said, “Mexican society is fundamentally racist and classist. The color of your skin is a key that either opens or shuts doors. The lighter your skin, the more doors open to you.” Corruption becomes a mechanism by which Mexico operates. Corruption remains systemic. The Washington Post wrote, “ Mexico is considered one of the most corrupt countries in the hemisphere.” They feature drug cartels, sex slave trade, people smuggling, car theft cartels, real estate scam cartels, murder for money and, you must bribe your mail man to get your mail. Last, but not least, Mexicans are Marxists. They promote a one party government. As with any kind of Marxism, brutal totalitarian rule keeps the rich in power and everyone else subservient. As we allow millions of Mexicans to colonize our country, we can’t help but be caught up in these ten deadly cultural traits of Mexicans. With over 12 million Mexicans here today, the predictions grow to as many as 20 even 40 million Mexicans in a few decades as they come here for a better life. The fact remains, as they come to America for a better life, they make our lives a living hell.

THE SIMPLE AGENDA OF BARACK OBAMA: More Bankster Looting, More Illegals Looting = SECOND TERM




“The Fed said that this bailout was necessary to prevent the world economy from going over a cliff. But three years after the start of the recession, millions of Americans remain unemployed and have lost their homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college. Meanwhile, big banks and corporations have returned to making huge profits and paying their executives record-breaking compensation packages as if the financial crisis they started never happened.”


Sen. Bernie Sanders

Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont

Posted: December 2, 2010 12:43 PM

A Real Jaw Dropper at the Federal Reserve

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing in 2009, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to tell the American people the names of the financial institutions that received an unprecedented backdoor bailout from the Federal Reserve, how much they received, and the exact terms of this assistance. He refused. A year and a half later, as a result of an amendment that I was able to include in the Wall Street reform bill, we have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at the Fed, and the American people now have this information.

It is unfortunate that it took this long, and it is a shame that the biggest banks in America and Mr. Bernanke fought to keep this secret from the American public every step of the way. But, the details on this bailout are now on the Federal Reserve's website, and this is a major victory for the American taxpayer and for transparency in government.

Importantly, my amendment also required the Government Accountability Office to conduct a top-to-bottom audit of all of the emergency lending the Fed provided during the financial crisis to be completed on July 21, 2011, which will take a hard look at all of the potential conflicts of interest that took place with respect to this bailout. So, in many respects, details that the Fed was forced to divulge on Wednesday about the $3.3 trillion in emergency loans that until now were totally kept from public scrutiny, marked the beginning, not the end, of lifting the veil of secrecy at the Fed.

After years of stonewalling by the Fed, the American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions and how we can make our financial institutions more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans and small businesses.


Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).

What have we learned so far from the disclosure of more than 21,000 transactions? We have learned that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country. Among those are Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion; Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion; Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion; Bear Stearns, which received nearly $1 trillion, and Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed.

We also learned that the Fed's multi-trillion bailout was not limited to Wall Street and big banks, but that some of the largest corporations in this country also received a very substantial bailout. Among those are General Electric, McDonald's, Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, Toyota and Verizon.

Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations including two European megabanks -- Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse -- which were the largest beneficiaries of the Fed's purchase of mortgage-backed securities.

Deutsche Bank, a German lender, sold the Fed more than $290 billion worth of mortgage securities. Credit Suisse, a Swiss bank, sold the Fed more than $287 billion in mortgage bonds.

Has the Federal Reserve of the United States become the central bank of the world?

The Fed said that this bailout was necessary to prevent the world economy from going over a cliff. But three years after the start of the recession, millions of Americans remain unemployed and have lost their homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college. Meanwhile, big banks and corporations have returned to making huge profits and paying their executives record-breaking compensation packages as if the financial crisis they started never happened.

What this disclosure tells us, among many other things, is that despite this huge taxpayer bailout, the Fed did not make the appropriate demands on these institutions necessary to rebuild our economy and protect the needs of ordinary Americans.

For example, at a time when big banks have nearly a trillion dollars in excess reserves parked at the Fed, the Fed did not require these institutions to increase lending to small- and medium-sized businesses as a condition of the bailout.

At a time when large corporations are more profitable than ever, the Fed did not demand that corporations that received this backdoor bailout create jobs and expand the economy once they returned to profitability.

I intend to investigate whether these secret Fed loans, in some cases, turned out to be direct corporate welfare to big banks that used these loans not to reinvest in the economy but rather to lend back to the federal government at a higher rate of interest by purchasing Treasury Securities. Instead of using this money to reinvest in the productive economy, I suspect a large portion of these near-zero interest loans were used to buy Treasury Securities at a higher interest rate providing free money to some of the largest financial institutions in this country. That is something that we have got to closely examine.

At a time when Wall Street executives are now making more money than before the financial crisis, how many big banks that paid back TARP funds in 2009 to avoid limits on executive compensation received no-strings-attached loans from the Federal Reserve?

At a time when millions of Americans are paying outrageously high credit card interest rates, why didn't the Fed require credit card issuers to lower interest rates as a condition of the bailout?

The four largest banks in this country (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup) issue half of all mortgages in this country. We now know that these banks received hundreds of billions from the Fed. How many Americans could have remained in their homes, if the Fed required these bailed-out banks to reduce mortgage payments as a condition of receiving these secret loans?

We have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at one of most important agencies in our government. What we are seeing is the incredible power of a small number of people who have incredible conflicts of interest getting incredible help from the taxpayers of this country while ignoring the needs of the people.


Barack Obama has collected nearly twice as much money as John McCain


Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).




July 1st 2008

Wall Street firms have chipped in more than $9 million to Barack Obama. Zurga/Bloomberg

Wall Street is investing heavily in Barack Obama.

Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to raise capital gains and corporate taxes, financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.

"Wall Street wants change and wants a curtailment in spending. It wants someone who focuses on the domestic economy," said Jim Cramer, the boisterous host of CNBC's "Mad Money."

Cramer also does not discount nostalgia for the go-go 1990s, when Bill Clinton led the largest economic expansion in history.

"It wants a Clinton like in 1992, but not a Hillary Clinton," he said. "That's Barack Obama."

For both candidates, Wall Street's investment and banking sectors have become among their portliest cash cows, contributing $9.5 million to Obama and $5.3 million to McCain so far.

It's a haul that is already raising concerns that, as the nation's faltering economy has become issue No. 1, the two candidates may have a hard time playing tough on issues like market regulation or corporate-tax loopholes.

"No matter who wins in November, Wall Street will have a friend in the White House," said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics, which crunched the data for The News.

Wall Street's generosity toward Obama, in particular, would seem to run counter to its self-interests.

In addition to calling for corporate and capital gains tax hikes, Obama has proposed raising income taxes on those earning more than $250,000.

But Wall Street is often motivated by something more than money - winning.

"In general, these are professional prognosticators," said Ritsch. "And they may be putting their money on the person they predict will win, not the candidate they hope will win."

Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).

McCain's top five include Wall Street's Merrill Lynch ($230,310) and Citigroup ($219,551).

Obama's Wall Street haul is not the biggest ever. That distinction belongs to President Bush, who as an incumbent in 2004 raised $10,852,696 from Wall Street interests through April that year - about $1 million more than Obama.

"Sen. Obama went to Wall Street to tell executives that our economy isn't working if they alone are prospering but people living on Main Street are not," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.



April 1, 2009


Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism


THE Obama administration’s $500 billion or more proposal to deal with America’s ailing banks has been described by some in the financial markets as a win-win-win proposal. Actually, it is a win-win-lose proposal: the banks win, investors win — and taxpayers lose.



Simon Johnson

MIT Professor and co-author of 13 Bankers

Posted: December 3, 2010 09:14 AM

BIO Become a Fan

Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index

Jamie Dimon: Becoming Too Big To Save -- Creating Fiscal Disaster


facebook Twitter stumble reddit del.ico.us

Read More: Basel Committee , Basel Committee On Banking Supervision , Finance , Financial Crisis , Financial Reform , Financial Regulation , Jamie Dimon , JP Morgan , JP Morgan Chase , Too Big To Fail , Wall Street , Business News

In Sunday's New York Times magazine, Roger Lowenstein profiles Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase. The piece, titled "Jamie Dimon: America's Least-Hated Banker," is generally sympathetic, but in every significant detail it confirms that Mr. Dimon is now -- without question -- our most dangerous banker.

Mr. Dimon is not dangerous because he is in any narrow sense incompetent. On the contrary, Mr. Dimon is very good at getting what he wants. And now he wants to run a bigger, more interconnected, and more global bank that -- if it were to fail -- would cause great chaos around the world. Lowenstein writes: "Dimon has always been unusually blunt, and he told me that not only are big banks like JP Morgan (it has $2 trillion in assets) not too big, but that they should be allowed to grow bigger."

The problem with very big banks is not that they are "too big to fail," in the sense that it is physically impossible for them to fail. It is that they are so large and therefore so connected with each other -- and with all aspects of how the modern economy operates -- that the failure of even one such bank would cause great damage throughout the world.

Lehman Brothers had a balance sheet of around $600 billion when it failed. Its collapse helped trigger the worst financial crisis and deepest recession since the 1930s. Imagine what would happen if JP Morgan Chase -- even at today's scale -- were allowed to go bankrupt.

Dimon is brilliantly disingenuous on this key point: "No one should be too big to fail," he tells me. And J. P. Morgan? "Right," he says. "Morgan should have to file for bankruptcy."

But Dimon himself argued, in a November 2009 op-ed in the Washington Post, that regular bankruptcy is not a feasible option for megabanks. Instead he eloquently advocated the creation of a special resolution mechanism for big banks -- an update and expansion of the powers that the FDIC has long used to handle the orderly failure of small and medium-sized banks with insured retail deposits:

Creating the structures to allow for the orderly failure of a large financial institution starts with giving regulators the authority to facilitate failures when they occur. Under such a system, a failed bank's shareholders should lose their value; unsecured creditors should be at risk and, if necessary, wiped out. A regulator should be able to terminate management and boards and liquidate assets. Those who benefited from mismanaging risks or taking on inappropriate risk should feel the pain. We can learn here from how the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. closes banks. As with the FDIC process, as long as shareholders and creditors are losing their value, the industry should pay its fair share.

Unfortunately, the resolution authority that ended up being created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation does not cover JP Morgan Chase because Dimon's bank operates so extensively outside the US (30 percent non-US in its current business, on its way to 50 percent, according to Lowenstein). There is nothing in the current resolution mechanism or the broader powers of the Financial Stability Oversight Council that enables the relevant authorities to implement the orderly winding down of a cross-border bank, like JP Morgan is today or Lehman was in 2008.

And there is no prospect of any kind of inter-governmental agreement to put in place a process for imposing orderly and foreseeable losses on the creditors to cross-border bank. In fact, the Basel Committee of bank regulators, which has jurisdiction in this matter -- and which Dimon praises in the New York Times interview -- has definitely decided not to take up the issue.

JP Morgan Chase is already Too Big To Fail. If it were to threaten failure, the government would face a terrible choice: provide some form of unsavory bailout, i.e., fully protecting creditors; or risk the outbreak of a Second Great Depression. While the executive branch pondered these alternatives, there would be global financial panic.

But that is not the worst of our worries. Jamie Dimon is apparently dead set on ensuring JP Morgan Chase becomes even larger, in part by expanding its operations in emerging markets in India, China, and elsewhere.

As Ireland and other European countries have recently discovered to their horror, Too Big To Fail banks that want to expand globally can grow so large that they become Too Big To Save. "Too Big To Save" means that the government wants to save the bank -- e.g., by providing a blanket guarantee, as the Irish did in October 2008 -- but that creates such a large liability for the state that it pushes the entire country into insolvency.

JP Morgan Chase is well on its way to becoming Too Big To Save. Through expanding overseas, it effectively bypasses the weak controls we still have in place on bank size (no bank is supposed to have more than 10 percent of total retail deposits). Experience in Europe is that this strategy can enable individual banks to build balance sheets that are larger than the GDP of the country in which they are based -- in the UK, for example, the Royal Bank of Scotland had a balance approaching 1.5 times the size of the British economy. And then it failed.

If JP Morgan Chase were to reach the equivalent size in the US, it would be a $20 trillion bank. Perhaps that would take awhile, but JP Morgan Chase soon at $4 trillion or $8 trillion is easy to imagine.

Dimon argues that banks becoming bigger is the natural outcome of market processes. He is completely wrong -- as Thomas Hoenig, president of the Kansas City Fed explained in a New York Times op-ed this week:

These firms [big banks] reached their present size through the subsidies they received because they were too big to fail. Therefore, diminishing their size and scope, thereby reducing or removing this subsidy and the competitive advantage it provides, would restore competitive balance to our economic system.

(See also this news coverage on Hoenig's views.)

Or listen to Gene Fama -- the father of the modern "efficient markets" view of finance. He told CNBC that Too Big To Fail banks are "perverting activities and incentives", giving big financial firms, "a license to increase risk; where the taxpayers will bear the downside and firms will bear the upside."

Or read the recent letter to the Financial Times by Anat Admati and other top names in academic finance. They could be speaking directly of Dimon and his views in the New York Times piece when they say:

Many bankers oppose increased equity requirements, possibly because of a vested interest in the current systems of subsidies and compensation. But the policy goal must be a healthier banking system, rather than high returns for banks' shareholders and managers, with taxpayers picking up losses and economies suffering the fall-out.

(See also Professor Admati's follow up letter to the FT this week, further blasting the views of top bankers and their acolytes.)

Jamie Dimon's job is to make money for his shareholders and even he has struggled -- the bank's stock price is only roughly where it was when Dimon took control in 2004. He really believes that the answer to his stock price doldrums is to make JP Morgan Chase bigger and more complex. In effect, he wants to load up on risk -- hoping that this will pay off for him, his employees, and (presumably) his shareholders, and really not caring much about who bears the downside risk.

Lowenstein mentions at various points that Dimon was a protégé of Sandy Weill, but he neglects to remind us that Weill in his heyday espoused many of the same ideas that Dimon stresses in the interview. Weill believed there were great synergies between commercial and investment banking (and insurance). Weill was convinced that bigger was undoubtedly better both for shareholders and for society. He was wrong on all counts, as explained by Katrina Brooker in the New York Times earlier this year:

"The dream, the mirage has always been the global supermarket, but the reality is that it was a shopping mall," says Chris Whalen, editor of The Institutional Risk Analyst, of Citi's evolution over the last decade. "You can talk about synergies all day long. It never happened."

Sandy Weill, of course, built the modern Citigroup, which effectively collapsed -- in spectacular fashion -- in 2008-09, and which had to be rescued by the government at least twice. What was Citigroup's balance sheet at the time? It was just over $2 trillion, roughly the size of JP Morgan Chase today. And Citigroup was (and is) extremely global -- doing business in more than 100 countries.

Jamie Dimon is intent on building a bank that will surpass all the size and complexity records set by Sandy Weill's Citigroup.

Whether or not JP Morgan Chase will fail on Jamie Dimon's watch remains to be seen. He is, without doubt, a relatively careful risk manager in an industry where hubris tends to run amok.

But sooner or later Jamie Dimon will hand over the reins to someone who is decidedly less careful, someone who goes with the groupthink, and perhaps even someone like Chuck Prince, head of Citigroup, who inherited Sandy Weill's mantle and said -- in July 2007, "When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance. We're still dancing."

The music had already stopped when he said that.

If the Dimon's bigger, more global, and greatly interconnected JP Morgan Chase is still dancing next time the music stops, the choice will not be bailout vs. great recession. The real choice will be no choice at all: fiscal disaster through attempted bailout (Ireland), or fiscal disaster through economic collapse (Iceland).





“Torres was well-known to deputies as a Lott Stoners gang shot-caller. He'd been arrested more than 20 times, prosecutors said, and in 2004 was convicted for his role in the shooting of two gang rivals in a liquor store after they complimented one of his many tattoos.”




http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103 Did you know illegals kill 12 Americans a day?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1738432/posts FBI Crime Statistics - Crimes committed by illegals.


Gangster's bullet hit a rising star deputy

Mohamed Ahmed, 27, rose quickly in the Sheriff's Department and was helping build bridges to the Muslim community. He's in critical condition after being shot in the face by a paroled gang shot-caller.

By Robert Faturechi and Andrew Blankstein, Los Angeles Times

January 13, 2011

Mohamed Ahmed was new to the streets. Nestor Torres was a far more familiar, some say infamous, presence when their lives collided at a dark East Los Angeles intersection.

Ahmed was a deputy in training, just a few weeks on the beat, learning the ropes in a rough stretch of the Eastside with a veteran deputy. A Somali immigrant, the 27-year-old Ahmed was seen as a promising young deputy in the department, and supported his six younger siblings and his mother with his salary.

Torres was well-known to deputies as a Lott Stoners gang shot-caller. He'd been arrested more than 20 times, prosecutors said, and in 2004 was convicted for his role in the shooting of two gang rivals in a liquor store after they complimented one of his many tattoos.

What began Tuesday night as a routine check on Floral Drive devolved into a shootout that left Torres dead and Ahmed in critical condition with a gunshot wound to the face.

"You have two very different extremes," Sheriff Lee Baca said Wednesday, reflecting on the random encounter.

Baca said he saw Ahmed as a future leader in the Sheriff's Department, noting that his Muslim background could help build bridges. He said Ahmed believed in the "American dream" and preached religious tolerance, volunteering his time at local Islamic community centers and doing outreach for the Sheriff's Department with the Muslim community.

On Wednesday, doctors at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center were treating Ahmed's wounds as investigators pieced together what happened at the intersection. Ahmed's condition is not considered life-threatening, but doctors said he suffered a severe wound to one of his eyes and to other parts of his face.

When he awoke Wednesday morning, his mother told officials that he asked about the condition of his partner and the welfare of his brothers. He also asked when he could return to work.

A handful of deputies are typically wounded in shootings most years. But in 2010, only one was wounded.

Authorities said Ahmed and his training officer were on patrol near Floral Drive and North Brannick Avenue in a residential district of aging bungalows below the hills of City Terrace. They saw Torres and a woman inside a vehicle parked in a red zone.

Torres was recognized by the training officer. Knowing he was a parolee, the deputies decided to talk to him. As they got out of their cruiser, Torres got out too, pulling a gun and shooting Ahmed in the face, authorities said. Torres then turned the gun to the training officer's chest, but before he could shoot the officer deflected the weapon and used his own gun to shoot and kill Torres, authorities said. Officials have declined to name the training officer.

For Torres, a reputed gang member who went by the monikers "Demon" and "Neto," it was the last in a long history of run-ins with the law. Court records show that in 2004, he ran into two members of the rival gang Stoners 13 at a liquor store.

"I don't think you should be talking to me," he told the gang members when they complimented the "LOTT 13" tattoo. He challenged the men to come outside and fight — an offer they refused, according to authorities, because they knew Torres and another gang member waiting outside were armed. Soon after, shots rang out, with Torres' companion unloading his gun at the men still in the liquor store.

Torres was sentenced to seven years in state prison in that case.

Born in Somalia, Ahmed immigrated when he was 7. His father died last year, sheriff's officials said, leaving Ahmed to support his mother and six younger siblings. The Orange County resident joined the L.A. County Sheriff's Department in 2007. Most deputies must start their careers working in the county's jail system. Such stints can last several years, but Ahmed was able to move to patrol work in only two years.

Colleagues held vigil along with Ahmed's family at the hospital Wednesday. Capt. Mike Parker said colleagues swapped stories about his sense of humor and high energy.

"By all accounts, the deputy injured in the incident is an extraordinary young individual, the kind of deputy sheriff we all want to see serving Los Angeles County residents and businesses," said Steve Remige, director of the L.A. County deputy's union. "We're hopeful of his quick recovery."

Baca said people who worked with Ahmed were impressed by his work ethic and his willingness to volunteer his time to help with Muslim community outreach.

"He's an ideal ambassador," the sheriff said. "The thing we are proud of is he can serve as law enforcement, protecting people, defending people and putting himself at risk of his life, as this incident proves."

Ahmed was scheduled to go into surgery Wednesday, and doctors were not sure whether he would lose sight in his injured eye. But no matter the outcome, Baca said he hopes Ahmed will still have a bright future with the department.

"I still see larger things for him and my hope for him is that he will come back to work. We will cross that bridge when we come to it."


206 Most wanted criminals in Los Angeles. Out of 206 criminals--183 are hispanic---171 of those are wanted for Murder.

Why do Americans still protect the illegals??




Lou Dobbs Tonight

And there are some 800,000 gang members in this country: That’s more than the combined number of troops in our Army and Marine Corps. These gangs have become one of the principle ways to import and distribute drugs in the United States. Congressman David Reichert joins Lou to tell us why those gangs are growing larger and stronger, and why he’s introduced legislation to eliminate the top three international drug gangs.










ALIEN NATION: Secrets of the Invasion

May 2006 – ALIEN NATION: Secrets of the Invasion – Why America's government invites rampant illegal immigration

It's widely regarded as America's biggest problem: Between 12 and 20 million aliens – including large numbers of criminals, gang members and even terrorists – have entered this nation illegally, with countless more streaming across our scandalously unguarded borders daily.

The issue polarizes the nation, robs citizens of jobs, bleeds taxpayers, threatens America's national security and dangerously balkanizes the country into unassimilated ethnic groups with little loyalty or love for America's founding values. Indeed, the de facto invasion is rapidly transforming America into a totally different country than the one past generations have known and loved.

And yet – most Americans have almost no idea what is really going on, or why it is happening.

While news reports depict demonstrations and debates, and while politicians promise "comprehensive border security programs," no real answers ever seem to emerge.

But there are answers. Truthful answers. Shocking answers.

In its groundbreaking May edition, WND's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine reveals the astounding hidden agendas, plans and people behind America's immigration nightmare.

Titled "ALIEN NATION," the issue is subtitled "SECRETS OF THE INVASION: Why government invites rampant illegal immigration." Indeed, it reveals pivotal secrets very few Americans know. For example:

Did you know that the powerfully influential Council on Foreign Relations – often described as a “shadow government" – issued a comprehensive report last year laying out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter"?

Roughly translated: In the next few years, according to the 59-page report titled "Building a North American Community," the U.S. must be integrated with the socialism, corruption, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. As Phyllis Schlafly reveals in this issue of Whistleblower: "This CFR document asserts that President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin 'committed their governments' to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' and assigned 'working groups' to fill in the details. It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American Summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet 'vigilantes' on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona."

The CFR report – important excerpts of which are published in Whistleblower – also suggests North American elitists begin getting together regularly, and presumably secretly, "to buttress North American relationships, along the lines of the Bilderberg or Wehrkunde conferences, organized to support transatlantic relations." The Bilderberg and Wehrkunde conferences are highly secret conclaves of the powerful. For decades, there have been suspicions that such meetings were used for plotting the course of world events and especially the centralization of global decision-making.

Did you know that radical immigrant groups – including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) and the National Council of La Raza (La Raza) – not only share a revolutionary agenda of conquering America's southwest, but they also share common funding sources, notably the Ford and Rockefeller foundations?

''California is going to be a Hispanic state," said Mario Obeldo, former head of MALDEF. "Anyone who does not like it should leave." And MEChA's goal is even more radical: an independent ''Aztlan,'' the collective name this organization gives to the seven states of the U.S. Southwest – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah. So why would the Rockefeller and Ford foundations support such groups? Joseph Farah tells the story in this issue of Whistleblower.

Why have America's politicians – of both major parties – allowed the illegal alien invasion of this nation to continue for the last 30 years unabated? With al-Qaida and allied terrorists promising to annihilate major U.S. cities with nuclear weapons, with some big-city hospital emergency rooms near closure due to the crush of so many illegals, with the rapid spread throughout the U.S. of MS-13, the super-violent illegal alien gang – with all this and more, why do U.S. officials choose to ignore the laws of the land and the will of the people to pursue, instead, policies of open borders and lax immigration enforcement?

The answers to all this and much more are in Whistleblower's "ALIEN NATION" issue.

Is there hope? Or is America lost to a demographic invasion destined to annihilate its traditional Judeo-Christian culture, and to the ever-growing likelihood that nuclear-armed jihadists will cross our porous borders and wreak unthinkable destruction here?

There most definitely is hope, according to this issue of Whistleblower. Although most politicians of both major political parties have long since abdicated their responsibility for securing America's borders and dealing effectively with the millions already here illegally, there are a few exceptions – most notably Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo.

May's Whistleblower includes an exclusive sneak preview of Tancredo's forthcoming blockbuster book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security." In an extended excerpt, Whistleblower presents Tencredo's expert and inspired analysis of exactly how to solve the nation's most vexing problem.



School forces student to remove Old Glory from bike (Hispanics want only the Mexican flag!)

School forces student to remove Old Glory from bike

By The Scribe November 12, 2010 8:01 AM

Political correctness runs amuck again. It seems there is a new story involving misguided school officials every week.

This time, eighth grader Cody Alicea is learning a lesson that no parent expects to be taught in an American school.

The latest story comes via KSBW from the Stanislaus School District in Denair, CA where a middle school student is not allowed to fly the American flag from his bicycle because other students have complained.

A Stanislaus County school is forcing a student to take an American flag off of his bike. Thirteen-year-old Cody Alicea put the flag there as a show of support for the veterans in his family. But officials at Denair Middle School told him he couldn't fly it. He said he was told some students had complained.

Obviously, the appropriate response to this would have been for school officials to tell the complainers that this is America, Old Glory is the American flag and it will fly on American soil or even American bikes. Any attempt to prevent it from flying should result in immediate discipline for the student who creates a disturbance or takes an action to interfere with private property.

Thatdoes not happen because school officials are terrified of ACLU lawsuits which immediately follow any attempt to defend American traditions.

Who are the complainers who so dislike our flag? Let's see how Superintendent Edward Parraz described them.

"Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they'll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don't really want," Parraz said. "We want them to appreciate the cultures."

Common sense has obviously deserted the officials of Stanislaus School District. Let's hope there are enough Americans left in this area of California to bring it back.

BOOK - The Morality of Illegal Immigration


We need a national dialogue about the morality of Mexico exporting millions of their poor, illiterate, criminal, and frequently pregnant over our borders, and our own government’s tacit collusion in this invasion.

It’s not from generousity or concern for the poor of a foreign country that most of the Fortune 500 are generous donors to the Mexican Fascist Party of La Raza – “The Race”.

It’s all about exploitation. The American worker having to compete with the desperate and exploited Mexican worker exported by their own corrupt country.


Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, October 5, 2009

Father PATRICK BASCIO has a remarkably different perspective on illegal immigration from that of most Christian clergymen-one he’s outlined in a remarkable new book entitled

On the Immorality of Illegal Immigration: An Alternative Christian View.


On The Immorality of Illegal Immigration: A Priest Poses an Alternative Christian View

By C.S. Patrick J. Bascio

Editorial Reviews

Father Bascio presents a strikingly different perspective on illegal immigration from that of most Christian clergymen. He turns his spotlight on the harm of officially tolerated illegal immigration to America's own struggling workers in the form of joblessness, shrinking wages and poorer working conditions. African-American workers, already plagued by job discrimination, bear the heaviest burden of the illegal invasion, which locks them out of many workplaces or drives wages below acceptable levels. The chronic non-enforcement of immigration laws is no accident: Congress has little stomach for ending something so profitable for their most powerful donors and the voters they can muster. The author fears that many committed Christians are blinded to these abuses by their church leaders' preoccupation with charity toward illegal aliens, while ignoring the plight of millions of low-wage Americans. He deftly rebuts the self-serving myth of employers' and politicians' that illegals "do jobs Americans won't do." Bascio also sees the profit motive behind legal immigration policies that lure the third world's best and brightest to America, stripping poorer nations of their physicians, teachers and scientists. As a Catholic priest, the author admits the unpleasantness of taking a position not shared by his Church's hierarchy, which is driven by the prospect of rising membership. Bascio sees unchecked illegal immigration as having grave consequences for overall U.S. tranquility: disdain for the rule of law, street gangs, document fraud and identity theft, staggering welfare and education costs and creeping "Balkanization" that threatens the national principle of E Pluribus Unum. Father Bascio's book is a resounding appeal to Christians to re-examine their churches' conventional view of illegal immigration and consider the hardship it brings for fellow Americans and its dangers for the nation as a whole.

About the Author

Father Patrick Pascio is a retired Catholic priest, international human rights expert, professor and writer whose long ministry has included assignments in the U.S., Tanzania and the Caribbean islands. In Trinidad he taught at the University of the West Indies and, in Grenada, advised the Prime Minister and represented that country on U.N. committees. He founded and directed Salve Regina University's PhD program and directed its Master's program in Humanities. He is a U.S. Air Force veteran of World War II. Father Bascio has two master's degrees in the social sciences and a doctorate. A prolific writer, Bascio's works since 1994 include The Failure of White Theology: A Black Theological Perspective (1994); Gorbachev and the Collapse of the Soviet Communist Party (with Evgueny Novikov -1994); Defeating Islamic Terrorism: The Wahabi Factor (2006); and Perfidy: the Government Cabal that Knowingly Abandoned Our Prisoners of War (2008).

Does Obama Hate Americans As Much As His Actions Suggest?



“SANCTUARY CITIES” IN TEXAS, WHERE ILLEGALS ARE ABOVE THE LAW AN “EMERGENCY ITEM”. Perhaps Perry knows what Mexifornia has turned into as a “sanctuary state” where the laws against hiring illegals, illegals voting, illegals climbing the CA border for “free” anchor baby birthing, education, and AMERICAN JOBS has done!!!


CALIFORNIA IS IN MELTDOWN with little hope for resolution as that state’s new gov, JERRY BROWN, and it’s lifer senator BARBARA BOXER were both elected by LA RAZA, the MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY for MEX SUPREMACY!

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, February 11, 2008

In California, League of United Latin American Citizens has adopted a resolution to declare "California Del Norte" a sanctuary zone for immigrants. The declaration urges the Mexican government to invoke its rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo "to seek third nation neutral arbitration of disputes concerning immigration laws and their enforcement." We’ll have the story.


Lou Dobbs Tonight

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Gov. Schwarzenegger said California is facing “financial Armageddon”. He is making drastic cuts in the budget for education, health care and services. But there is one place he isn’t making cuts… services for illegal immigrants. These services are estimated to cost the state four to five billion dollars a year. Schwarzenegger said he is “happy” to offer these services. We will have a full report tonight.


CA OPERATES IN DEFICIT OF $28 BILLION, AND STILL PAYS OUT IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS $20 BILLION. LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALONE PAYS OUT $600 MILLION TO ILLEGALS ON WELFARE… You wondered why the illegals head to CA first, before spreading out, along with Mex gangs and their crime wave, all over the nation???




While Mr. Perry doesn’t want to copy Arizona’s immigration law, he said during the campaign that he understood the sentiment that led to it, and that Texas should step in and protect its borders if the federal government won’t.


“The Obama administration will sue Arizona for trying to help Washington enforce federal immigration laws, but flatly rejects the notion of suing sanctuary cities that blatantly defy those same laws. That announcement two weeks ago revealed the hypocrisy and utter contempt for the rule of law rampant in Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”






January 15, 2011

Perry Puts Immigration Atop Session’s Agenda


Ross Ramsey, the managing editor of The Texas Tribune, writes a regular column.

Three reasons Gov. Rick Perry declared sanctuary cities an “emergency item” for the Texas Legislature: A nativist electorate, a reluctance to mimic Arizona on immigration law and the closing commercial in his campaign for re-election last year.

Here’s one more: The first 60 days of a legislative session offer the governor a moment of control over the agenda, and he has decided to point the spotlight, for now, on immigration and property rights, the second issue he declared to be an emergency. He hasn’t done it yet, but passing voter photo ID is a good bet for the next act in the center ring.

The governor is, in effect, alone on the stage. Lawmakers can’t deliberate on bills for the first 60 days of the 140-day session unless he says so, by declaring emergencies. They don’t have to be emergencies, necessarily, but the process allows lawmakers to handle pressing business, while letting the governor drive the agenda during the session’s first weeks. For Mr. Perry, it’s a chance to deal with immigration matters before the budget, redistricting and other issues claim the limelight.

Mr. Perry’s focus on sanctuary cities — those that do not allow their police officers to enforce federal immigration laws — could offer him safe passage through the contentious immigration debate. Arizona wants its police to question the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. Mr. Perry wouldn’t require police to ask, but would allow it.

It’s a fine distinction for a Republican Party trying to win favor with Hispanics while quelling a rebellion from nativist conservatives. Mr. Perry wants to answer the anger of the second group without stoking it in the first.

In the governor’s race, he and Bill White battled over whether Houston was a sanctuary city while Mr. White was mayor. Houston never had an official edict from its City Council or mayor, but the police followed a general order against asking about the citizenship of people who hadn’t been arrested (they did run immigration checks after arrests).

Some, including many police chiefs, argue that asking for papers all the time gets in the way of regular police work and makes it harder for officers to win the trust of citizens whose help is needed to fight crime. Mr. Perry hit that note in a statement last April, rejecting the Arizona standard because “some aspects of the law turn law enforcement officers into immigration officials by requiring them to determine immigration status during any lawful contact with a suspected alien, taking them away from their existing law enforcement duties, which are critical to keeping citizens safe.” The Texas Department of Public Safety’s policy under Mr. Perry is remarkably similar to Houston’s and other big cities in the state.

The argument stopped there, for a while. Then Mr. Perry closed his campaign with a television ad featuring Sgt. Joslyn Johnson, a Houston police officer whose husband, Rodney, also a police officer, was killed by an illegal immigrant during a traffic stop. This being a political ad, it blamed Mr. White’s policies as mayor for that death.

While Mr. Perry doesn’t want to copy Arizona’s immigration law, he said during the campaign that he understood the sentiment that led to it, and that Texas should step in and protect its borders if the federal government won’t. So the policy and the politics don’t exactly match up. He has got to do something — he campaigned on it — but doesn’t want to do what Arizona did.

If he doesn’t jump in, the Legislature surely will. By the end of the week, lawmakers had already filed 30 bills with the word “immigration” in them, including legislation that would require police officers to inquire into the immigration status of people they’ve arrested. That’s before you get to the goodies like anchor babies, state services for non-citizens, immigration records of public school students and sanctuary cities; this, along with the budget and redistricting, is front and center this session.

Mr. Perry and his aides can’t or won’t name any sanctuary cities, but the governor said he was going to make it illegal to be one. He said last week that there were cities that had “made decisions to be havens for those who are either in conflict with federal immigration laws, or state laws, and we’re going to prohibit that.

“We’ll have a good and open discussion about what we’re going to prohibit,” he said, “and if the shoe is fitting you, then you might not want to be wearing it.”

It’s a potentially treacherous issue, and for now, that’s as specific as he’s going to get.



Hans A. von Spakovsky

Law-Enforcement-Free Sanctuaries

The Obama administration will sue Arizona for trying to help Washington enforce federal immigration laws, but flatly rejects the notion of suing sanctuary cities that blatantly defy those same laws. That announcement two weeks ago revealed the hypocrisy and utter contempt for the rule of law rampant in Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

It was the latest example of the Department letting partisan politics, rather than the interests of justice and the impartial enforcement of the law, drive its legal decisions. In this instance, it both threatens national security and undermines public confidence in our legal system.

The very weakness of the Department’s legal arguments in the Arizona suit betrays its political genesis. As the brief filed on behalf of Arizona by nine other states persuasively argues, Arizona is not interfering with federal authority: it has neither created new categories of aliens nor attempted to independently determine the immigration status of aliens. Arizona’s law simply requires local law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals arrested for other reasons. This is exactly the regulatory scheme of concurrent enforcement envisioned by federal immigration law.

The Justice Department’s suit directly contradicts the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Muehler v. Mena. In that case, all nine justices upheld the right of local police officers to question a detained individual’s immigration status while a search warrant was being executed. The suit also flies in the face of Estrada v. Rhode Island, in which the First Circuit Court of Appeals this February upheld a state trooper’s questioning of immigration status during a traffic stop. This is the exact policy being implemented in Arizona.

Federal courts have long upheld the power of state law enforcement officers to arrest those who violate federal law, as long as it is also a violation of state law, includingimmigration laws. The inherent authority of local police to arrest immigration violators was outlined in 2002 in a legal memorandum issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. Yet Attorney General Holder has filed a lawsuit making claims completely at odds with an opinion issued by his own department.

Holder’s suit also conflicts directly with federal immigration law. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. §1373) specifically mandates that no federal, state, or local government can “prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [now Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE], information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual,” a provision upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999. Congress wanted local governments to get information on immigration status from the federal government – and that is exactly what the Arizona law requires for anyone arrested in the state. Yet Holder is trying to prevent Arizona officials from checking “the citizenship or immigration status” of “any individual.”

Now we’re awaiting a ruling by a federal judge on the Justice Department’s request for a temporary injunction to stop the law from going into effect on Thursday. It’s clear, though, that the only way that judge could possibly rule in the Department’s favor is by ignoring the law and this precedent.

Justice Department spokesman Tracy Schmaler asserts that Arizona is “actively” interfering with federal law while sanctuary cities are just not using their resources to enforce federal law. This bogus claim displays fundamental ignorance of these federal legal requirements. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary committee and the chief author of the 1996 immigration law, rightly calls it “absurd.” Cities like San Francisco not only do not enforce federal immigration laws, some violate it by protecting aliens from deportation and refusing to cooperate with or provide information to immigration officials.

As the nine states note in their brief, the Justice Department is trying to negate the “preexisting power of the States to verify a person’s immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the States can lawfully provide to the Federal government.” Holder’s claim that Arizona is interfering with federal power to regulate immigration is near frivolous.

Arizona simply requires that law enforcement personnel (1) ascertain the immigration status of people they have lawfully detained for some other reason and (2) report to the federal government the presence of any detainee determined to be here illegally. If the Obama administration wants to ignore that information and reject that assistance, it has that option. The only possible “interference” with federal power is the risk that the feds might be publicly embarrassed by a policy of non-enforcement. Apparently the White House and DOJ consider embarrassment a federal offense.

Holder makes one further -- yet equally absurd -- claim: that by trying to deter the movement of illegal aliens into Arizona, the state is restricting interstate commerce and thus violates the Commerce Clause. How can deterring the entry of people who have no legal right to enter possibly violate interstate commerce? It is the same as saying that -- notwithstanding federal laws that bar importation of heroin -- a state that busts heroin traffickers is flouting the Commerce Clause.

Federal law stipulates that any person who “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection,” an illegal alien is committing a crime. It is also criminal just to “encourage” residence by illegal aliens. Yet sanctuary cities like San Francisco have enacted formal policies that embrace all these illegal acts. Such policies lead directly to further crimes, such as the vicious murder of a father and his two sons on a San Francisco street. The killer was an illegal alien with two prior felony convictions -- yet on neither occasion did San Francisco authorities notify the feds of his presence. Had they done so, he would not have been able to gun down Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, as they sat in their car on June 16, 2008.

Holder’s refusal to sue sanctuary cities is an abrogation of his responsibility as the nation’s chief federal law enforcement officer. Unlike Arizona, many of these cities have policies that violate federal law.

The Obama administration claims Arizona’s law will “disrupt federal immigration enforcement.” But the only thing it could possibly disrupt is federal non-enforcement. As the elections approach, Holder’s suit may help gin up enthusiasm among the president’s more radical political allies, such as La Raza. But using the law enforcement powers of the federal government to achieve political ends is a dangerous abuse of power.








“Not surprisingly, Baca has a long history of opposing measures to curb illegal immigration. He voted against the U.S.-Mexico border fence, a bill requiring hospitals to report illegal immigrants before getting reimbursed by the government to treat them and a law that extends illegal immigrants’ stay in the U.S. while pursuing residency.”




8. Joe Baca, former CA Assemblymember, currently member of Congress at Latino Summit Response to Prop 187 UC Riverside 1/1995 and Southwest Voter Registration Project annual conference in Los Angeles, 6/1996 "We need more Latinos out there. We must stand up and be counted. We must be together, We must be united. Because if we're not united you know what's going to happen? We're like sticks - we're broken to pieces. Divided we're not together. But as a unit they can't break us. So we've got to come together, and if we're united, si se puede (it can be done) and we will make the changes that are necessary. But we've got to do it. We've got to stand together, and dammit, don't let them divide us because that's what they want to do, is to divide us. And once we're divided we're conquered. But when we look out at the audience and we see, you know, la familia, La Raza (the family, our race), you know, it's a great feeling, isn't it a good feeling? And you know, I started to think about that and it reminded me of a book that we all read and we all heard about, you know, Paul Revere, and when he was saying, 'The British are coming, the British are coming!' Well, the Latinos are coming, the Latinos are coming! And the Latinos are going to vote. So our voices will be heard. So that's what this agenda is about. It's about insuring that we increase our numbers. That we increase our numbers at every level. We talk about the Congressional, we talk about the Senate, we talk about board of supervisors, board of education, city councils, commissions, we have got to increase out numbers because the Latinos are coming. Because what's going on right now, with 187, the CCRI (CA Civil Rights Initiative against affirmative action), and let me tell you, we can't go back, you know, we're in a civil war. But we need to be solidified, we need to come together, we must be strong, because united we form a strong body. United we become solidified, united we make a difference, united we make the changes, united Latinos will win throughout California, let's stick together, que si se puede, que no? (it can be done, right?)


“California Democrat Joe Baca actually wants to amend the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act so that underage illegal immigrants can become U.S. citizens.”


Bill To Let “Exemplary” Illegal Immigrants Become U.S. Citizens

Last Updated: Mon, 01/10/2011 - 5:22pm

A United States congressman dedicated to fighting harmful anti-immigrant legislation has introduced a bill to change a decades-old federal law so that “exemplary” illegal aliens can obtain American citizenship.

California Democrat Joe Baca actually wants to amend the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act so that underage illegal immigrants can become U.S. citizens. To qualify they must somehow prove that they are “exemplary” by providing academic transcripts, demonstrating an understanding of United States history, government and civics and proving that they are of good moral character.


Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, February 11, 2008

In California, League of United Latin American Citizens has adopted a resolution to declare "California Del Norte" a sanctuary zone for immigrants. The declaration urges the Mexican government to invoke its rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo "to seek third nation neutral arbitration of disputes concerning immigration laws and their enforcement." We’ll have the story.





Bell Gardens, CA * City of Industry, CA * City of Commerce, CA * Cypress, CA * Davis CA

Downey, CA * Fresno, CA * Los Angeles, CA * Long Beach, CA * Lynwood, CA * Maywood, CA

Montebello, CA * National City, CA * Norwalk, CA * Oakland, CA * Paramount, CA * Pico Rivera, CA

Richmond, CA * So. Gate, CA * San Diego, CA * Santa Cruz, CA * San Francisco, CA * San Jose, CA

Sonoma County, CA * Vernon, CA * Watsonville, CA * West Hollywood, CA * Wilmington, CA


8 New American Gateways For Immigrants

By Neema P. Roshania, Kiplinger.com

Jun 29th, 2010

The economic recovery may be slow and uncertain. Immigration remains a hot button political issue. But there's one positive trend that will keep benefiting smaller cities in the years ahead: Their growing appeal to immigrant poppulations.

Though New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago and other large U.S. cities remain hubs for immigrants, newcomers from abroad are increasingly settling in smaller communities across the U.S., lured by a lower cost of living, more job opportunities, and a support structure of fellow immigrants. In return, these communities get a rejuvenated work force and a consumer base.

Here are eight rapidly emerging gateway communities for immigrants. All are likely to remain popular with foreign newcomers, despite stepped-up enforcement of federal immigration laws. Some may surprise you.

Benton/Washington Counties, Ark.

Home to large employers such as Wal-Mart in Bentonville and Tyson Foods in nearby Springdale, these northwest Arkansas counties have seen enormous growth in their immigrant populations over the past decade.

Foreign born residents now make up more than 20% of Springdale's population. The area's chicken farms, construction industry, corporate headquarters, and low cost of housing remain a strong magnet.

With Hispanics accounting for most of the increase, the region is seeing more ethnic bakeries, restaurants, media outlets, and other businesses. The once nearly homogeneous local school districts have added English as a second language to their curricula in addition to special programs to help involve parents in their children's education.

Portland and Salem, Ore. (Marion/Multnomah counties)

The growth of the area's technology industry draws highly skilled immigrant workers to northwest Oregon, where they're joining earlier arrivals -- refugees from Southeast Asia, Africa, eastern Europe and Russia.

Fairfax County, Va.

In this large suburban county bordering Washington, D.C., immigrants make up almost 30% of the population. The recession hasn't been felt here as much as it has in other parts of the country and construction, and service jobs are still plentiful. Fairfax County is across the Potomac River from the nation's capital, which, along with other large cities, has long been a draw for immigrants.

There's also a strong immigrant presence among service workers, especially in health care, restaurants, and cleaning services. Nearly 40% of the region's immigrant population arrived within the past decade. Many own their own businesses. And they are encouraging more family members and friends from the old country to join them.

Shelbyville, Tenn. (Bedford County)

Though the foreign born population in Shelbyville hovers around the national average, the small city and its environs have become a mecca for refugees from Egypt, Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), and Somalia. There are jobs in Shelbyville's food processing plants and other factories.

Cape Coral, Fla. (Lee County)

Southwest Florida's Gulf Coast has strong agriculture and service sectors. In 2000, Cape Coral's foreign born population was 8.7%, relatively low compared with national average of 11.1%. In the past decade it has increased by about 250% -- putting it above the national average.

Boise, Id. (Ada County)

Attracted to the area by job opportunities in agriculture and an affordable cost of living, Boise's immigrant population has climbed by more than 50% over the past decade.

Gwinnett County, Ga.

The foreign born population in Gwinnett County has more than doubled since 2000, and now represents about 25% of the county's total population. Drawn to the area by an abundance of jobs in the service sector and the low cost of housing, the immigrants are mostly Hispanic. They are carving out a livelihood in a region where blacks have traditionally been the most visible minority. Gwinnett also has one of the highest rates of illegal immigration in the U.S. -- authorities estimate that half of all foreign born residents of the county are unauthorized.

Raleigh-Durham-Cary, N.C. (Wake/Durham/Chatham Cos.)

North Carolina's 394% immigrant growth rate in the 1990s was the fastest among Southern states, and the trend has continued in the 21st century. The Raleigh-Durham area has been hub to much of this growth.

The draw? Affordable housing and jobs at Research Triangle Park -- one of the country's largest technology development centers -- as well as in the construction and service sectors. The recession and stricter enforcement of immigration laws in the Tar Heel State are slowing immigration growth -- at least for now. But many experts think migration could pick up again as the economy recovers.

Sources: Census Bureau, University of Southern California, Moody's Economy.com


The Obama administration will sue Arizona for trying to help Washington enforce federal immigration laws, but flatly rejects the notion of suing sanctuary cities that blatantly defy those same laws.”