Wednesday, March 16, 2011




Go to





Effort to Curb Illegal Workers' Hiring Blocked

By Spencer S. Hsu

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, October 11, 2007; 2:04 PM

A federal judge barred the Bush administration yesterday from launching a planned crackdown on U.S. companies that employ illegal immigrants, warning of its potentially "staggering" impact on law-abiding workers and companies.

In a firm rebuke of the White House, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the president's plan to press employers to fire as many as 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers, starting this fall.

President Bush made the effort the centerpiece of a re-energized enforcement drive against illegal immigration in August after the Senate rejected his proposal to overhaul immigration laws. But the court ruling -- sought by major American labor, business and farm organizations -- highlighted the chasm that the issue has opened between the Republican Party and its traditional business allies.

The case also called attention to the gulf between Washington rhetoric about the need to curtail illegal immigration and the economic reality that many U.S. employers rely on illegal labor, as well as to the government's inability for nearly three decades to develop adequate tools for identifying undocumented workers.

In a 22-page ruling, Breyer said the plaintiffs -- an unusual coalition that included the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- had raised serious questions about the legality of the administration's plan to mail Social Security "no-match" letters to 140,000 U.S. employers.

"There can be no doubt that the effects of the rule's implementation will be severe," Breyer wrote, resulting in "irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers."

The government letters are intended to warn employers for the first time that they must resolve questions about their employees' identities or fire them within 90 days. If they do not, employers could face "stiff penalties," including fines and even criminal prosecution, for violating a federal law that bars knowingly employing illegal workers, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said when he announced the plan Aug. 10.

The plaintiffs convinced the judge that the Social Security Administration database includes so many errors -- incorporated in the records of about 9.5 million people in 2003 alone -- that its use in firings would unfairly discriminate against tens of thousands of legal workers, including native-born and naturalized U.S. citizens, and cause major workforce disruptions that would burden companies.

"The government's proposal to disseminate no-match letters affecting more than eight million workers will, under the mandated time line, result in the termination of employment to lawfully employed workers," the judge wrote. "Moreover the threat of criminal prosecution . . . reflects a major change in DHS policy."

Breyer also said that the government may have ignored a 1980 law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that requires it to weigh the cost of imposing new regulations that would significantly burden small-business owners. Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the Chamber of Commerce, said the ruling shows that "the government cannot do anything it wants simply in the name of enforcement. They've got to be careful about building their record and complying with the law."

In a statement, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney said: "This is a significant step towards overturning this unlawful rule, which would give employers an even stronger way to keep workers from freely forming unions. . . . More than 70% of SSA discrepancies refer to U.S. citizens."

Chertoff expressed disappointment with the decision and said the administration will continue to aggressively enforce immigration laws while considering an appeal, which plaintiffs' attorneys said could take at least nine months.

"Today's ruling is yet another reminder of why we need Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform," Chertoff said. "The American people have been loud and clear about their desire to see our nation's immigration laws enforced."

Several analysts said the Bush administration's plan appeared to be designed to push business interests back into the debate by demonstrating that the failure of legislative reform efforts would carry costs, and to reassure conservative lawmakers who oppose illegal immigration that the White House is able and willing to crack down on offenders.

Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and now a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute in Washington, said the ruling "shows how ineffective the current laws are."

"It reinforces the opinion that many of us hold that until you have a better legal framework -- which requires new legislation -- we're stuck very much with the status quo," Meissner said.

In a statement, Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-Calif.), an opponent of Bush's approach who won election to the House last year on the issue, criticized the court. "What part of 'illegal' does Judge Breyer not understand?" he said. "At a time when the federal government is finally trying to enforce current immigration law, we cannot have activist judges stand in the way of doing what is right."

The scope of the problem is uncontested. A three-year government audit ending in 2001 found "widespread" misuse of Social Security numbers by illegal immigrants, who often present fake or fraudulent documents to obtain jobs. Overall, 7.2 million illegal immigrants account for at least 10 percent of low-skilled U.S. workers and 5 percent of the total U.S. workforce, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of 2005 census data.

Illegal immigrants make up even greater portions of workers in specific industries, including 24 percent in farming, 17 percent in cleaning, 14 percent in construction and 12 percent in food preparation. But the government's record in developing tools to screen such workers is spotty, largely because of successful efforts by employers, labor unions and civil rights groups to water them down.

A government program to verify the validity of new hires' Social Security numbers, proposed in concept in 1981 and launched in 1996, remains voluntary and covers only about 23,000 of 8 million U.S. employers. It is also hampered by a high false-alarm rate and the limited ability to detect identity theft involving stolen or fraudulent numbers. Between June 2004 and May 2006, it erroneously rejected 11 percent of foreign-born U.S. citizens and 1.3 percent of authorized foreign-born noncitizens, according to a report provided to Congress.

In protest, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) signed legislation in August that bars companies in his state from participating in the program until it is 99 percent accurate.

The federal government has mailed Social Security no-match letters to employers since 1994, but such notices were generally silent about workers' immigration status and employers did not face liability. In June 2006, the Department of Homeland Security proposed using the letters to combat immigration fraud involving existing employees, and it finalized its plans this summer. The AFL-CIO and the ACLU filed suit to halt the Sept. 4 start of the mailings, and they were joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the trade associations for the agriculture, restaurant and construction industries.

On Aug. 31, U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney issued a temporary restraining order pending an Oct. 1 hearing before Breyer, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997 and is the brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer.



Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, June 16, 2008

Tonight, we’ll have all the latest on the devastating floods in the Midwest and all the day’s news from the campaign trail. The massive corporate mouthpiece the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is holding a “North American Forum” to lay out its “shared vision” for the United States, Canada and Mexico – which is to say a borderless, pro-business super-state in which U.S. sovereignty will be dissolved. Undercover investigators have found incredibly lax security and enforcement at U.S. border crossings, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office. This report comes on the heels of a separate report by U.C. San Diego that shows tougher border security efforts aren’t deterring illegal entries to the United States.


Go to and read articles and comments from other Americans on what they’ve witnessed in their communities around the country. While most of the population of California is now ILLEGAL, the problems, costs, assault to our culture by Mexico is EVERYWHERE. copy and pass it to your friends.


Report Illegals & Employers Toll Free... (866) 347-2423

INS National Customer Service Center Phone: 1-800-375-5283. ICE, ice, ICE




You can contact President Obama and let him know of your opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens:


“Utah has created a program called the Utah Compact where lawmakers, business interests such as the Utah Chamber of Commerce, and some religious groups work together to pass Amnesty legislation couched in enforcement language.”


Go to and read articles and comments from other Americans on what they’ve witnessed in their communities around the country. While most of the population of California is now ILLEGAL, the problems, costs, assault to our culture by Mexico is EVERYWHERE. copy and pass it to your friends.




National Backlash Against Utah's Amnesty For Illegal Aliens

National Group Calls on Utah Residents to Turn Bill into a Deportation Tool

March 16, 2011

CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)

(866) 703-0864

ALIPAC is calling for Utah residents to rise in political rebellion against the politicians who just passed an unconstitutional Amnesty for illegal aliens, that is opposed by approximately 70% of Americans.

ALIPAC is releasing a three point plan designed to stop this unlawful Amnesty attempt in Utah using three steps: Recall, Rescind, and Deport.

One - Each Utah lawmaker who has supported Amnesty for illegals should be recalled in the 2012 elections including Governor Gary Herbert, US Senator Orrin Hatch, and each member of the legislature that voted for HB 116.

Second - HB 116 should be opposed with lawsuits and boycotts and then rescinded once the lawmakers who are attempting to override current federal laws have been deposed from office.

Third - Any illegal immigrants who sign up to participate under Utah's HB 116 should have their identifying information used for deportation under the current existing federal laws of the United States and provisions in the US Constitution that protect all states from invasion.

"We want these politicians who have betrayed the American public on behalf of special interest groups like the Chamber of Commerce out of office, then HB 116 rescinded by their replacements, and finally any illegals they attempt to aid with the program deported," said William Gheen President of ALIPAC.

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is sending out a press release to Spanish language media publications announcing the plan to take control of the program and use it as a deportation tool.

In violation of their tax status, the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) stepped out publicly to praise the amnesty legislation on Tuesday via spokesman presiding Bishop H. David Burton.

Utah has created a program called the Utah Compact where lawmakers, business interests such as the Utah Chamber of Commerce, and some religious groups work together to pass Amnesty legislation couched in enforcement language. They plan to spread this tactic to other states to overcome the will of most Americans who have defeated this kind of legislation five times in the last five years in Washington, DC!

"The political revolution in Utah has begun," said William Gheen. "Everyone in America is noticing that Utah just betrayed the nation by becoming the first sanctuary state for illegal aliens, moving unilaterally to try and rescind our existing federal immigration laws."

ALIPAC is publicizing the role of US Senator Orrin Hatch, the LDS Church, and the Utah Chamber of Commerce in the passage of Amnesty bill HB 116.

A national boycott of the businesses involved will be announced soon along with the lawsuits. Please visit



The LDS Church stepped from the sidelines on immigration reform and squarely onto the playing field Tuesday by sending Presiding Bishop H. David Burton to attend and speak at Gov. Gary Herbert’s signing ceremony for four bills passed by the Utah Legislature.

“Our presence here testifies to the fact that we are appreciative of what has happened in the Legislature this session,” Burton said at the signing, indicating it was no accident or private decision. “We feel the Legislature has done an incredible job on a very complex issue.”

Subjects: Illegal immigration, LDS Church, amnesty, HB116, guest workers, amnesty, state immigration laws

March 15, 2011

Peggy Fletcher Stack

The Salt Lake Tribune

Burton, who oversees the Utah-based church’s financial affairs, joined key legislators, business leaders, activists and religious figures such as Utah’s Episcopal Bishop Scott Hayashi and homeless advocate Pamela Atkinson in the Capitol’s Gold Room for the signing.

Burton’s presence was an extraordinarily public endorsement for the LDS Church, which typically prefers working in the background. And it has supporters and critics from within the faith scrambling to know how to react.

One thing is clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has abandoned its claims to neutrality on these bills.

And that surprised many who have been told repeatedly by the church’s spokesmen that it had no position and that the church’s lobbyists, Bill Evans and John Taylor, were on Capitol Hill solely to answer questions.

Though Evans and Taylor assured Ron Mortensen, an ardent opponent of illegal immigration, that the church was not actively lobbying on the issue, the two “spent literally the last 10 days in the back alleys of the Capitol, like full-time fixtures,” Mortensen said. “It wouldn’t have taken that much time to say the church is neutral.”

Both supporters and opponents agree that the church’s endorsement of the Utah Compact and its involvement in the legislative process was a game-changer.

If the Utah Legislature had been in session right after Arizona passed its stringent immigration law, the Beehive State “likely would have gotten the same thing,” said Paul Mero, president of the conservative Sutherland Institute.

But with the LDS Church support for immigration reform, Mero said, “we’ve had a 180 turn in this state. Culturally more and more folks understand how reasonable comprehensive reform is compared to enforcement only.”

Sen. Stuart Reid, R-Ogden, echoed that sentiment.

“There is no question that the Utah Compact with the church’s endorsement made a significant difference to me and others in the Legislature who helped craft immigration legislation,” Reid, Senate sponsor of HB116, a guest-worker bill, said in an e-mail. “It provided the inspiration for our efforts to negotiate and compromise, enabling us to create principle-based legislation the majority of the Legislature eventually supported.”

More than 80 percent of Utah lawmakers are LDS.

But it has left faithful Mormons who support strict enforcement of immigration laws grappling with the message from their ecclesiastical leaders.

“I am shocked that the church would support a bill that literally sacrifices 50,000 Utah children who are the victims of identity theft for the benefit of illegal aliens,” Mortensen said. “The church has sent so many conflicting messages, I just don’t know where they are coming from.”

It hasn’t destroyed his faith in the church, he said. “My faith is stronger than that, but it disappoints me.”

Arturo Morales-LLan, head of Legal Immigrants for Immigration Law Enforcement, supports Rep. Stephen Sandstrom’s, R-Orem, enforcement-only bill. He said he will not believe that the church supports these reform efforts until he sees an official statement from the LDS First Presidency itself.

“David Burton has a right to be present or to be involved in any affairs concerning the faith,” Morales-LLan said, “but he does not speak for the First Presidency.”

The Latino activist said he met with Herbert shortly after the signing ceremony and the governor assured him that Burton was there as an invited guest and that the church had “no involvement” in the bills.

That has left Morales-LLan feeling confused with what he sees as the church’s conflicting messages — to obey the law or support what he sees as “amnesty” for lawbreakers.

Latino activist Tony Yapias was pleased and surprised by Burton’s participation.

“This is something unprecedented that should send a message to members,” Yapias said. “It says that now the church wants to be more active in the immigration issue. They can’t be selective about where they show up.”

The debate is vital to Utah’s Latino population, many of whom are LDS. Yapias and others estimate that 50 percent to 75 percent of members in Utah’s 100-plus Spanish-speaking congregations are undocumented. That includes many bishops, branch presidents, even stake presidents. The church sends missionaries among undocumented immigrants across the country, baptizing many of them without asking about their status. It also allows them to go to the church’s temples and on missions.

Sen. Ross Romero didn’t support the immigration bills, arguing that immigration is a federal — not state issue. But the first Latino minority leader in the Legislature said he was happy to see “a more compassionate” approach than the original enforcement-only efforts. He applauds his own religious leader, Utah Catholic Bishop John Wester’s, outspoken defense of undocumented immigrants. He also welcomes the LDS Church’s support of the bills and hopes that support will be what people across the nation see, rather than the anti-immigration statements by church members Russell Pearce, the Arizona Senate sponsor of that state’s harsh law, and conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck.

“The church would want to make clear that [Pearce and Beck] may be of the religion but don’t speak for the religion,” Romero said. “David Burton’s presence at the signing is a reflection that this is [the church’s] view and where they stand.”



How To Make A Mexican Billionaire Like Carlos Slim: EXPORT MILLIONS OF POOR MEXICANS TO LOOT AMERICA - Saves Money For Dictators of Narcomex


Go to





World's Billionaires 2011: A Record Year For New Billionaires

Carlos Slim Widens Lead Atop List; Newcomers Include Founders of Zynga, Forever21.


Mar. 9, 2011

This 25th year of tracking global wealth was one to remember. The 2011 Billionaires List breaks two records: total number of listees (1,210) and combined wealth ($4.5 trillion). This horde surpasses the gross domestic product of Germany, one of only six nations to have fewer billionaires this year. BRICs led the way: Brazil, Russia, India and China produced 108 of the 214 new names. These four nations are home to one in four members, up from one in ten five years ago. Before this year only the U.S. had ever produced more than 100 billionaires. China now has 115 and Russia 101.

Atop the heap is Mexico's Carlos Slim Helu, who added $20.5 billion to his fortune, more than any other billionaire. The telecom mogul, who gets 62% of his fortune from America Movil, is now worth $74 billion and has pulled far ahead of his two closest rivals. Bill Gates, No. 2, and Warren Buffett, No. 3, both added a more modest $3 billion to their piles and are now worth $56 billion and $50 billion, respectively. Gates, who now gets 70% of his fortune from investments outside of Microsoft, has actually been investing in the Mexican stock market and has holdings in Mexican Coke bottler Femsa and Grupo Televisa.



March 9, 2011, 7:19 pm Private Equity

Carlos Slim Widens Lead as World’s Richest Man


Jin Lee/Bloomberg News Carlos Slim Helú, picked up 420.5 billion in wealth in the last year.

When it comes to the race for money, Carlos Slim Helú, the world’s richest man, has surged even further into the lead. The Mexican billionaire accumulated an additional $20.5 billion over the last year, bringing his total fortune to $74 billion, according the Forbes annual rankings of the world’s billionaires.

Mr. Slim has held the top spot since last year, when he pushed aside the two past leaders, Bill Gates and Warren E. Buffett. Still, both men added $3 billion to their wealth since the last Forbes billionaires survey. Mr. Gates, the richest man in the United States, is worth $56 billion, while Mr. Buffett is worth $50 billion, according to the magazine.

Forbes attributes the stunning gains in Mr. Slim’s estimated wealth to 19 percent rise in the Mexican stock market, a stronger peso and successful mining and real estate spin-offs from his conglomerate, Grupo Carso. The magazine notes that his family’s stake in América Móvil, the giant Latin American wireless operator, accounts for 62 percent of his fortune. Mr. Slim also owns significant stakes in other companies, including the retailer Saks and the New York Times Company.


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

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

The Mexican Invasion................................................

Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them

March 30, 2006 edition

Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them

At this week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US actions.

By George W. Grayson WILLIAMSBURG, VA.

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



Unfettered Immigration = Poverty

By Robert Rector
May 16, 2006

This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty. An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year.


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

PAY FOR THE LA RAZA OCCUPATION IN CALIFORNIA - San Diego school district launches new attacks on teachers

San Diego school district launches new attacks on teachers

San Diego school district launches new attacks on teachers

By Richard Vargas

14 March 2011

A special meeting of the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD), the second largest district in California, approved a proposal that represents another round in the attacks against the working class in the state. Every March for the past four years, a new and perverse ritual sees school boards throughout the state issue layoff notices to teachers and workers in anticipation for the latest round of budget cuts to be voted upon at the state level in the summer.

This year, the issue is complicated by the fact that the budget proposed by Governor Jerry Brown, which represents a frontal assault against the working class in the educational field as in all essential services, is contingent on a series of regressive tax proposals to be introduced in June in the form of a special ballot measure to be approved by the voters.

Nearly 1,600 SDUSD school workers, 885 of them teachers, are now on track to receive layoff notices in anticipation of Brown’s austerity budget, which could cut between $12.5 and $24.5 billion. The SDUSD Board of Education, facing a budget shortfall between $60 and $114 million, insists that by issuing the pink slips to workers $100 million could be saved. However, the range of cuts, both at the state and SDUSD level, is wholly contingent upon the regressive tax extensions that are to be placed on the June special election ballot. Without its passage, the “worst case scenario” of $114 million in cuts at SDUSD will be actualized.

In the classroom and schoolyards, the cuts will translate to increased class sizes from kindergarten to third grade, a 20 percent reduction in the transportation budget—which will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable families—and as much as a $349 per-student funding reduction, all in addition to the teacher and worker layoffs.

A rally to protest these cuts was held in San Diego before the board meeting. The rally was attended by hundreds of teachers, workers, as well as students.

Speaking at the rally, Bill Freeman, president of the San Diego Education Association (SDEA), offered a false and yet revealing presentation of the situation and the political issues confronting teachers, workers, and students in the district. Freeman explained that the cuts are merely a function of the fact that the district’s budgetary calculations are incorrect: “Their numbers are off, they do not add up.” He stated that if Republican candidate Meg Whitman had been elected as governor of California, “We would be in the same situation they have in Wisconsin.” He then added that they “are coming after unions because they do not want middle class Americans to have a voice.”

Teachers in San Diego and California, as a matter of fact, do confront the same massive attacks against their living standards that are being carried out in Wisconsin. These cuts represent a deliberate attempt to place the burden of the economic crisis squarely on the backs of working people. In California, moreover, these cuts are being carried out by the same Democratic governor that was supported by all the major unions in the state. These facts, however, do not seem to register with the trade union bureaucracy, because they are primarily concerned with their own ability to collect dues from their members. Only from this standpoint can the ongoing ruthless attack against teachers in California be presented, as Freeman did, as some sort of misunderstanding or an accounting error.

In reality, in San Diego as in Wisconsin, the unions continue to play a treacherous role. The rally and the perfunctory opposition to the cuts in San Diego in the final analysis are a way to allow the teachers and workers to harmlessly vent their frustrations while savage cuts are carried out. At the board meeting, dozens of workers expressed their outrage and discontent in their testimony, only to be told that nothing can be done.

The unions tell their members to be thankful that a Wisconsin–style attack against collective bargaining rights is not under way in California. But this a hollow and demagogic claim, since in practice they have long ago abandoned any substantive defense of their members’ jobs and wages.

A reporting team from the World Socialist Web Site interviewed students, teachers, and workers that gathered outside the SDUSD Board of Education meeting on Thursday, where the vote was carried through.

Tineke Housr, a special education worker at Miller Elementary for 25 years, is one of the nearly 600 “nonteaching” employees whose job is threatened by this vote. “As classified employees we are just as important as teachers. We work directly with the students. We are librarians, cafeteria workers, school bus drivers, janitors, and special education workers,” she said.

When asked about the role of Democrats and Governor Jerry Brown, Tineke stated, “There is a massive disconnect between politicians and the students and teachers out here today. [The Democrats] just don’t relate.”

Elementary school teacher and union leader at Hickman Elementary, Gary Strobel spoke about his frustration in having to repeatedly deal with budget cuts year in and year out. “Over the last three years I have seen my salary cut, and this year the board is at it again,” he said. “Only this time we are expected to take a cut while having witnessed the bailout of the banks and Wall Street.”

Strobel spoke of the large rally as “turning point” for teachers and students, but it is “just the beginning.”

Alicia, one of many high school students who participated in Thursday’s rally, said, “We are here to protest and support our teachers, who more and more feel less valued.” Another student, Enrique, added, “We are also here to make a statement; to say that we care about our education.”

Frustrated by this latest round of cuts, Ricardo, who had also came to the rally from his high school, insisted, “If they cut more money, and lay off more teachers, that will mean more students in the classroom, and all of this equals less attention on students and less education for us all.”

On the events unfolding in Wisconsin, and the attempts to stop the cuts there, Alicia stated, “It will be a model for us all.”

Welfare -- 23 million added to immigrant households each decade ( Is YOUR Tax $ Well Spent? )

____Welfare -- 23 million added to immigrant households each decade

1/2 immigrant households use welfare -- 23 million added to immigrant households each decade


NumbersUSA doesn't take a stand on whether government should be smaller or bigger. But we are amazed at the national Republican leaders who criticize Pres. Obama for bloating government but then they do nothing to reduce immigration.

In fact, we have learned that GOP leaders in Washington are telling their colleagues that they don't want Congress to do anything about immigration during this election year.

They don't want to deal with immigration even though government data shows that ONE-HALF of all immigrant households with kids use the welfare system -- while federal immigration policy adds 23 million people to those households every decade!

ACTION: If at least one of your 3 Members of Congress is a Republican:

You should find a fax to send them here telling them how disgusted you are that Republican leaders don't want to reduce immigration and its gigantic cost to government.

ACTION: If you have taken our Interests Survey and indicated you are an Independent or Swing Voter, you should find two faxes to send:

(1) Fax to Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, telling him that he is wrong to tell Congress not to try to fix immigration this year because most Independent voters are holding their votes for politicians who will reduce deficits by getting rid of unnecessary costs like immigration.

(2) Fax to Republican leaders of the Senate and House, and give them the same message you are giving Steele.

ACTION: If your U.S. Representative is one of the few good guys and gals who is actually working to reduce immigration this year, you will find a fax here to cheer them on.

ACTION: If all of your Members of Congress are Democrats:

Look on your customized Action Board for other faxes that need sending.

Friends, it appears that national Republican leaders believe they can win back Congress by just letting the Democrats mess up while the Republicans do nothing to try to help protect Americans from the burdens of radically high immigration levels.

It is up to all of us to let them know that this behavior is not acceptable and will not be rewarded.



I hope you will click for a quick read of my blog explaining this issue and what congressional leaders are ignoring.

Here are a few of my points:

"For those of you whose primary political interest is stopping the growth of government or even shrinking it, you have to contend with national leaders who say they agree with you but who refuse to deal with immigration. They say immigration is a "social" issue that isn't related to government spending and deficit issues. They couldn't be more wrong."

"With one-half of immigrant households with kids being poor enough to use the federal, state and local welfare systems, is there anybody blind enough to think that adding 2.3 million people a year to immigrant households is not driving huge increases in government?"

"Republican leaders may say they want to shrink Big Government, but not if it gets in the way of pleasing their cheap-labor corporate donors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."

"The intent of the Republican leaders is to ensure that 23 million people continue to be added to the heavily welfare-using immigrant households each decade. That is one form of bigger government that the Republican leaders love."




PAYING FOR CALIFORNIA'S MASSIVE DEFICITS CAUSED BY ILLEGALS - Long Beach, California: Public schools targeted for massive cuts, layoffs






Long Beach, California: Public schools targeted for massive cuts, layoffs

Long Beach, California: Public schools targeted for massive cuts, layoffs

By Tom Carter and Kim Saito

16 March 2011

Under the pretext of balancing the budget, California Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, in collaboration with city and local governments, as well as the state workers’ unions, is preparing to implement massive cuts to pensions, public education, health care, and other social programs. In anticipation, school boards throughout the state are announcing school closures, eliminating programs and issuing layoff notices.

In a foretaste of the sweeping cuts to come across California, the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) authorized the sending out of nearly 1,200 preliminary layoff notices, or “pink slips,” to teachers, counselors, and administrative staff. Over the past two months alone, the district has announced $60 million in cuts.

Long Beach, once known as the “International City,” is home to a large and growing population of immigrants from throughout the Pacific Rim and Central America. More than 87,000 students attend LBUSD schools, making the system the third largest in the state. Since 2008, LBUSD has slashed spending by more than $200 million.

The latest round of cuts features school closures, an increase in kindergarten- through third-grade class sizes from an average of 20 to 30 students, and the reduction or elimination of educational programs that teach computer, health, and service skills. There are predictions that class sizes could reach as high as 40 in the coming years.

WSWS reporters recently spoke to teachers and school staff in Long Beach about the situation.

A teacher who has worked for 20 years at Burroughs Elementary School, which was just identified as one of the schools that will be shuttered, told the WSWS, “Our campus is beautiful. We have grass and trees. There are only 297 kids, so it’s like a family. The teachers are familiar with all the kids, and the kids know each other. And now they’re fearful about the changes; they’re feeling very nervous because they’re going to get split up.”

“I have 35 students in my classroom. My goal is to have a personal conversation with each child every day. But when you have 35 kids, I can’t even give them two minutes of my time with all the material we have to get through and then get them ready for testing. I have a wide span of levels, from first to fifth grade levels. We have no specialists for ELD [English Language Development] kids.”

Another teacher who had worked at the same school for 26 years said, “The district’s been sending their people here with their clipboards and drawings of the school. They’re coming in, examining things—and we haven’t even left yet. We considered that very insensitive.”

The public employee unions in Long Beach, which supported Brown and the Democratic Party in recent elections, have refused to mount any struggle against the closures and layoffs, while at the same time agreeing to major concessions from their members.

The Long Beach chapter of the California School Employees Association (CSEA), which represents custodians, maintenance workers, and other school support staff, recently entered into an agreement that raises employee health care contributions, suspends salary increases based on years of experience, and includes additional “furlough days,” or unpaid leave.

The union’s prostration before the cuts has elicited praise from state officials. “I deeply appreciate the willingness of CSEA’s leadership to consider some reasonable compromises during these lean times for public schools,” LBUSD Superintendent Chris Steinhauser said in a statement.

Asked about the union, a school custodian with 11 years experience in the district told the WSWS, “I know how they work—you pay your union dues, and you get laid off.”

The teachers and other school staff who provided interviews urged WSWS reporters not to use their names out of fear of being targeted in the next round of layoffs.


JUDICIALWATCH. Org… get on their emails


County Spends $600 Mil On Welfare For Illegal Immigrants

Last Updated: Thu, 03/11/2010 - 3:14pm

For the second consecutive year taxpayers in a single U.S. county will dish out more than half a billion dollars just to cover the welfare and food-stamp costs of illegal immigrants.

Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous, may be in the midst of a dire financial crisis but somehow there are plenty of funds for illegal aliens. In January alone, anchor babies born to the county’s illegal immigrants collected more than $50 million in welfare benefits. At that rate the cash-strapped county will pay around $600 million this year to provide illegal aliens’ offspring with food stamps and other welfare perks.


The exorbitant figure, revealed this week by a county supervisor, doesn’t even include the enormous cost of educating, medically treating or incarcerating illegal aliens in the sprawling county of about 10 million residents. Los Angeles County annually spends more than $1 billion for those combined services, including $500 million for healthcare and $350 million for public safety.

About a quarter of the county’s welfare and food stamp issuances go to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their anchor babies, according to the figures from the county’s Department of Social Services. In 2009 the tab ran $570 million and this year’s figure is expected to increase by several million dollars.

Illegal immigration continues to have a “catastrophic impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,” the veteran county supervisor (Michael Antonovich) who revealed the information has said. The former fifth-grade history teacher has repeatedly come under fire from his liberal counterparts for publicizing statistics that confirm the devastation illegal immigration has had on the region. Antonovich, who has served on the board for nearly three decades, represents a portion of the county that is roughly twice the size of Rhode Island and has about 2 million residents.

His district is simply a snippet of a larger crisis. Nationwide, Americans pay around $22 billion annually to provide illegal immigrants with welfare benefits that include food assistance programs such as free school lunches in public schools, food stamps and a nutritional program (known as WIC) for low-income women and their children. Tens of billions more are spent on other social services, medical care, public education and legal costs such as incarceration and public defenders.


WHITE HOUSE CUTS - EXCEPT WELFARE FOR BANKSTER DONORS - Massachusetts: Hundreds of thousands affected by proposed LIHEAP cuts

Massachusetts: Hundreds of thousands affected by proposed LIHEAP cuts

Massachusetts: Hundreds of thousands affected by proposed LIHEAP cuts

By John Marion

16 March 2011

The Obama Administration’s platitudes about economic recovery stand in stark contrast to the conditions faced by Massachusetts families whose Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) benefits would be cut in half next year under the White House’s proposed budget.

Nationally, the Administration’s budget proposal for the 2012 fiscal year includes a cut of $2.5 billion, or nearly 50 percent from FY10 levels, to LIHEAP. While this amount represents less than 0.23 percent of the projected FY12 federal deficit, and less than an average week of spending on the Afghan and Iraq wars, it will have a devastating impact on hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts recipients of fuel assistance and millions in other states, many of whom are already cutting back on food and needed medicines because of high heating bills.

Massachusetts already saw a cut of $21.1 million, or nearly 10 percent, in LIHEAP funding between fiscal years 2009 and 2010, while applications for assistance skyrocketed because of the economic crisis. Because the program is funded incrementally each year, the final amounts of FY11 funding are not yet available; however, short-term funding is threatened by the federal continuing resolution, which keeps spending at FY10 levels, while the need for fuel this winter is not yet over in the Northeast.

Slightly more than 200,000 Massachusetts families received LIHEAP benefits in the year ending September 30, 2008, according to the state’s FY11 plan document. Of these, 68,000 had household incomes either at or below 100% of the federal poverty level.

Kathy Tobin of the fuel assistance program at Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD), a not-for-profit which administers LIHEAP funding in the Greater Boston area, told the WSWS that statewide there have been an additional 50,000 applications for LIHEAP benefits in the past three years. ABCD has seen an increase of about 10 percent in applications from last year to this, demonstrating that the economy is not improving for thousands of families, even in a state with unemployment below the national average.

The maximum yearly benefit for heating oil is $1,090 for people at 100 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $22,000 for a family of four. Families that can document exceptionally high heating bills from the previous winter are eligible for an additional “high energy cost supplement” of $75.

According to Tobin, the current cost for heating oil in Greater Boston is over $4 per gallon. At that price, filling an average oil tank of 275 gallons once would exhaust the yearly benefit. If Obama’s proposed cuts resulted in 50 percent less benefits per recipient next year, such families would lose a benefit of nearly $600, or more than 2.5 percent of their yearly gross income. In addition, families who are already struggling would have problems even purchasing oil; according to Tobin, the oil vendors ABCD works with are often not willing to deliver less than 100 gallons at a time.

Tobin told the WSWS that “the economy has not improved for our clients. Incomes remain stagnant and prices from rent to fuel to food to medicine have increased. We continue to assist people who are still finding it difficult to find a job once they were laid off.” Recipient families have to crowd into one or two rooms at night to stay warm, and sometimes risk carbon monoxide poisoning by heating their kitchen with an open stove.

In families that are forced to cut corners on food and fuel purchases, children are both chilled and hungry at night, and therefore fall behind in their schoolwork. According to the 2010 Hunger in Massachusetts Fact Sheet from the Greater Boston Food Bank, 6 percent of household members benefiting from the Food Bank’s services were children under 5, while 32 percent were under the age of 18.

Thirty-five percent of ABCD’s fuel assistance clients are on fixed incomes, such as Social Security or other pensions. As both big business parties increase their attacks on Social Security and Medicare, such retirees will be squeezed by inflation and fuel assistance cuts, while at best their Social Security benefits remain unchanged.

The upper limit to be income-eligible for LIHEAP in Massachusetts is 60 percent of the state’s median income, which works out to slightly less than $31,000 for an individual and slightly more than $59,000 for a family of four. The maximum benefit at that level is $725 per year, including the high energy cost supplement. This amount would buy less than 200 gallons of heating oil at current prices.

In announcing the proposed cuts to LIHEAP, the Administration’s budget document casually offers a Department of Energy prediction that the price of West Texas Intermediate crude will be only $95 per barrel in the last quarter of 2011. Yet the US government’s own Energy Information Administration estimates a 36 percent probability that the price will actually be $110 per barrel. Putting aside such predictions, the EIA reports that nationally the cost of a gallon of home heating oil increased from less than $3 in October 2010 to $3.87 on March 7. The latter amount is almost $1 more than the cost in March 2010.

Massachusetts’ LIHEAP benefit is calculated on the cost of heating oil at local terminals plus a price margin, and is above the national average.

On top of the proposed cuts to LIHEAP, the House of Representatives’ proposed budget would eliminate funding for the Community Development Block Grant, which helps ABCD run 15 satellite offices in the neighborhoods it serves. In addition to accepting fuel assistance applications, the satellite offices “provide child care, ESOL, education, job training and placement, housing services and homelessness prevention, immigration/citizenship classes, summer jobs for at-risk youth,” according to Susan Kooperstein, the organization’s director of Public Affairs.

As the federal government seeks to balance its debt on the backs of the working class, such program cuts will occur in many Massachusetts cities and towns, while no sacrifices are expected of the state’s billionaires and multimillionaires.