Friday, July 8, 2011

California Pays Out $1.25 BILLION on LA RAZA ILLEGALS' HOSPITAL COSTS - JUDICIAL WATCH

CALIFORNIA – MEXICO’S JOBS, WELFARE, AND “FREE” MEDICAL FOR THE MEXICANS THEY EXPORT TO LOOT OUR NATION.
WHAT? CAN’T AFFORD TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL? JUST TELL THEM YOU’RE AN ILLEGAL. ILLEGALS ARE ALWAYS ABOVE THE LAW! THEY DRIVE WITHOUT LICENSES, TAKE OUR JOBS WITH STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, COLLECT WELFARE, AND VOTE!


JUDICIAL WATCH



Calif. Hospitals Spend $1.25 Bil On Illegal Immigrants

*
07/05/2011

While the Obama Administration halts deportations to work on its secret amnesty plan, hospitals across the U.S. are getting stuck with the exorbitant tab of medically treating illegal immigrants and some are finally demanding compensation from the federal government.
The group that represents most of the nation’s hospitals and medical providers recently urged President Obama to work with Congress to reimburse them for the monstrous cost of treating illegal immigrants. Federal law requires facilities to “treat and stabilize individuals” regardless of their immigration status, but federal support for the services remains “virtually nonexistent,” according to a letter submitted by the American Hospital Association to the president.
This week officials in California, the state with the largest concentration of illegal immigrants, joined the call for federal compensation after revealing that hospitals there spend about $1.25 billion annually to care for illegal aliens. The figure skyrocketed from $1.05 billion in 2007, according to California Hospital Association figures quoted in a local news report.
The problem will only get worst, according to officials, who say the $1.25 billion for 2010 could actually be higher. They complain that federal law forces them to treat patients in emergency rooms regardless of immigration status yet they get stuck with the financial burden. This has forced many hospitals to curtail services or close beds and could ultimately compromise healthcare.
Nationwide, U.S. taxpayers spend tens of billions of dollars annually to provide free medical care for illegal immigrants with states that border Mexico taking the biggest hit. Adding to the problem is the fact that Mexico, the country that provides the largest amount of illegal immigrants in the U.S., has long promoted America’s generous public health centers. It even operates a Spanish-language program (Ventanillas de Salud, Health Windows) in about a dozen U.S. cities that refers its nationals—living in the country illegally—to publicly funded health centers where they can get free medical care without being turned over to immigration authorities.
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/is-american-dread-dead-or-just-looted.html

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/book-mexifornia-shattering-of-american.html
*
CALIFORNIA – A STATE FILLED WITH ILLEGALS AND CORRUPT SELF-SERVING POLITICIANS SERVING THEIR CORPORATE RAPIST PAYMASTERS.

“So what about California? The economic well-being of many metropolitan areas in the Golden State has been sinking precipitously since 2006. This year, three California regions--Oakland, Sacramento and San Bernardino-Riverside--have sunk down into the bottom 10 on the large cities list. That's a phenomenon we've never seen before--and never expected to see.” FORBES
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/forbes-california-10-of-worst-cities.html
*
THESE FIGURES ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ARE DATED. IT NOT EXCEEDS $600 MILLION PER YEAR!!! (source: Los Angeles County & JUDICIAL WATCH)
*
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949085/posts
*
LOS ANGELES – A MEXICAN WELFARE AND CRIME STATE WHERE THE JOBS ALSO GO TO ILLEGALS
http://mex¬icanoccupa¬tion.blogs¬pot.com/20¬11/04/mexi¬can-welfar¬e-state-in¬-los-angel¬es.html

*
One tragic thing about this book is that it was written in 2003. Since then the Mexican occupation has doubled. Welfare to illegals is up to $20 BILLION in California. Welfare to illegals in sanctuary city Los Angeles is past $600 million per year, while Mexican gangs murder all over the state. Yet the lifer-politicians continue to fight for open borders, more perks for illegals, and their illegal votes!
*
BOOK: MEXIFORNIA – THE SHATTERING OF THE AMERICAN DREAM WITH THE MEXICAN INVASION AND OCCUPATION
*
"Victor Davis Hanson brings a lifetime of experience in California's Central Valley to this indictment of multiculturalism and mass immigration." -- Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies

More Dismal News on Job Creation, Unemployment | CNSnews.com

More Dismal News on Job Creation, Unemployment | CNSnews.com


http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/07/e-verify-obama-continues-to-sabotage-e.html
*
Indicating he wanted an amnesty attached to the E-Verify legislation, the President added, “We may not be able to get everything that I would like to see in a package, but we have to have a balanced package.”
*
OBAMA CONTINUES TO SABOTAGE E-VERIFY SO HE CAN PUT MORE OF HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE (ILLEGALS) IN OUR JOBS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED, AND HIS CORPORATE DONORS HAPPY AND GENEROU$$$$$

*
Obama Tip-Toes Around E-Verify; Continues to Push for Amnesty
At a press conference in the White House last week, President Obama avoided answering whether he would sign a mandatory E-Verify law if Congress presented one to him. “[I]f you receive a mandatory E-Verify bill only, without legalization, are you planning to veto that bill?” a reporter asked the President. “[W]e need comprehensive immigration reform,” replied the President. “I’ve said it before, I will say it again, I will say it next week and I’ll say it six months from now.” Indicating he wanted an amnesty attached to the E-Verify legislation, the President added, “We may not be able to get everything that I would like to see in a package, but we have to have a balanced package.”

Issa Says He Doesn’t Believe Holder’s Testimony Was Accurate | CNSnews.com

Issa Says He Doesn’t Believe Holder’s Testimony Was Accurate | CNSnews.com

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/07/08/117182/commentary-obamas-tax-plan-to.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/07/08/117182/commentary-obamas-tax-plan-to.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/07/08/117232/fbi-joins-effort-to-identify-undocumented.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/07/08/117232/fbi-joins-effort-to-identify-undocumented.html

FBI TO FIGHT LA RAZA INVADERS - THAT MEAN THEY WILL BE FIGHTING HISPANDERING OBAMA?

OBAMA HAS DETERMINED THAT 8 OUT OF 10 ILLEGALS CAUGHT ARE RELEASED SO THEY CAN GO OUT AND VOTE. OBAMA DOESN’T CALL THESE ILLEGALS CRIMINALS. HE CALLS THEM “MY UNDOCUMENTED DEMS!”

“Through April 30, 2011, more than 77,000 immigrants convicted of crimes, including more than 28,000 convicted of aggravated felony (level 1) offenses like murder, rape and the sexual abuse of children were removed from the United States after identification through Secure Communities,” ICE says on its Secure Communities website.
Also last month, ICE chief John Morton announced a series of reforms to Secure Communities intended to ensure that noncriminal undocumented immigrants are not the priority of the program.


*
FBI joins effort to identify undocumented aliens
By ALFONSO CHARDY
achardy@ElNuevoHerald.com
The FBI plays a role in a controversial, nationwide immigration-control program known as Secure Communities through which a Department of Homeland Security agency identifies foreign nationals booked at local jails, according to immigrant-rights activists who obtained internal documents from the Obama administration.
An analysis of the documents by the activists suggests that the immigration-control program, which operates in Florida, is part of a broader FBI initiative to collect personal information on arrested foreign nationals and U.S. citizens. Secure Communities is overseen by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The documents released by activists are the first public indication that the FBI is involved with Secure Communities, and indicate that information collected at booking centers is being compiled for the broader data-gathering project.
The groups that released the documents, obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, said the broader project is an FBI program dubbed Next Generation Identification, or NGI, that includes not only fingerprint matches but iris scans and facial-recognition technology.
“NGI is the next generation Big Brother,” said Jessica Karp of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, one of the groups that released the documents. “It’s a back-door route to a national ID, to be carried not in a wallet but within the body itself.”
The other groups involved in the documents’ release include the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Cardozo Law School Immigration Justice Clinic.
ICE referred calls to the FBI, and the FBI said it had no immediate comment. An FBI website contains details about the NGI program. It says NGI is an effort to speed the identification of wanted criminals, terrorism suspects, sex offenders and “other persons of special interest,” but the site does not mention Secure Communities.
However, one of the documents released by the groups, marked FBI-SC — possibly referring to Secure Communities — says that the ICE program “is simply the first of a number of biometric interoperability systems being brought on line by the . . . Next Generation Identification (NGI) initiative.”
Another document, a staff paper from the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services, says the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security worked to share information as a result of post-Sept. 11 congressional mandates.
As a result, the document said, the FBI and Homeland Security in 2008 signed an agreement to share database services. Secure Communities began as a pilot program in 2008.
After Secure Communities was established, immigrant-rights activists began voicing concerns that instead of leading to the identification of dangerous criminals and terrorists, the program was snaring an increasing number of noncriminal undocumented immigrants arrested for minor traffic violations.
Several states and jurisdictions, including New York and Illinois, have expressed their intent to withdraw from the program or not participate in it. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, said in a statement last month that Secure Communities had failed to deport serious felons. Florida Gov. Rick Scott has not expressed objections to Secure Communities.
ICE insists that the program has been successful in deporting dangerous foreign criminals.
“Through April 30, 2011, more than 77,000 immigrants convicted of crimes, including more than 28,000 convicted of aggravated felony (level 1) offenses like murder, rape and the sexual abuse of children were removed from the United States after identification through Secure Communities,” ICE says on its Secure Communities website.
Also last month, ICE chief John Morton announced a series of reforms to Secure Communities intended to ensure that noncriminal undocumented immigrants are not the priority of the program.




Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/06/v-print/2304400/fbi-joins-effort-to-identify-undocumented.html#ixzz1RW0DVBqw

*
OBAMA’S BIT BY BIT AMNESTY – AND FLIP-OFF OF THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
DEPT. HOMELAND SECURITY = PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP

Feds moving to dismiss some deportation cases
Critics assail the plan as a bid to create a kind of backdoor 'amnesty'
By SUSAN CARROLL
Copyright 2010, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Aug. 24, 2010, 9:00PM
The Department of Homeland Security is systematically reviewing thousands of pending immigration cases and moving to dismiss those filed against suspected illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal records, according to several sources familiar with the efforts.
Culling the immigration court system dockets of noncriminals started in earnest in Houston about a month ago and has stunned local immigration attorneys, who have reported coming to court anticipating clients' deportations only to learn that the government was dismissing their cases.
Richard Rocha, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman, said Tuesday that the review is part of the agency's broader, nationwide strategy to prioritize the deportations of illegal immigrants who pose a threat to national security and public safety. Rocha declined to provide further details.
Critics assailed the plan as another sign that the Obama administration is trying to create a kind of backdoor "amnesty" program.
Raed Gonzalez, an immigration attorney who was briefed on the effort by Homeland Security's deputy chief counsel in Houston, said DHS confirmed that it's reviewing cases nationwide, though not yet to the pace of the local office. He said the others are expected to follow suit soon.
Gonzalez, the liaison between the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which administers the immigration court system, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said DHS now has five attorneys assigned full time to reviewing all active cases in Houston's immigration court.
Gonzalez said DHS attorneys are conducting the reviews on a case-by-case basis. However, he said they are following general guidelines that allow for the dismissal of cases for defendants who have been in the country for two or more years and have no felony convictions.
In some instances, defendants can have one misdemeanor conviction, but it cannot involve a DWI, family violence or sexual crime, Gonzalez said.
Massive backlog of cases
Opponents of illegal immigration were critical of the dismissals.
"They've made clear that they have no interest in enforcing immigration laws against people who are not convicted criminals," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for strict controls.
"This situation is just another side effect of President Obama's failure to deliver on his campaign promise to make immigration reform a priority in his first year," said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "Until he does, state and local authorities are left with no choice but to pick up the slack for prosecuting and detaining criminal aliens."
Gonzalez called the dismissals a necessary step in unclogging a massive backlog in the immigration court system. In June, there were more than 248,000 cases pending in immigration courts across the country, including about 23,000 in Texas, according to data compiled by researchers at Syracuse University.
'Absolutely fantastic'
Gonzalez said he went into immigration court downtown on Monday and was given a court date in October 2011 for one client. But, he said, the government's attorney requested the dismissal of that case and those of two more of his clients, and the cases were dispatched by the judge.
The court "was terminating all of the cases that came up," Gonzalez said. "It was absolutely fantastic."
"We're all calling each other saying, 'Can you believe this?' " said John Nechman, another Houston immigration attorney, who had two cases dismissed.
Attorney Elizabeth Mendoza Macias, who has practiced in Houston for 17 years, said she had cases for several clients dismissed during the past month and eventually called DHS to find out what was going on. She said she was told by a DHS trial attorney that 2,500 cases were under review in Houston.
"I had five (dismissed) in one week, and two more that I just received," Mendoza said. "And I am expecting many more, many more, in the next month."
Her clients, all previously charged with being in the country illegally, included:
An El Salvadoran man married to a U.S. citizen who has two U.S.-born children. The client had a pending asylum case in the court system, but the case was not particularly strong. Now that his case is terminated, he will be eligible to obtain permanent residency through his wife, Mendoza said.
A woman from Cameroon, who was in removal proceedings after being caught by the U.S. Border Patrol, had her case terminated by the government. She meets the criteria of a trafficking victim, Mendoza said, and can now apply for a visa.
Memo outlines priorities
Immigrants who have had their cases terminated are frequently left in limbo, immigration attorneys said, and are not granted any form of legal status.
"It's very, very key to understand that these aliens are not being granted anything in court. They are still here illegally. They don't have work permits. They don't have Social Security numbers," Mendoza said. "ICE is just saying, 'At this particular moment, we are not going to proceed with trying to remove you from the United States.' "
In a June 30 memo, ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton outlined the agency's priorities, saying it had the capacity to remove about 400,000 illegal immigrants annually — about 4 percent of the estimated illegal immigrant population in the country. The memo outlines priorities for the detention and removal system, putting criminals and threats to national security at the top of the list.
Up to 17,000 cases
On Tuesday, ICE officials provided a copy of a new policy memo from Morton dated Aug. 20 that instructs government attorneys to review the court cases of people with pending applications to adjust status based on their relation to a U.S. citizen. Morton estimates in the memo that the effort could affect up to 17,000 cases.
Tre Rebsock, the ICE union representative in Houston, said even if the efforts involve only a fraction of the pending immigration cases, "that's going to make our officers feel even more powerless to enforce the laws."
susan.carroll@chron.com
*

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.dailybreeze.com/ci_11255121?appSession=934140935651450&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

*
TEN MOST WANTED CRIMINALS IN CALIFORNIA ARE MEXICANS!
*
http://ag.ca.gov/wanted/mostwanted.php?fid=mostWantedFugitives_2010-01
*
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103 Did you know illegals kill 12 Americans a day?
*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/la-raza-fascist-mexican-supremacy.html
*
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1738432/posts FBI Crime Statistics - Crimes committed by illegals.
*
Subject: From the L.A. Times Newspaper
THESE ARE VERY DATED FIGURES. THE SITUATION IS MUCH WORSE NOW AS THE LA RAZA DEMS HAVE CONTINUED TO TURN OVER THE STATE TO ILLEGALS.

1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County (L. A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.
*
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
*
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
*
4. Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
*
5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
*
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
*
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
*
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
*
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
*
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L. A. County).

(All 10 from the Los Angeles Times) Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration. Add to this TWO BILLION dollars of Los Angeles County is sent to Mexico untaxed.
*
The danger, as Washington Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson argues, is that of “importing poverty” in the form of a new underclass—a permanent group of working poor.

JOBS? No Legal Need Apply!

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/jobs-not-in-la-raza-occupied-mexifornia.html
*

YOU WONT FIND A DEMOCRAT THAT IS NOT PUSHING TO PUT MORE ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS.
IT’S NOT BECAUSE THEY CARE ABOUT FINDING WORK FOR THE MILLIONS OF MEXICANS MEXICO HAS EXPORTED TO LOOT OUR NATION, IT IS ALL ABOUT KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED!
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN IS ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN AMERICAN HISTORY. SHE IS AN OBAMA DONOR, BUSH WAR PROFITEER, AND HAS LONG PUSHED FOR AMNESTY, DREAM ACT FORMS OF AMNESTY, NO WALL, NO E-VERIFY, NO ENGLISH ONLY, AND NO I.D. TO VOTE. HER LA RAZA SISTERS, BOXER, PELOSI, LOFGREN, ESHOO ALSO FIGHT TO PUT ILLEGALS IN OUR JOBS. IT’S ALL ABOUT KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED WHICH MAKES THEIR CORPORATE PAYMASTERS HAPPY AND GENEROUS.
FEINSTEIN & BOXER HAVE TWICE PUSHED FOR A HUGE “SPECIAL AMNESTY” FOR 1.5 MILLION ILLEGAL FARM WORKERS DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONE-THIRD OF THESE FARM WORKERS WOULD END UP ON WELFARE. CA ALREADY PUTS OUT $20 BILLION IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS, AND ACCORDING TO THE CA AG, NEARLY HALF THE MURDERS IN MEXIFORNIA ARE BY MEX GANGS! YOU WON’T HEAR THE LA RAZA DEMS TALK ABOUT THIS AS THEY HISPANDER FOR THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES!
DIANNE FEINSTEIN HAS LONG HIRED ILLEGALS AT HER S.F. HOTEL. HER LA RAZA SISTER HAS LONG HIRED ILLEGALS AT HER ST. HELENA, NAPA WINERY. BARBARA BOXER “WON” REELECTION WITH THE VOTES OF ILLEGALS SHE’S WORKED SO HARD FOR!
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS IN MELTDOWN DUE IN LARGE PART TO THE STAGGERING CORRUPTION OF THESE THREE CORRUPT WOMEN ALONE! ALL THREE HAVE AMASSED A HUGE FORTUNE OFF ELECTED OFFICE. NO ONE IN AMERICAN HISTORY HAS MADE MORE OFF ELECTED OFFICE THAN DIANNE FEINSTEIN AND HER HUSBAND, RICHARD C. BLUM!
MEANWHILE, MEXICO CONTINUES TO EXPORT THEIR POOR, CRIMINAL AND PREGNANT OVER OUR BORDERS FOR THE LOOTING AND TO WAVE THEIR MEXICAN FLAGS IN OUR FACES!
*

STATES IN THE SOUTHWEST, WHICH LA RAZA REFERS TO AS “AZTLAN” OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, HAS THE MOST UNEMPLOYMENT.
THE POPULATION OF MEXIFORNIA IS NOW HALF ILLEGAL. IN NEVADA MORE THAN 25% OF THE POPULATION IS ILLEGAL. IN COLORADO 20% OF THE POPULATION IS ILLEGAL.

According to the report, the metro areas with the highest unemployment levels are those worst affected by the housing collapse and job cuts in manufacturing. The fall in the housing market, particularly in states like California, Florida and Nevada, has left record-high joblessness in its wake.
*
The report notes that of the 25 areas with the highest jobless rates, 13 are in California, while most of the others are in Florida, Nevada and Arizona.
*
Seventy eight metropolitan areas have had more than ten percent of their jobs wiped out since the start of the downturn. Of these, 11 are in Florida, nine are in California, eight are in Michigan, and five are in Indiana.
*
Of the five large areas with the highest unemployment rates, four are in California--Stockton, with an unemployment rate of 16.2 percent, Modesto (15.9 percent), Fresno (15.7 percent) and Riverside (13.3 percent).
*
A number of smaller cities have unemployment rates comparable with those of the Great Depression. El Centro, California, a metro area with 163,972 people, has an unemployment rate of 29.1 percent. Yuma, Arizona, an area with 196,972 people, has an unemployment rate of 26.4 percent.
*
The Obama administration has done nothing to help homeowners avert foreclosure--one of the key factors in the housing market slump.
*
Forty six major US cities face two "lost decades" of job growth
By Andre Damon
22 June 2011
One in eight American cities will have no growth in jobs in the two decades between 2001 and 2021, according to the latest employment report by the US Conference of Mayors. The report, released this week, outlines economic growth and employment prospects in 363 major metropolitan areas. It shows that employment conditions unlike anything seen since the Great Depression prevail in cities throughout the country.
Locations that face no employment growth until after 2021 [Chart: IHS Global Insight for the United States Conference of Mayors]
According to the report, which was compiled for the US Conference of Mayors by IHS Global Insight, an economics consultancy, 48 major metropolitan areas will not return to their pre-recession peak employment levels until after 2021. Forty six of those cities have had net job losses between 2001 and 2011, meaning they face the prospect of two "lost decades" of job growth. In all, 166 metropolitan areas, or nearly half, lost jobs between 2001 and 2011.
Even these grim projections are based on unduly optimistic assumptions about the pace of economic growth going forward. The authors of the report expect a growth rate of 3.5 percent in the second half of this year, up significantly from the 1.8 percent rate in the first three months of 2011 and considerably higher than most economists forecast.
On the basis of such higher-than-likely economic growth, the report says job growth in 2011 will reach just 1.2 percent. This is "only a bit higher than underlying labor force growth," resulting in a negligible change in unemployment over the whole of 2011. The report adds that "only in the first half of 2014 will employment in the US match its previous peak level from early 2008."
Of the 363 major metropolitan areas, 103 currently have double-digit unemployment rates, while 33 areas have unemployment rates above 12 percent.
According to the report, the metro areas with the highest unemployment levels are those worst affected by the housing collapse and job cuts in manufacturing. The fall in the housing market, particularly in states like California, Florida and Nevada, has left record-high joblessness in its wake. At the same time, the slashing of the industrial workforce in 2008-2009 wiped out hundreds of thousands of jobs in states like Indiana, Michigan and Ohio.
The two cities that have lost the largest portion of their jobs since the start of the economic downturn are both located in Indiana, in the heart of the American "rust belt." The Elkhart-Goshen area, a center of recreation vehicle manufacturing, has lost 38,000 jobs out of an original 133,000 since 2006, a decline of nearly 30 percent.
Kokomo has lost nearly one quarter of its jobs, with the destruction of 11,000 of the 48,000 that existed in 2005. "A lot of it had to do with the downsizing of the auto industry," said Kokomo Mayor Greg Goodnight in a telephone interview. "The toughest point was 2008-2009," he said.
Chrysler operates three transmission plants and one casting plant in Kokomo, employing 4,700 people, said Goodnight. GM and Delphi also have plants in the city, each employing 1,200 people.
"In the 1970s, GM had 10,000 employees in Kokomo and Chrysler peaked at about 7,000 ten to 15 years ago," Goodnight added.
Seventy eight metropolitan areas have had more than ten percent of their jobs wiped out since the start of the downturn. Of these, 11 are in Florida, nine are in California, eight are in Michigan, and five are in Indiana. Detroit has lost more jobs than any other metro area, with a drop of 323,000, or 16 percent of its employment.
Other major automotive areas such as Flint, Michigan have likewise been hammered. Flint has lost 24,000 jobs, or 15.8 percent of its previous total, during the downturn. Toledo has lost 40,500 or 12.1 percent of its jobs.
The report notes that of the 25 areas with the highest jobless rates, 13 are in California, while most of the others are in Florida, Nevada and Arizona. These are states that have suffered the sharpest decline in home values.
Of the five large areas with the highest unemployment rates, four are in California--Stockton, with an unemployment rate of 16.2 percent, Modesto (15.9 percent), Fresno (15.7 percent) and Riverside (13.3 percent).
A number of smaller cities have unemployment rates comparable with those of the Great Depression. El Centro, California, a metro area with 163,972 people, has an unemployment rate of 29.1 percent. Yuma, Arizona, an area with 196,972 people, has an unemployment rate of 26.4 percent.
The housing slump, which is a huge factor in the loss of jobs, is only getting worse. Existing home sales fell 3.8 percent in May and were down 15.3 percent from May 2010, according to figures released Tuesday by the National Association of Realtors. Home values have fallen for nine consecutive months, dropping 7.8 percent over the past two quarters.
The Obama administration has done nothing to help homeowners avert foreclosure--one of the key factors in the housing market slump. Its foreclosure assistance scheme, the Home Affordable Modification Program, was doomed to failure because it was entirely voluntary, placing no requirements on banks or mortgage lenders.
The government set aside $46 billion in funds from the 2008 bank bailout for its mortgage modification program, but has spent only about $2 billion as a result of the banks failure to cooperate.
Manufacturing conditions are also deteriorating. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York said last week that its business conditions index fell below zero for the first time in seven months, while the Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s manufacturing index indicated the sharpest manufacturing contraction since July 2009.
The pervasive high unemployment in cities across the country has been reinforced by the austerity measures being implemented by both political parties. In the last two years, the federal, state and local governments have laid off 494,000 workers, with hundreds of thousands more layoffs to come. At the state and local levels, these layoffs have been concentrated in the areas hardest hit by the economic crisis, as falling employment has cut tax revenues most sharply and led to the deepest spending cuts.
*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/obamanomics-rich-donors-get-richer-and.html
*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikileaks-exposed-obamas-la-raza-open.html
*
“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” ….. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*
For years, statistics have depicted growing income disparity in the United States, and it has reached levels not seen since the Great Depression. In 2008, the last year for which data are available, for example, the top 0.1 percent of earners took in more than 10 percent of the personal income in the United States, including capital gains, and the top 1 percent took in more than 20 percent. But economists had little idea who these people were. How many were Wall street financiers? Sports stars? Entrepreneurs? Economists could only speculate, and debates over what is fair stalled.
Now a mounting body of economic research indicates that the rise in pay for company executives is a critical feature in the widening income gap.
*

NOTE THE ARTICLE BELOW SAYS THAT THERE ARE NOW 43.6 MILLION AMERICANS LIVING IN POVERTY.
THERE ARE NOW 40 MILLION ILLEGALS IN OUR COUNTRY! FOR YEARS THERE HAS BEEN ABOUT 1.5 MILLION ILLEGALS HOP THE NARCOMEX BORDER, WHILE 1.5 AMERICANS FELL INTO POVERTY!
DO THE MATH, OR SIMPLY LOOK AROUND YOU! HOW MANY JOBS GO TO NON-HISPANICS?
THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT STATES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN LOS ANGELES WHERE HALF THOSE WITH A JOB ARE ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS!


While 43.6 million Americans live in poverty, the richest men of finance sure are getting pissy. First Steve Schwartzman, head of the Blackrock private equity company, compares the Obama administration's effort to close billionaires' tax loopholes to "the Nazi invasion of Poland." Then hedge fund mogul David Loeb announces that he's abandoning the Democrats because they're violating "this country's core founding principles" -- including "non-punitive taxation, Constitutionally-guaranteed protections against persecution of the minority, and an inexorable right of self-determination." Instead of showing their outrage about the spread of poverty in the richest nation on Earth, the super-rich want us to pity them?
Why are Wall Street's billionaires so whiny? Is it really possible to make $900,000 an hour (not a typo -- that's what the top ten hedge fund managers take in), and still feel aggrieved about the way government is treating you? After you've been bailed out by the federal government to the tune of $10 trillion (also not a typo) in loans, asset swaps, liquidity and other guarantees, can you really still feel like an oppressed minority?
You'd think the Wall Street moguls would be thankful. Not just thankful -- down on their knees kissing the ground taxpayers walk on and hollering hallelujah at the top of their lungs! These guys profited from puffing up the housing bubble, then got bailed out when the going got tough. (Please see The Looting of America for all the gory details.) Without taxpayer largess, these hedge fund honchos would be flat broke. Instead, they're back to hauling in obscene profits.
These billionaires don't even have to worry about serious financial reforms. The paltry legislation that squeaked through Congress did nothing to end too big and too interconnected to fail. In fact, the biggest firms got even bigger as they gobbled up troubled banks, with the generous support of the federal government. No bank or hedge fund was broken up. Nobody was forced to pay a financial transaction tax. None of the big boys had a cap placed on their astronomical wealth. No one's paying reparations for wrecking the US economy. The big bankers are still free to create and trade the very derivatives that catapulted us into this global crisis. You'd think the billionaires would be praying on the altar of government and erecting statues on Capital Hill in honor of St. Bailout.
Instead, standing before us are these troubled souls, haunted by visions of persecution. Why?
The world changed. Before the bubble burst, these people walked on water. Their billions proved that they were the best and the brightest -- not just captains of the financial universe, but global elites who had earned a place in history. They donated serious money to worthy causes -- and political campaigns. No one wanted to mess with them.
But then came the crash. And the things changed for the big guys -- not so much financially as spiritually. Plebeians, including me, are asking pointed questions and sometimes even being heard, both on the Internet and in the mainstream media. For the first time in a generation, the public wants to know more about these emperors and their new clothes. For instance:
• What do these guys actually do that earns them such wealth?
• Is what they do productive and useful for society? Is there any connection between what they earn and what they produce for society?
• Did they help cause the crash?
• Did these billionaires benefit from the bailouts? If so, how much?
• Are they exacerbating the current unemployment and poverty crisis with their shenanigans?
• Why shouldn't we eliminate their tax loopholes (like carried interest)?
• Should their sky-high incomes be taxed at the same levels as during the Eisenhower years?
• Can we create the millions of jobs we need if the billionaires continue to skim off so much of our nation's wealth??
• Should we curb their wealth and political influence?
How dare we ask such questions! How dare we consider targeting them for special taxes? How dare we even think about redistributing THEIR incomes... even if at the moment much of their money comes directly from our bailouts and tax breaks?
It's true that the billionaires live in a hermetically sealed world. But that doesn't mean they don't notice the riffraff nipping at their heels. And they don't like it much. So they've gotten busy doing what billionaires do best: using their money to shield themselves. They're digging into their bottomless war chests, tapping their vast connections and using their considerable influence to shift the debate away from them and towards the rest of us.
We borrowed too much, not them. We get too much health care, not them. We retire too soon, not them. We need to tighten our belts while they pull in another $900,000 an hour. And if we want to cure poverty, we need to get the government to leave Wall Street alone. Sadly, their counter-offensive is starting to take hold.
How can this happen? Many Americans want to relate to billionaires. They believe that all of us are entitled to make as much as we can, pretty much by any means necessary. After all, maybe someday you or I will strike it rich. And when we do, we sure don't want government regulators or the taxman coming around!
Billionaires are symbols of American individual prowess and virility. And if we try to hold them back or slow them down, we're on the road to tyranny. Okay, the game is rigged in their favor. Okay, they got bailed out while the rest of us didn't -- especially the 29 million people who are jobless or forced into part-time work. But what matters most is that in America, nothing can interfere with individual money-making. That only a few of us actually make it into the big-time isn't a bad thing: It's what makes being rich so special. So beware: If we enact even the mildest of measures to rein in Wall Street billionaires, we're on the path to becoming North Korea.
Unfortunately, if we don't adjust our attitudes, we can expect continued high levels of unemployment and more people pushed below the poverty line. It's not clear that our economy will ever recover as long as the Wall Street billionaires keep siphoning off so much of our wealth. How can we create jobs for the many while the few are walking off with $900,000 an hour with almost no new jobs to show for it? In the old days, even robber barons built industries that employed people -- steel, oil, railroads. Now the robber barons build palaces out of fantasy finance. We can keep coddling our financial billionaires and let our economy spiral down, or we can make them pay their fair share so we can create real jobs. These guys crashed the economy, they killed billions of jobs, and now they're cashing in on our bailout. They owe us. They owe the unemployed. They owe the poor.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was no radical, but he accepted the reality: If America was going to prosper -- and pay for its costly Cold War -- the super-rich would have to pony up. It was common knowledge that when the rich grew too wealthy, they used their excess incomes to speculate. In the 1950s, memories of the Great Depression loomed large, and people knew that a skewed distribution of income only fueled speculative booms and disastrous busts. On Ike's watch, the effective marginal tax rate for those earning over $3 million (in today's dollars) was over 70 percent. The super-rich paid. As a nation we respected that other important American value: advancing the common good.
For the last thirty years we've been told that making as much as you can is just another way of advancing the common good. But the Great Recession erased that equation: The Wall Streeters who made as much as they could undermined the common good. It's time to balance the scales. This isn't just redistribution of income in pursuit of some egalitarian utopia. It's a way to use public policy to reattach billionaires to the common good.
It's time to take Eisenhower's cue and redeploy the excessive wealth Wall Street's high rollers have accumulated. If we leave it in their hands, they'll keep using it to construct speculative financial casinos. Instead, we could use that money to build a stronger, more prosperous nation. We could provide our people with free higher education at all our public colleges and universities -- just like we did for WWII vets under the GI Bill of Rights (a program that returned seven dollars in GDP for every dollar invested). We could fund a green energy Manhattan Project to wean us from fossil fuels. An added bonus: If we siphon some of the money off Wall Street, some of our brightest college graduates might even be attracted not to high finance but to jobs in science, education and healthcare, where we need them.
Of course, this pursuit of the common good won't be easy for the billionaires (and those who indentify with them.). But there's just no alternative for this oppressed minority: They're going to have to learn to live on less than $900,000 an hour.
Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street's Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009.

*
OBAMA AND GEITHNER WORKING HARD FOR CRIMINAL WALL ST. BANKSTERS
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/obama-geithner-working-hard-for-wall-st.html
*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-obama-duped-nation-but-his-bankster.html
*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-obama-duped-nation-but-his-bankster.html
*
“All of these writers proceed from a fact of American life that is becoming impossible to deny: the sharp divergence in the fortunes of the banks and investors, on the one hand, and the broad mass of the population, on the other. The Wall Street giants, the very firms that precipitated the financial crisis, are doing better than ever. They are planning record bonuses while unemployment continues to soar and wages are declining at a rate not seen in decades.”
*
“Herbert (“Safety Nets for the Rich,” October 20), adopts a populist tone, complaining, “Even as tens of millions of working Americans are struggling to hang onto their jobs and keep a roof over their families’ heads, the wise guys on Wall Street are licking their fat-cat chops over yet another round of obscene multibillion-dollar bonuses—this time thanks to the bailout billions that were sent their way by Uncle Sam, with very little in the way of strings attached.”
*
Underlying both columns is the concern that the Obama administration’s promises of “hope” and “change” are increasingly perceived by those who voted for Obama as hollow phrases. Rich complains that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is “tone deaf” and that “an air of entitlement” wafts from the administration.
People are beginning to feel that they have been duped into lending their support to a government that is unreservedly serving the interests of the banks. To the layer of the liberal establishment represented by Obama’s journalistic would-be advisers, the eruption of opposition to the Obama administration would be an unmitigated disaster.
*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/rep-lamar-smith-fights-for-american.html

UNEMPLOYMENT IN MEXICO IS UNDER 6%. UNEMPLOYMENT IN SOME PARTS OF MEXICAN OCCUPIED MEXIFORNIA IS NEARLY 30%.
CA PUTS OUT NEARLY $20 BILLION PER YEAR IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS, AND LA RAZA IS THE FASTEST GROWING POLITICAL PARTY (OF ILLEGALS) IN AMERICA!

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/william-gheen-untold-story-of-american.html
*

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/mexico-exports-40-million-of-their-poor.html
*
INTERESTING....

44 MILLION AMERICANS (legals?) live in poverty, while Obama, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, LA RAZA DONORS of the FORTUNE 500 (all of them) and MEXICO, push for amnesty for 38 MILLION ILLEGALS....

Since the amnesty to end amnesties of 1986, there have been 1.5 million illegals hop our borders and jobs, or "free" birthing clinics every year... AS 1.5 MILLION AMERICANS SANK INTO POVERTY... How'd that happen?

So, ask yourself why it is Obama can’t work hard enough for illegals? He thinks the same illegals that voted for him the first time, will vote again for him?

*

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

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

“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”
*
*
“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor
*
SHOCKING FACTS ON OBAMA’S FUNDING OF THE MEXICAN SUPREMACIST MOVEMENT OF LA RAZA

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/no-legal-need-apply-obamas-dept-of.html

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/obama-operates-la-raza-supremacy-out-of.html
*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/obama-mexican-supremacist-party-of-la.html
*
THE LA RAZA INFESTED ADMINISTRATION

FROM JUDICIAL WATCH .org – get on their free E-NEWS ON THE LA RAZA OCCUPATION
*
Labor Secretary Pledges Help For Illegal Workers
Last Updated: Tue, 06/22/2010 - 11:00am
Two months after the Department of Labor launched a special program to assist and protect illegal immigrants in the U.S. the Obama cabinet official who heads the agency is personally encouraging undocumented workers to report employers that don’t pay them fairly.
In a Spanish-language public service announcement, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis assures that “every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not.” Illegal aliens who are not getting fair wages are encouraged to call a new hotline set up by the agency on a new “Podemos Ayudar” (We Can Help) web page designed to administer worker protection laws and ensure that employees are properly paid “regardless of immigration status.”
*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/book-mexifornia-shattering-of-american.html
*
CALIFORNIA – A STATE FILLED WITH ILLEGALS AND CORRUPT SELF-SERVING POLITICIANS SERVING THEIR CORPORATE RAPIST PAYMASTERS.

“So what about California? The economic well-being of many metropolitan areas in the Golden State has been sinking precipitously since 2006. This year, three California regions--Oakland, Sacramento and San Bernardino-Riverside--have sunk down into the bottom 10 on the large cities list. That's a phenomenon we've never seen before--and never expected to see.” FORBES
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/forbes-california-10-of-worst-cities.html
*
THESE FIGURES ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ARE DATED. IT NOT EXCEEDS $600 MILLION PER YEAR!!! (source: Los Angeles County & JUDICIAL WATCH)
*
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949085/posts
*
LOS ANGELES – A MEXICAN WELFARE AND CRIME STATE WHERE THE JOBS ALSO GO TO ILLEGALS
http://mex¬icanoccupa¬tion.blogs¬pot.com/20¬11/04/mexi¬can-welfar¬e-state-in¬-los-angel¬es.html

AMERICAN POVERTY FROM PAYING FOR MEXICO'S POVERTY, INVASION & OCCUPATION

OUR OWN GOVERNMENT CLEARY KNOWS WHAT THE COST OF THE MEXICAN INVASION, OCCUPATION AND EVER EXPANDING WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS SYSTEMS COSTS! THEY ALSO KNOW THAT IT IS A LIE THAT THERE ARE ONLY 12 MILLION OF THESE ILLEGALS (INCLUDING ONE MILLION MEX GANG MEMBERS). MOST NON-GOV SOURCES PUT THE NUMBER AT 38 MILLION AND BREEDING FAST.
THE BELOW WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE CURRENT ECONOMIC MELTDOWN CAUSE BY THE BANKSTERS, MOST OF WHICH LIKE WELLS FARGO, AND BANK of AMERICA, ARE GENEROUS DONORS TO THE MEX FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA, AND HAVE EXPLOITED ILLEGALS WITH THEIR SCAM MORTGAGE PRODUCTS AND BANK FEES TO WIRE MONEY BACK TO NARCOMEX.

EVEN WITH STAGGERING UNEMPLOYMENT, MEX WELFARE COSTS ($20 BILLION A YEAR IN CA FOR SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS --- LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUTS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS)



Unfettered Immigration = Poverty
By Robert Rector
Heritage.org | May 16, 2006

This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper.
Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty.
An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.
Current Trends in Immigration
Over the last 40 years, immigration into the United States has surged. Our nation is now experiencing a second “great migration” similar to the great waves of immigrants that transformed America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 2004, an estimated 35.7 million foreign-born persons lived in the U.S. While in 1970 one person in twenty was foreign born, by 2004 the number had risen to one in eight.
About one-third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are illegal aliens. There are between 10 and 12 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S.[1] Illegal aliens now comprise 3 to 4 percent of the total U.S. population. Each year approximately 1.3 million new immigrants enter the U.S.[2] Some 700,000 of these entrants are illegal.[3]
One third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are Mexican. Overall, the number of Mexicans in the U.S. has increased from 760,000 in 1970 to 10.6 million in 2004. Nine percent of all Mexicans now reside in the U.S.[4] Over half of all Mexicans in the U.S. are illegal immigrants,[5] and in the last decade 80 to 85 percent of the inflow of Mexicans into the U.S. has been illegal.[6]
The public generally perceives illegals to be unattached single men. This is, in fact, not the case. Some 44 percent of adult illegals are women. While illegal men work slightly more than native-born men; illegal women work less. Among female illegals, some 56 percent work, compared to 73 percent among native-born women of comparable age.[7] As well, Mexican women emigrating to the U.S. have a considerably higher fertility rate than women remaining in Mexico.[8]
Immigrants and EducationOn average, immigrants have low education levels relative to native-born U.S. citizens. One-quarter of legal adult immigrants lack a high school degree, compared to 9 percent among the native-born population. However, there is a well educated sub-group within the legal immigrant population. Some 32 percent of legal immigrant adults have a college degree, compared to 30 percent of native-born adults.[9]
The education levels of illegal aliens are lower than those of legal immigrants. Half of all adult illegal immigrants lack a high school degree.[10] Among Latin American and Mexican immigrants, 60 percent lack a high school degree and only 7 percent have a college degree. By contrast, among native-born workers in the U.S., only 6 percent have failed to complete high school degrees and nearly a third have a college degree.[11]
Decline in Immigrant Wages
Over the last 40 years the education level of new immigrants has fallen relative to the native population. As the relative education levels of immigrants have declined, so has their earning capacity compared to the general U.S. population. Immigrants arriving in the U.S. around 1960 had wages, at the time of entry, that were just 13 percent less than natives’. In 1965, the nation’s immigration law was dramatically changed, and from 1990 on, illegal immigration surged. The result was a decline in the relative skill levels of new immigrants. By 1998, new immigrants had an average entry wage that was 34 percent less than natives.’[12] Because of their lower education levels, illegal immigrants’ wages would have been even lower.
The low-wage status of recent illegal immigrants can be illustrated by the wages of recent immigrants from Mexico, a majority of whom have entered the U.S. illegally. In 2000, the median weekly wage of a first-generation Mexican immigrant was $323. This was 54 percent of the corresponding wage for non-Hispanic whites in the general population.[13]
Historically, the relative wages of recent immigrants have risen after entry as immigrants gained experience in the labor market. For example, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s saw their relative wages rise by 10 percentage points compared to natives’ wages during their first 20 years in the country. But in recent years, this modest catch up effect has diminished. Immigrants who arrived in the late 1980s actually saw their relative wages shrink in the 1990s.[14]
Immigration and Welfare Dependence
Welfare may be defined as means-tested aid programs: these programs provide cash, non-cash, and social service assistance that is limited to low-income households. The major means-tested programs include Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public housing, the earned income credit, and Medicaid. Historically, recent immigrants were less likely to receive welfare than native-born Americans. But over the last thirty years, this historic pattern has reversed. As the relative education levels of immigrants fell, their tendency to receive welfare benefits increased. By the late 1990s immigrant households were fifty percent more likely to receive means-tested aid than native-born households.[15] Moreover, immigrants appear to assimilate into welfare use. The longer immigrants live in the U.S., the more likely they are to use welfare.[16]
A large part, but not all, of immigrants’ higher welfare use is explained by their low education levels. Welfare use also varies by immigrants’ national origin. For example, in the late 1990s, 5.6 percent of immigrants from India received means-tested benefits; among Mexican immigrants the figure was 34.1 percent; and for immigrants from the Dominican Republic the figure was 54.9 percent.[17] Ethnic differences in the propensity to receive welfare that appear among first-generation immigrants persist strongly in the second generation.[18] The relatively high use of welfare among Mexicans has significant implications for current proposals to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Some 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Mexico and Latin America.[19] (See Chart 1) Historically, Hispanics in America have had very high levels of welfare use. Chart 2 shows receipt of aid from major welfare programs by different ethnic groups in 1999; the programs covered are Medicaid, Food Stamps, public housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, General Assistance, and Supplemental Security Income.[20] As the chart shows, Hispanics were almost three times more likely to receive welfare than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, among families that received aid, the cost of the aid received was 40 percent higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites.[21] Putting together the greater probability of receiving welfare with the greater cost of welfare per family means that, on average, Hispanic families received four times more welfare per family than white non-Hispanics.
1. Part, but not all, of this high level of welfare use by Hispanics can be explained by background factors such as family structure.[22] It seems likely that, if Hispanic illegal immigrants are given permanent residence and citizenship, they and their children will likely assimilate into the culture of high welfare use that characterizes Hispanics in the U.S. This would impose significant costs on taxpayers and society as a whole.
Welfare use can also be measured by immigration status. In general, immigrant households are about fifty percent more likely to use welfare than native-born households.[23] Immigrants with less education are more likely to use welfare. (See Chart 3)
The potential welfare costs of low-skill immigration and amnesty for current illegal immigrants can be assessed by looking at the welfare utilization rates for current low-skill immigrants. As Chart 4 shows, immigrants without a high school degree (both lawful and unlawful) are two-and-a-half times more likely to use welfare than native-born individuals.[24] This underscores the high potential welfare costs of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants.
1. All categories of high school dropouts have a high utilization of welfare. Immigrants who have less than a high school degree are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts. Legal immigrants who are high school dropouts are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts.[25] Illegal immigrant dropouts, however, are less likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts mainly because they are ineligible for many welfare programs. With amnesty, current illegal immigrants’ welfare use would likely rise to the level of lawful immigrants with similar education levels.
Illegal Immigration and Poverty
1. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 4.7 million children of illegal immigrant parents currently live in the U.S.[26] Some 37 percent of these children are poor.[27] While children of illegal immigrant parents comprise around 6 percent of all children in the U.S., they are 11.8 percent of all poor children.[28]
This high level of child poverty among illegal immigrants in the U.S. is, in part, due to low education levels and low wages. It is also linked to the decline in marriage among Hispanics in the U.S. Within this group, 45 percent of children are born out-of-wedlock.[29] (See Table 1.) Among foreign-born Hispanics the rate is 42.3 percent.[30] By contrast, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for non-Hispanic whites is 23.4 percent.[31] The birth rate for Hispanic teens is higher than for black teens.[32] While the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks has remained flat for the last decade, it has risen steadily for Hispanics.[33] These figures are important because, as noted, some 80 percent of illegal aliens come from Mexico and Latin America.[34]
In general, children born and raised outside of marriage are seven times more likely to live in poverty than children born and raised by married couples. Children born out-of-wedlock are also more likely to be on welfare, to have lower educational achievement, to have emotional problems, to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to become involved in crime.[35]
5. Poverty is also more common among adult illegal immigrants, who are twice as likely to be poor as are native-born adults. Some 27 percent of all adult illegal immigrants are poor, compared to 13 percent of native-born adults.[36]
Economic and Social Assimilation of Illegal Immigrant OffspringOne important question is the future economic status of the children and grandchildren of current illegal immigrants, assuming those offspring remain in the U.S. While we obviously do not have data on future economic status, we may obtain a strong indication of future outcomes by examining the educational attainment of offspring of recent Mexican immigrants. Some 57 percent of current illegal immigrants come from Mexico, and about half of Mexicans currently in the U.S. are here illegally.[37]
First-generation Mexican immigrants are individuals born in Mexico who have entered the U.S. In 2000, some 70 percent of first-generation Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) lacked a high school degree. Second-generation Mexicans may be defined as individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico. Second-generation Mexican immigrants (individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico) have greatly improved educational outcomes but still fall well short of the general U.S. population. Some 25 percent of second-generation Mexicans in the U.S. fail to complete high school. By contrast, the high school drop out rate is 8.6 percent among non-Hispanic whites and 17.2 percent among blacks. Critically, the educational attainment of third-generation Mexicans (those of Mexican ancestry with both parents born in the U.S.) improves little relative to the second generation. Some 21 percent of third-generation Mexicans are high school drop outs.[38] Similarly, the rate of college attendance among second-generation Mexicans is lower than for black Americans and about two-thirds of the level for non-Hispanic whites; moreover, college attendance does not improve in the third generation.[39]
These data indicate that the offspring of illegal Hispanic immigrants are likely to have lower rates of educational attainment and higher rates of school failure compared to the non-Hispanic U.S. population. High rates of school failure coupled with high rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing are strong predictors of future poverty and welfare dependence.
Immigration and Crime
Historically, immigrant populations have had lower crime rates than native-born populations. For example, in 1991, the overall crime and incarceration rate for non-citizens was slightly lower than for citizens.[40]
On the other hand, the crime rate among Hispanics in the U.S. is high. Age-specific incarceration rates (prisoners per 100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) among Hispanics in federal and state prisons are two to two-and-a-half times higher than among non-Hispanic whites.[41] Relatively little of this difference appears to be due to immigration violations.[42]
Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly Hispanic. It is possible that, over time, Hispanic immigrants and their children may assimilate the higher crime rates that characterize the low-income Hispanic population in the U.S. as a whole.[43] If this were to occur, then policies that would give illegal immigrants permanent residence through amnesty, as well as policies which would permit a continuing influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, would increase crime in the long term.
The Fiscal Impact of Immigration
One important question is the fiscal impact of immigration (both legal and illegal). Policymakers must ensure that the interaction of welfare and immigration policy does not expand the welfare-dependent popula_tion, which would hinder rather than help immi_grants and impose large costs on American society. This means that immigrants should be net contributors to government: the taxes they pay should exceed the cost of the benefits they receive.
In calculating the fiscal impact of an individual or family, it is necessary to distinguish between public goods and private goods. Public goods do not require additional spending to accommodate new residents.[44] The clearest examples of government public goods are national defense and medical and scientific research. The entry of millions of immigrants will not raise costs or diminish the value of these public goods to the general population.
Other government services are private goods; use of these by one person precludes or limits use by another. Government private goods include direct personal benefits such as welfare, Social Security benefits, Medicare, and education. Other government private goods are “congestible” goods.[45] These are services that must be expanded in proportion to the population. Government congestible goods include police and fire protection, roads and sewers, parks, libraries, and courts. If these services do not expand as the population expands, there will be a decrease in the quality of service.
An individual makes a positive fiscal contribution when his total taxes paid exceed the direct benefits and congestible goods received by himself and his family.[46]
The Fiscal Impact of Low Skill Immigration
The 1997 New Americans study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examined the fiscal impact of immigration.[47] It found that, within in a single year, the fiscal impact of foreign-born households was negative in the two states studied, New Jersey and California.[48] Measured over the course of a lifetime, the fiscal impact of first-generation immigrants nationwide was also slightly negative.[49] However, when the future earnings and taxes paid by the offspring of the immigrant were counted, the long-term fiscal impact was positive. One commonly cited figure from the report is that the net present value (NPV) of the fiscal impact of the average recent immigrant and his descendents is $83,000.[50]
There are five important caveats about the NAS longitudinal study and its conclusion that in the long term the fiscal impact of immigration is positive. First, the study applies to all recent immigration, not just illegal immigration. Second, the finding that the long-term fiscal impact of immigration is positive applies to the population of immigrants as a whole, not to low-skill immigrants alone. Third, the $83,000 figure is based on the predicted earnings, tax payments, and benefits of an immigrant’s descendents over the next 300 years.[51] Fourth, the study does not take into account the growth in out-of-wedlock childbearing among the foreign-born population, which will increase future welfare costs and limit the upward mobility of future generations. Fifth, the assumed educational attainment of the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of immigrants who are high school dropouts or high school graduates seems unreasonably high given the actual attainment of the offspring of recent Mexican and Hispanic immigrants.[52]
The NAS study’s 300-year time horizon is highly problematic. Three hundred years ago, the United States did not even exist and British colonists had barely reached the Appalachian Mountains. We cannot reasonably estimate what taxes and benefits will be even 30 years from now, let alone 300.
The NAS study assumes that most people’s descendents will eventually regress to the social and economic mean, and thus may make a positive fiscal contribution, if the time horizon is long enough. With similar methods, it seems likely that out-of-wedlock childbearing could be found to have a net positive fiscal value as long as assumed future earnings are projected out 500 or 600 years.
Slight variations to NAS’s assumptions used by NAS greatly affect the projected outcomes. For example, limiting the time horizon to 50 years and raising the assumed interest rate from 3 percent to 4 percent drops the NPV of the average immigrant from around $80,000 to $8,000.[53] Critically, the NAS projections assumed very large tax increases and benefits cuts would begin in 2016 to prevent the federal deficit from rising further relative to GDP. This assumption makes it far easier for future generations to be scored as fiscal contributors. If these large tax hikes and benefit cuts do not occur, then the long-term positive fiscal value of immigration evaporates.[54] Moreover, if future tax hikes and benefit cuts do occur, the exact nature of those changes would likely have a large impact on the findings; this issue is not explored in the NAS study.
Critically, the estimated net fiscal impact of the whole immigrant population has little bearing on the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants, who are primarily low-skilled. As noted, at least 50 percent of illegal immigrants do not have a high school degree. As the NAS report states, “[S]ome groups of immigrants bring net fiscal benefits to natives and others impose net fiscal costs [I]mmigrants with certain characteristics, such as the elderly and those with little education, may be quite costly.”[55]
The NAS report shows that the long-term fiscal impact of immigrants varies dramatically according to the education level of the immigrant. The fiscal impact of immigrants with some college education is positive. The fiscal impact of immigrants with a high school degree varies according to the time horizon used. The fiscal impact of immigrants without a high school degree is negative: benefits received will exceed taxes paid. The net present value of the future fiscal impact of immigrants without a high school degree is negative even when the assumed earnings and taxes of descendents over the next 300 years are included in the calculation.[56]
A final point is that the NAS study’s estimates assume that low skill immigration does not reduce the wages of native-born low-skill workers. If low-skill immigration does, in fact, reduce the wages of native-born labor, this would reduce taxes paid and increase welfare expenditures for that group. The fiscal, social, and political implications could be quite large.
The Cost of Amnesty
Federal and state governments currently spend over $500 billion per year on means-tested welfare benefits.[57] Illegal aliens are ineligible for most federal welfare benefits but can receive some assistance through programs such as Medicaid, In addition, native-born children of illegal immigrant parents are citizens and are eligible for all relevant federal welfare benefits.
Granting amnesty to illegal aliens would have two opposing fiscal effects. On the one hand, it may raise wages and taxes paid by broadening the labor market individuals compete in; it would also increase tax compliance and tax receipts as more work would be performed “on the books,”[58] On the other hand, amnesty would greatly increase the receipt of welfare, government benefits, and social services. Because illegal immigrant households tend to be low-skill and low-wage, the cost to government could be considerable.
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty.[59] This study found that illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and currently pay little in taxes. Illegal immigrant households also receive lower levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that, on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes.[60]
Granting amnesty would render illegal immigrants eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payment among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic backgrounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around $5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per year.[61]
Amnesty and the Hagel/Martinez Bill
Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) have proposed a compromise immigration plan to offer amnesty and citizenship to current illegal aliens (S.2611). This plan would offer amnesty and citizenship to between 60 and 85 percent of the nation’s current 11.9 million illegal immigrants.
Under the plan, illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. five years or more (60 percent of the total) would be granted immediate amnesty. Illegal immigrants who have been in the country between two and five years (25 percent of the total) would travel to one of 16 “ports of entry” where they would receive work permits that would bestow permanent residence and allow the bearers to become citizens. Overall, the plan is likely to grant citizenship to 85 percent of the current illegal alien population, or some 9 to 10 million individuals.
As noted, illegal aliens in the U.S. have very low education levels: at least half lack a high school education and a third have less than a ninth grade education. Illegal immigrants earn low wages similar to the wages of other low-skill workers in the economy. This means they are prone to poverty and welfare dependence.
Illegal immigrants are currently ineligible for most federal welfare benefits. Granting citizenship would provide eligibility to welfare programs such as the Earned Income Credit, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. This would greatly increase welfare costs. The added government costs can be estimated by assessing government benefits and tax payments among current illegal immigrants compared to government benefits and tax payments among legal immigrants of similar national and educational backgrounds. This comparison shows that granting citizenship to 85 percent of current illegal immigrants would increase net federal fiscal costs by some $16 billion per year. Granting citizenship to 60 percent of current illegal immigrants would increase welfare costs by some $11.4 billion per year.[62]
These costs would not occur immediately. The Hagel/Martinez plan imposes a prospective six-year waiting period prior to granting legal permanent residence to illegal immigrants. Individuals would wait another five years after receiving permanent residence before becoming citizens. Thus, much of the cost of the plan might be delayed; however, once millions of individuals are put on the path to citizenship there would be enormous (and probably irresistible) political pressure to grant them the same benefits that are available to the general population quickly, rather than enforce a long delay.
In addition, the cost estimates presented above are based on a static analysis that assumes that amnesty will not alter behavior. In reality, illegal immigrants are likely to have significantly more children once they are permanently settled in the U.S. These children will increase welfare costs and child poverty further.
Family Chain Migration
The impact and cost of the Hagel/Martinez amendment would extend well beyond the ten million or so individuals initially granted amnesty. When an individual is granted citizenship, he is given the unrestricted right to bring his spouse, minor children, and parents into the country. Each of these individuals would have the right to become a citizen after he or she has lived in the country five years. Thus, each individual granted amnesty under the Hagel/Martinez bill could bring five or more additional immigrants, all of whom could become citizens.
As noted, many of the individuals who would be granted amnesty under the amendment have families abroad. Illegal immigrants granted permanent residence would have the immediate right to bring spouses and minor children into the country. Once here, the spouses and children would receive government services and have the right to become citizens. The total number of foreign-born persons who would ultimately be granted citizenship under Hagel/Martinez could be far more than 10 million, and if so, government costs would swell far above the $16 billion figure given above.
But the fiscal problem gets worse; when an illegal immigrant has obtained citizenship through the amnesty process, he or she would have the right to bring his or her parents in the U.S. as permanent lawful residents. (Currently one-tenth of the annual flow of legal immigrants to the U.S. are parents of recent immigrants who have naturalized.) If ten million current illegal immigrants were granted amnesty and citizenship under Hagel/Martinez, as many as twenty million foreign born parents would be given the right to immigrate to the U.S. Once in the U.S., the immigrant parents would receive social services and government funded medical care, much of it paid for through the Medicaid disproportionate share program.
These immigrant parents coming to the U.S. would also be eligible to apply for citizenship themselves. On attaining citizenship, most would become eligible for benefits from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid programs, at an average cost of over $18,000 per person per year. While it is true that the language requirements of the citizenship test would serve as a barrier to immigrant parents becoming citizens, the tests are not very difficult and the financial rewards of citizenship would be very great. If only ten percent of the parents of those receiving amnesty under Hagel/Martinez became citizens and enrolled in SSI and Medicaid, the extra costs to government would be over $30 billion per year.
Obviously, these costs would not begin for some time, but the long-term potential of amnesty to raise government spending is quite real.
While no one can predict how many spouses, children, and parents of the beneficiaries of amnesty would enter the country, the pool of those who could enter is enormous, and the potential long-term government costs would be staggering.
Granting Amnesty is Likely to Further Increase Illegal Immigration
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens. The primary purpose of the act was to decrease the number of illegal immigrants by limiting their inflow and by legalizing the status of illegal immigrants already here.[63] In fact, the act did nothing to stem the tide of illegal entry. The number of illegal aliens entering the country increased five fold from around 140,000 per year in the 1980s to 700,000 per year today.
Illegal entries increased dramatically shortly after IRCA went into effect. It seems plausible that the prospect of future amnesty and citizenship served as a magnet to draw even more illegal immigrants into the country. After all, if the nation granted amnesty once why wouldn’t it do so again?
The Hagel/Martinez legislation would repeat IRCA on a much larger scale. This time, nine to ten million illegal immigrants would be granted amnesty. As with IRCA, the bill promises to reduce future illegal entry but contains little policy that would actually accomplish this. The granting of amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants is likely to serve as a magnet pulling even greater numbers of aliens into the country in the future.
If enacted, the legislation would spur further increases in the future flow of low-skill migrants. This in turn would increase poverty in America, enlarge the welfare state, and increase social and political tensions.
Permanent “Guest Worker” Program
Finally, the Hagel/Martinez bill would issue 325,000 new visas per year to “guest workers.” The number of visas available could increase by 20 percent annually, reaching two million per year within ten years. By 2017, the guest worker program would have admitted some eight million new workers. Illegal aliens who have been in the country for less than two years would be eligible to become guest workers and would probably be the primary recipients of these supposedly temporary (H2C) visas. Recipients of these visas could bring spouses and children into the country immediately, increasing the number of entrants over ten years well above eight million. Because nearly all of the guest workers and their families would within a few years become eligible for government welfare and other services, the fiscal costs from the program could rival those stemming from the direct amnesty provisions of the bill.
On the surface, individuals in the guest worker program would be limited to a six-year stay in the U.S. But they would have the option to convert to legal permanent residence (LPR) after four years. This would make them permanent residents with the right to naturalize. In addition, all children born to guest workers would automatically become U.S. citizens. This would make it very unlikely that the parent would ever be forced to leave the country.
As structured, the Hagel/Martinez guest worker program could, within a decade, double the inflow of legal permanent immigrants into the U.S. Many or most of these immigrants would be low-skill and would thus impose fiscal costs on U.S. taxpayers. It is true that while many employers would benefit from additional low-skill laborers; however, if such laborers are granted citizenship and permanent residence, their employment is likely to generate negative externalities that impose costs on the rest of society. A guest worker program that, in fact, provides permanent residence and citizenship would not be beneficial to the nation’s finances.
Policy Implications
Immigration to the U.S. is a privilege, not a right. Immigrants should be net contributors to the government and society and should not be a fiscal burden on the native-born. While highly educated immigrants, on average, make positive fiscal contributions, the overall fiscal impact of low-skill immigrants is negative.
Over the last 20 years, around 10 million individuals without a high school degree have entered the United States. Many of these also have a high probability of out-of-wedlock childbearing, a key predictor of poverty and welfare dependence. Unless U.S. immigration policy is changed, these trends are likely to continue. Granting amnesty to current illegal immigrants exacerbates the problem.
Sound immigration policy should be based on two principles. The first is respect for the rule of law. American citizens should determine who is allowed to enter the country, to become a citizen, and to vote in our elections. Lax border enforcement and the non-enforcement of laws against employing illegal immigrants have encouraged over 10 million individuals to enter the country unlawfully. Past and pending amnesties reward this behavior. Under the current system, decisions about who will live in the U.S. and who will become a citizen tend to be made unilaterally by foreigners. Hagel/Martinez would further undermine the rule of law and put the U.S. on the path of uncontrolled immigration punctuated by recurring amnesties.
Second, recognizing the fact that low-skill immigrants are likely to be a fiscal burden on society, government should increase the average skill and education levels of incoming immigrants. Currently, the average skill level of immigrants is significantly reduced by two factors: largely uncontrolled border crossings and the high priority on kinship ties in the issuance of permanent residence visas. Only 7.6 percent of individuals granted visas for permanent entry into the U.S. are selected on the basis of their educational attainment and skills.[64] To the increase the skill levels of future immigrants, the U.S. should stop the inflow of illegal immigrants, reduce the number of family reunification visas, and increase the number of employment- and skill-based visas.
Five specific policies follow from these principles:
1. The influx of illegal immigrants should be stopped by rigorous border security programs and strong programs to prevent employers from employing illegals.
2. Amnesty and citizenship should not be given to current illegal immigrants. Amnesty has negative fiscal consequences and is manifestly unfair to those who have waited for years to enter the country lawfully. Amnesty would also serve as a magnet, drawing even more future illegal immigration.
3. Any guest worker program should grant temporary, not permanent, residence and should not be a pathway to citizenship. A guest worker program should not disproportionately swell the ranks of low-skill workers.
4. Children born to parents who are illegal immigrants or to future guest workers should not be given citizenship status. Granting citizenship automatically confers welfare eligibility and makes it unlikely the parent will ever leave the U.S.[65]
5. The legal immigration system grants lawful permanent residence to some 950,000 persons each year. This system should be altered to substantially increase the proportion of new entrants with high levels of education and skills in demand by U.S. firms. Under current law, foreign-born parents and siblings of naturalized citizens are given preference for entry visas. The current visa allotments for family members (other than spouses and minor children) should be eliminated, and quotas for employment- and skill-based entry increased proportionately.

A LOOK AT AMERICA AFTER WE DRIVE THE MEXICANS OUT OF OUR NATION

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/07/look-at-america-after-we-drive-mexicans.html


MEXICAN VISITOR’S LAMENT
Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, 'Mexican Visitor's Lament' -- 10/25/07.
She interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, 'They (The illegal aliens) pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes...What Happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?' That's a good question - it deserves an answer. Over 80 percent of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers may surprise you! In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again. In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grand-kids - would move back 'home', mostly to Mexico. That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone. Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals. Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop-out/flunk-out rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver 's four percent unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage. In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law, and English. In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience. If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home' the U.S. Economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 Billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.


No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches. We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country. In cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the ' 18th Street Gang' would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters! Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens! America's economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America's economy – which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion debt. At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act. Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country-brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders. Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the 'progressives' on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their family’s cause 11 percent of our greenhouse gases. Over one million of Mexico 's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California in what the New York Times called, 'colonias' or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, electricity, roads or any kind of sanitation. The New York Times reported them to be America’s new ' Third World ' inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I've seen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it's sickening beyond anything you can imagine.) By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico. We should invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We already invite a million people into our country legally more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation. It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life. Interesting Statistics. Here are 14 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America, and I hope they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them: 1. $11 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens.

*
MEXICO ON BRINK OF IMPLOSION.. THEY CAN’T EXPORT THEIR POOR, CRIMINAL AND PREGNANT FAST ENOUGH! AND BARACK OBAMA WORKS FOR WIDER OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY DEVICES, AND THE VOTES OF ILLEGALS!



*

"Mexico seems to be a society that is on the brink of implosion," laments Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "The Mexican government is losing control of large sections of the country. There is violence that is just spilling out of control in those places, and it's right at our doorstep."

In fact, he says the hostility has already affected the U.S. side of the border. "We've even lost control of certain places inside our country," the FAIR spokesman explains. "Some of the border areas have been deemed too dangerous, even for government personnel to go in."

But Mehlman notes that the Obama administration does not seem to be taking this border crisis too seriously

*


Mexico on 'brink of implosion'
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 9/7/2010

An immigration reform activist thinks the continued rampant violence in Mexico should serve as a stern warning to Americans that it's essential for the U.S. government to shut down the border.

The U.W. State Department recently told American diplomats in the northern Mexican city of Monterrey to remove their children from the area due to growing threats of kidnappings and because of a shoot-out that took place in front of an American school there.

Beginning September 10, the Department says the U.S. consulate general in Monterrey will become a "partially unaccompanied post," meaning diplomats and other government personnel stationed there will not be allowed to have their minor children with them.

Mexican authorities have also confirmed that a second migrant survived the recent massacre of 72 Central and South Americans near the border where U.S. authorities suspect the Zetas drug gang killed the migrants for refusing to smuggle drugs.

"Mexico seems to be a society that is on the brink of implosion," laments Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "The Mexican government is losing control of large sections of the country. There is violence that is just spilling out of control in those places, and it's right at our doorstep."

In fact, he says the hostility has already affected the U.S. side of the border. "We've even lost control of certain places inside our country," the FAIR spokesman explains. "Some of the border areas have been deemed too dangerous, even for government personnel to go in."

But Mehlman notes that the Obama administration does not seem to be taking this border crisis too seriously

*
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR SAW IT COMING IN 2005, AND OUR GOV HAS ONLY CONTINUED TO EXPOSE US TO MEX GANGS, DRUG CARTELS, AND MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS

*
FROM 2005… DO YOU THINK IT’S BETTER OR WORSE…?



from the August 24, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0824/p08s02-comv.html


Is Mexico still a nation?

The Monitor's View
A survey released last week by the Pew Hispanic Center found more than four in 10 Mexicans are willing to leave their country to live in the US. One in five would risk a dangerous, illegal border crossing. Most surprising, one in three college graduates wants to flee. Before Washington takes up immigration reform this fall, it needs to take a hard look at Mexico's disillusionment.
Already, one in eight adults born in Mexico now lives in the US. And the Mexican economy is kept afloat partially by an estimated $16 billion sent back by immigrants to relatives.
Such numbers reveal a people so fed up with Mexico's dysfunctional politics and stagnant economy that their nationalism is wilting. While more than half of Mexico's 106 million people are officially poor, the Pew survey found an inclination to migrate "evident across a broad swath" of the population.
This wide push to leave is probably now as strong as the pull of higher wages, social advancement, and family connections in the US. And yet, Mexican leaders remain in denial about this propensity for mass exodus.
All this spells trouble for proposals by President Bush and some in Congress to set up a temporary worker program as a way to reduce the burden of illegal migration. The Mexican demand for such US "guest" visas could be, by some estimates, half a million a year. Yet the numbers in the proposals fall far short of that. The US could hardly absorb such a large wave of humanity without further challenges to its civic stability.
In other words, a guest-worker plan is a false promise of ending the waves of illegal border crossings. The challenges on America's southern flank are only getting worse. Arizona and New Mexico this month declared emergencies along their borders with Mexico, citing a rise in crime related to drug and people smuggling - and an inability by Washington to stem the violence. And the US ambassador to Mexico also criticized its leaders for not curbing border violence; he made a point by closing the consulate in Nuevo Laredo.
Just five years ago, Mexico had great hope of reform after the ouster of the Revolutionary Institutional Party, or PRI, which had governed since 1929. But President Vicente Fox's reform efforts have faltered. The nation's three main parties remain internally divided and unable to compromise. Decades of oil wealth have left people too willing to take handouts rather than accept the kind of taxation that creates citizens with a stake in government. With Mr. Fox a lame duck, Mexico is heading for a presidential election next July that could see another weak leader.
As dissatisfaction with politics and justice translates into Mexicans voting with their feet, the US needs to recognize that the "border issue" is much more of a "Mexico issue."
The US should further beef up border security, but also help Mexico regain national integrity. Legally hiring Mexicans is hardly a solution.
As it is doing with Africa, the US must peg better economic relations to better governance in Mexico, such as laws allowing referendums and run-offs for presidential elections. Rather than view such pressure as gringo meddling, the Mexican people might just welcome a challenge to their government. And think of staying put.


*
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


from the May 28, 2009 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0528/p09s01-coop.html
What will America stand for in 2050?
The US should think long and hard about the high number of Latino immigrants.
By Lawrence Harrison

PALO ALTO, CALIF.
President Obama has encouraged Americans to start laying a new foundation for the country – on a number of fronts. He has stressed that we'll need to have the courage to make some hard choices. One of those hard choices is how to handle immigration. The US must get serious about the tide of legal and illegal immigrants, above all from Latin America.
It's not just a short-run issue of immigrants competing with citizens for jobs as unemployment approaches 10 percent or the number of uninsured straining the quality of healthcare. Heavy immigration from Latin America threatens our cohesiveness as a nation.
The political realities of the rapidly growing Latino population are such that Mr. Obama may be the last president who can avert the permanent, vast underclass implied by the current Census Bureau projection for 2050.
Do I sound like a right-wing "nativist"? I'm not. I'm a lifelong Democrat; an early and avid supporter of Obama. I'm gratified by his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. I'm also the grandson of Eastern European Jewish immigrants; and a member, along with several other Democrats, of the advisory boards of the Federation for American Immigration Reform and Pro English. Similar concerns preoccupied the distinguished Democrat Barbara Jordan when she chaired the congressionally mandated US Commission on Immigration Reform in the 1990s.
Congresswoman Jordan was worried about the adverse impact of high levels of legal and illegal immigration on poor citizens, disproportionately Latinos and African-Americans. 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.
The healthcare cost of the illegal workforce is especially burdensome, and is subsidized by taxpayers. To claim Medicaid, you must be legal, but as the Health and Human Services inspector general found, 47 states allow self-declaration of status for Medicaid. Many hospitals and clinics are going broke because of the constant stream of uninsured, many of whom are the estimated 12 million to 15 million illegal immigrants. This translates into reduced services, particularly for lower-income citizens.
The US population totaled 281 million in 2000. About 35 million, or 12.5 percent, were Latino. The Census Bureau projects that our population will reach 439 million in 2050, a 56 percent increase over the 2000 census. The Hispanic population in 2050 is projected at 133 million – 30 percent of the total and almost quadruple the 2000 level. Population growth is the principal threat to the environment via natural resource use, sprawl, and pollution. And population growth is fueled chiefly by immigration.
Consider what this, combined with worrisome evidence that Latinos are not melting into our cultural mainstream, means for the US. Latinos have contributed some positive cultural attributes, such as multigenerational family bonds, to US society. But the same traditional values that lie behind Latin America's difficulties in achieving democratic stability, social justice, and prosperity are being substantially perpetuated among Hispanic-Americans.
Prominent Latin Americans have concluded that traditional values are at the root of the region's development problems. Among those expressing that opinion: Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa; Nobelist author Octavio Paz, a Mexican; Teodoro Moscoso, a Puerto Rican politician and US ambassador to Venezuela; and Ecuador's former president, Osvaldo Hurtado.
Latin America's cultural problem is apparent in the persistent Latino high school dropout rate – 40 percent in California, according to a recent study – and the high incidence of teenage pregnancy, single mothers, and crime. The perpetuation of Latino culture is facilitated by the Spanish language's growing challenge to English as our national language. It makes it easier for Latinos to avoid the melting pot and for education to remain a low priority, as it is in Latin America – a problem highlighted in recent books by former New York City deputy mayor Herman Badillo, a Puerto Rican, and Mexican-Americans Lionel Sosa and Ernesto Caravantes.
Language is the conduit of culture. Consider: There is no word in Spanish for "compromise" (compromiso means "commitment") nor for "accountability," a problem that is compounded by a verb structure that converts "I dropped (broke, forgot) something" into "it got dropped" ("broken," "forgotten").
As the USAID mission director during the first two years of the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, I had difficulty communicating "dissent" to a government minister at a crucial moment in our efforts to convince the US Congress to approve a special appropriation for Nicaragua.
I was later told by a bilingual, bicultural Nicaraguan educator that when I used "dissent" what my Nicaraguan counterparts understood was "heresy." "We are, after all, children of the Inquisition," he added.
In a letter to me in 1991, Mexican-American columnist Richard Estrada described the essence of the problem of immigration as one of numbers. We should really worry, he wrote, "when the numbers begin to favor not only the maintenance and replenishment of the immigrants' source culture, but also its overall growth, and in particular growth so large that the numbers not only impede assimilation but go beyond to pose a challenge to the traditional culture of the American nation."
Obama should confront the challenges by enforcing immigration laws on employment to help end illegal immigration. We should calibrate legal immigration annually to (1) the needs of the economy, as Ms. Jordan urged, and (2) past performance of immigrant groups with respect to acculturation.
We must declare our national language to be English and discourage the proliferation of Spanish- language media. We should limit citizenship by birth to the offspring of citizens. And we should provide immigrants with easy-to-access educational services that facilitate acculturation, including English language, citizenship, and American values.
Lawrence Harrison directs the Cultural Change Institute at the Fletcher School, Tufts University, in Medford, Mass. He is the author of "The Central Liberal Truth: How Politics Can Change A Culture And Save It From Itself."



2.$2.2 billion dollars are spent each year on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. 3. $2.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens. 4. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! 5.$17 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. 6.$3 Million Dollars PER DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. 7.30% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens. 8.$90 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. 9.$200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. 10.The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US. 11.During the year 2005, there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from terrorist countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine, and marijuana crossed into the U.S. from the southern border. 12.The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period. 13.In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. 14.The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States. The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!!! .....................................