California Cuts Threaten the Status of Universities
By JENNIFER MEDINA
LOS ANGELES — Class sizes have increased, courses have been cut and tuition has been raised — repeatedly. Fewer colleges are offering summer classes. Administrators rely increasingly on higher tuition from out-of-staters. And there are signs it could get worse: If a tax increase proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown is not approved this year, officials say they will be forced to consider draconian cuts like eliminating entire schools or programs.
For generations, the University of California system — home to such globally renowned institutions as Berkeley and U.C.L.A. — has been widely recognized as perhaps the best example of what public universities could be. Along with the California State University system and the state’s vast number of community colleges, higher education options here have long been the envy of other states.
But after years, and even decades, of budget cutbacks from the state, that reputation is under increasing threat. University leaders, who had responded typically to earlier budget cuts with assurances that their institutions were still in top form, now are sounding the alarm. In trying to rally support, they openly worry that their schools do not offer the same quality of education as a decade ago.
“I’d be lying if I said what we offer students hasn’t been changed and that there hasn’t been a degradation of the learning environment,” said Timothy White, the chancellor of the University of California, Riverside, which has had record growth in recent years. Last year, plans to open a medical school on the campus were shelved after state budget cuts.
While there are more students than ever, the number of academic advisers has dropped to 300, from 500 a few years ago, for more than 18,000 undergraduates. Courses that used to require four writing assignments now demand half that because professors have fewer assistants to help them with grading papers, something other campuses have implemented as well.
While no one is arguing that cutting higher education spending is a good thing, some say that the state budget crisis makes it necessary — and may provide an opportunity for needed changes.
Jon Coupal, the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which strongly opposes the proposed tax increase, said the colleges should do more to show they are cutting spending, like reducing pay for top administrators or closing programs that do not directly benefit the state.
“We’ve had the luxury in prior years of heavily subsidizing colleges,” Mr. Coupal said. “But like anything in California, the delivery of higher education is not performance based. They’ve created new campuses and programs based on politics and not need.”
Chancellor White and others say the concerns about the budget cuts are beyond academic. For generations, the universities have been economic engines for the state, graduating hundreds of thousands of students each year. At every level, the universities are receiving more applicants than ever. But without more state money, colleges are struggling to find room for eligible students.
Nathan Brostrom, executive vice president of business operations for the University of California, said the system was now in the middle of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. In the last year, the state has cut $750 million from the system’s budget. This year, for the first time, the system receives more money from tuition than from state aid — but that only makes up for roughly a quarter of the cuts from the state. Over all, the budget is the same as it was in 2007, when there were 75,000 fewer students enrolled.
In recent years, many campuses have made a more concerted effort to recruit out-of-state students, who pay more in tuition. But some have criticized the practice, and last month one state lawmaker introduced legislation to cap the number of out-of-state students.
Part of the problem, officials say, is that the amount of money provided by the state has been unpredictable, making long-term planning difficult.
“If we don’t get some kind of change this year, we are going to have an immediate unfathomable situation that really has the potential to completely change the university,” Mr. Brostrom said.
The University of California system is made up of 10 campuses, including Berkeley and U.C.L.A., both ranked by U.S. News in the top 25 of all national universities, public or private. The California State University system, with lower tuition and easier admission requirements, is even larger, with 23 campuses and roughly 425,000 students.
Now, all but seven of the Cal State campuses are considered “impacted,” which means they have stricter admission criteria for applicants applying from outside the immediate area. Five years ago, only five campuses held such a distinction. Many students who attend Cal State campuses live at home to save money, which often means that if they are unable to attend a campus within driving distance they will not enroll.
The financial picture will grow even more dire if the tax increase backed by Governor Brown does not pass in November. The president of the University of California and the chancellor of California State University are both urging voters to approve the increase, saying that any more cuts would mean irreparable harm.
As it stands, community colleges will not receive the same level of financing as they did in 2007 until 2014. If voters approve the governor’s tax proposal, they stand to receive $300 million more this year, but they will lose another $300 million if the tax increase is rejected.
“We just have to get behind this initiative,” Jack Scott, the community colleges chancellor who is retiring this year, urged his colleagues in a conference call last month. “This is no time to quibble about whether the governor’s initiative is exactly what it ought to be or that you would change it here and there.”
In the last rounds of cuts, “campuses have tightened their belts so much that there is no more tightening to be done,” said Lawrence Pitts, academic provost for the University of California. Already, he said, the system is “certainly not providing the nature of education that we have in the past, in terms of breadth and depth, and that is something that has us terribly concerned.”
Another cut would mean contemplating things that have long been sacrosanct, like shuttering departments or eliminating an engineering school from one campus. “Nobody wants to think about those things, but we’re beyond the point of finding efficiencies to make up for the losses,” Mr. Pitts said.
While poor students are still able to obtain financial aid, tuition increases mean that the state’s colleges may no longer be the best choice for the middle class, said Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is on the board of trustees for the U.C. and Cal State systems. “This is the code red we’re in,” he said. “We’re not cutting into muscle or tissue, we’re cutting into artery.”
In one recent meeting about the Cal State budget, Mr. Newsom said, some raised the possibility of shutting down a campus, saying it could save anywhere between $44 million and $134 million, but the idea was quickly dismissed. The system has had to cap enrollment numbers statewide to deal with the cuts.
“We’re not replacing library books, we’re not providing the kinds of student services that we need to, we’re not providing the kind of health care that we need to,” said Charles B. Reed, the chancellor of the Cal State system who recently announced his retirement. “This is supposed to be our work force for the state. We go down this road and we’re looking at an ugly Russian winter for the economy.”
BOOK:
Mexifornia: SHATTERING OF AN AMERICAN DREAM (illegals call it their DREAM ACT)
*
LOS ANGELES ANCHOR BABY WELFARE PROGRAM:
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)
Loophole Exploited by
Illegal Aliens Seeking Work
"With thousands
of young adults who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children now holding
college degrees, Sanchez and others are finding creative ways to get around the
legal roadblocks and find a career. They are getting work experience, opening
businesses and seeking professional licenses in their fields," USA
Today writes.
"Although federal law prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal
immigrants, it does not require those who hire independent contractors to ask
for proof of immigration status. As a result, the client who pays for services
is not necessarily breaking the law even if the contractor isn't authorized to
work in the United States, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a law professor at Cornell
Law School."
*
INVESTORS.com
Dream Act Makes Children Pawns
Posted 12/07/2010 06:59 PM ET
Immigration: Congress is expected to vote on the Dream Act on Wednesday, providing a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrant youth. It's a bad precedent that uses kids, costs taxpayers and invites new amnesties.
After years of failing to sell mass amnesty to voters, the open-borders lobby has turned to tugging at Americans' heartstrings, presenting treacly stories of illegal immigrants brought here as children who then bettered themselves here.
Somehow legalizing this group ahead of all the other people awaiting immigration visas legally is supposed to specially benefit all of us, even though the most obvious beneficiaries are the individuals themselves. But out of guilt, or because we "owe" them "justice," the case is being made for passing the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act.
That act provides a path to citizenship for some 2.1 million illegals who have lived here continuously for five years, avoided felony convictions, came to the U.S. before they turned 16 and completed two years of college or U.S. military service within six years.
Now, in the lame-duck session of Congress, the open-borders lobby has lawmakers right where it wants them. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has filed Senate cloture to bring the Dream Act to a vote as soon as Wednesday, and the House may vote even sooner.
It's a scam, using children unethically to achieve an open-borders political agenda that opens the door to perverse incentives.
The Dream Act is an effort to mimic the benefits illegals derive from having anchor babies in the U.S., a tactic used by millions as an "insurance policy" to avoid deportation and achieve legal status.
The awfulness of that incentive can be seen in the case of Edgar Jimenez Lugo, the 14-year-old U.S. "citizen" who was arrested in Mexico after a rather spectacular career beheading rivals and innocent people for $2,500 each on behalf of a Mexican cartel enforcer.
Cronica, a Mexican newspaper, reported that the throwaway kid was born in San Diego and then spent his life with Mexican parents who took him back to Morelos, Mexico, and "wandered around." Apparently the child's birth in San Diego was the same gambit millions of other immigrants use to game the system for U.S. entry. And he's only facing three years in jail in Mexico, so he'll soon become our problem — not Mexico's.
The Dream Act makes every baby an anchor baby, commodifying children, as young Jimenez seems to have been. It extends the incentive for parents to use their kids to beat immigration laws.
Under the Dream Act it may take 10 years for an illegal to achieve full U.S. citizenship, but there's little doubt he will. And as soon as he does achieve citizenship, he will sponsor the parents who brought him into the country illegally — thus achieving the original intention of the law-breaking parents.
This bill is really an amnesty bill. The 1986 amnesty signed by President Reagan provided amnesty to 2.7 million illegals. Now, 24 years on, we have 12 million illegals to amnesty.
Columnist Michelle Malkin points to six successive amnesties since the 1986 act. Each has raised anticipation of new ones for illegals. For them, no need to hurry for the amnesty train — the next one will be along in just a moment.
Worse, the Dream Act will cost a lot. By some estimates it's a $6.2 billion bill for taxpayers, but it may be even more. Judges over the years have already ruled that children of illegals are entitled to "free" U.S. public education through the 12th grade, plus "free" medical care, bankrupting hospital emergency rooms.
The Dream Act will give them even more.
With a treasured U.S. green card as motivation, all they have to do is clog up community college enrollments with no minimum performance standards, crowding out legitimate students who are interested in learning, or else sign up for diploma-mill trade schools with government loans they aren't under any obligation to repay.
For every Harvard valedictorian the illegal immigration lobby presents as a poster boy, there will be thousands of gang members who will qualify because the cops haven't caught them yet.
Worst of all is the entitlement mentality this bill creates.
Suddenly the U.S. taxpayer "owes" all this, as the brazen illegal students parading around in graduation robes for cameras without fear of apprehension make clear. This entitlement mentality is no success ethic. And it won't stop at the Dream Act.
It just underscores the disgusting ethic of special interests playing grievance and identity politics by using children as pawns.
The only good answer to this is no.
Posted 12/07/2010 06:59 PM ET
Immigration: Congress is expected to vote on the Dream Act on Wednesday, providing a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrant youth. It's a bad precedent that uses kids, costs taxpayers and invites new amnesties.
After years of failing to sell mass amnesty to voters, the open-borders lobby has turned to tugging at Americans' heartstrings, presenting treacly stories of illegal immigrants brought here as children who then bettered themselves here.
Somehow legalizing this group ahead of all the other people awaiting immigration visas legally is supposed to specially benefit all of us, even though the most obvious beneficiaries are the individuals themselves. But out of guilt, or because we "owe" them "justice," the case is being made for passing the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act.
That act provides a path to citizenship for some 2.1 million illegals who have lived here continuously for five years, avoided felony convictions, came to the U.S. before they turned 16 and completed two years of college or U.S. military service within six years.
Now, in the lame-duck session of Congress, the open-borders lobby has lawmakers right where it wants them. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has filed Senate cloture to bring the Dream Act to a vote as soon as Wednesday, and the House may vote even sooner.
It's a scam, using children unethically to achieve an open-borders political agenda that opens the door to perverse incentives.
The Dream Act is an effort to mimic the benefits illegals derive from having anchor babies in the U.S., a tactic used by millions as an "insurance policy" to avoid deportation and achieve legal status.
The awfulness of that incentive can be seen in the case of Edgar Jimenez Lugo, the 14-year-old U.S. "citizen" who was arrested in Mexico after a rather spectacular career beheading rivals and innocent people for $2,500 each on behalf of a Mexican cartel enforcer.
Cronica, a Mexican newspaper, reported that the throwaway kid was born in San Diego and then spent his life with Mexican parents who took him back to Morelos, Mexico, and "wandered around." Apparently the child's birth in San Diego was the same gambit millions of other immigrants use to game the system for U.S. entry. And he's only facing three years in jail in Mexico, so he'll soon become our problem — not Mexico's.
The Dream Act makes every baby an anchor baby, commodifying children, as young Jimenez seems to have been. It extends the incentive for parents to use their kids to beat immigration laws.
Under the Dream Act it may take 10 years for an illegal to achieve full U.S. citizenship, but there's little doubt he will. And as soon as he does achieve citizenship, he will sponsor the parents who brought him into the country illegally — thus achieving the original intention of the law-breaking parents.
This bill is really an amnesty bill. The 1986 amnesty signed by President Reagan provided amnesty to 2.7 million illegals. Now, 24 years on, we have 12 million illegals to amnesty.
Columnist Michelle Malkin points to six successive amnesties since the 1986 act. Each has raised anticipation of new ones for illegals. For them, no need to hurry for the amnesty train — the next one will be along in just a moment.
Worse, the Dream Act will cost a lot. By some estimates it's a $6.2 billion bill for taxpayers, but it may be even more. Judges over the years have already ruled that children of illegals are entitled to "free" U.S. public education through the 12th grade, plus "free" medical care, bankrupting hospital emergency rooms.
The Dream Act will give them even more.
With a treasured U.S. green card as motivation, all they have to do is clog up community college enrollments with no minimum performance standards, crowding out legitimate students who are interested in learning, or else sign up for diploma-mill trade schools with government loans they aren't under any obligation to repay.
For every Harvard valedictorian the illegal immigration lobby presents as a poster boy, there will be thousands of gang members who will qualify because the cops haven't caught them yet.
Worst of all is the entitlement mentality this bill creates.
Suddenly the U.S. taxpayer "owes" all this, as the brazen illegal students parading around in graduation robes for cameras without fear of apprehension make clear. This entitlement mentality is no success ethic. And it won't stop at the Dream Act.
It just underscores the disgusting ethic of special interests playing grievance and identity politics by using children as pawns.
The only good answer to this is no.
*
Here’s one teacher’s report on the illegals in our schools.
TEACHER’S POSTING ON CRAIGSLIST:
Subject: Cheap Labor This should
make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent From a California school teacher.
"As you listen to the news
about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that
you should be aware of: I am in charge
of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California
high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students
average lower socioeconomic and income levels.
Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell
Gardens, Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also
Title 1 schools. Title 1 schools are on
the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not
talking a glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with
fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is
monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. (OUR
TAX DOLLARS AT WORK) I estimate that well
over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About
75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for
the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class
without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family
watch their kids. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)
I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding
for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget
was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer
learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti
by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a
free education in America. (OUR TAX DOLLARS A T WORK) I have had to intervene several times for
young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant
students here in the country less then 3 months who raised so much hell with
the female teachers, calling them "Putas" whores and throwing things
that the teachers were in tears. Free
medical, free education, free food, day care etc., etc., etc. Is it any wonder
they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights,
privileges and entitlements? To those who want to point out how much these
illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener
and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the
real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.
Morning Bell: You Have To Pass This Amnesty To Find Out What
Is In It
Posted December 8th,
2010 at 9:39am in Protect America, Rule
of Law with 26 comments
Print
This Post
The nation’s
unemployment rate stands at 9.8 percent, a post–World War II record 19th month
that unemployment has been over 9 percent. President Barack Obama is 7.3 million jobs short of what he promised his failed
stimulus would deliver. The American people are staring down the barrel of the largest tax hike in American
history. So what do Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) have
Congress voting on today? Amnesty. Specifically, the House and Senate
will be voting on the fourth and fifth versions of the
DREAM Act, which would
legalize anywhere between 300,000 and 2.1
million illegal immigrants.
Supporters of the
DREAM Act claim the bill would provide citizenship only to children who go to
college or join the military. But all any version of the legislation
requires is that an applicant attend any college for just two years.
And if President Obama wants to reward non-citizen service members with
citizenship, he already has the power to do so. The Secretary of Defense already has
the authority under 10 U.S.C. § 504 (b) to enlist illegal immigrants in the
military if “such enlistment is vital to the national interest,” and 8 U.S.C. §
1440 allows such immigrants to become naturalized U.S. citizens, with their
applications handled at accelerated rates. The military component of the DREAM Act is a complete red
herring.
Neither of these
bills has gone through their respective committees, and only one has been
scored by the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, they are chock full of
loopholes designed by open border advocates to make an even wider amnesty
possible.
One bill would even
grant Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano the power to waive the
college and military requirements if the illegal immigrant can
demonstrate “compelling circumstances” and the immigrant’s removal would cause
a hardship to the them, their spouse, their parents, or their
children. When exactly would removal from this country not cause a hardship?
What other loopholes are in these bills? As Speaker Pelosi might say: “You have
to pass this amnesty so that you can find out what is in it.”
The DREAM Acts are
also an invitation for fraud. All of the bills would make it illegal for any
information in an amnesty application to be used to initiate removal
proceedings against an applicant. Law enforcement agencies would be forced to
prove that any information they used to find, detain, and try to remove an
illegal immigrant was already in their files before an application was
received or was not derived from the application. If an illegal
immigrant lies about his age to qualify for the program, and the lie is
never detected, he gets amnesty. And if the lie is found out, no worries—law
enforcement is forbidden from using that lie against him.
The real goal of the
DREAM Act is to make it even harder for our nation’s law enforcement agencies
to enforce any immigration laws. And Congress is not the only forum where
amnesty advocates are working to undermine the rule of law today. Right across
the street from the Capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over an Arizona immigration
enforcement law. This is not a hearing on the controversial SB 1070 law that
passed earlier this year. This case, supported by the usual amnesty suspects
(La Raza, the SEIU, the Chamber of Commerce, etc.), challenges Arizona’s 2007 E-Verify law, which penalizes employers who do
not verify the legal status of their employees. This challenge by amnesty
advocates to even common-sense immigration enforcement measures should send a
clear measure to anyone wavering on the DREAM Act: Any enforcement mechanisms
that DREAM Act supporters agree to today will be immediately challenged in
court tomorrow. Enforcement is fickle; amnesty is forever.
Our country does need
immigration reform. We need smarter border security, stronger
interior enforcement, and a more efficient naturalization system. But amnesty plans like the DREAM Act
undermine real reform. The DREAM Act encourages people to ignore our borders,
undermines our law enforcement across the country, and makes fools of
law-abiding immigrants who play by the rules.
*
Is Illegal
Immigration Moral?
By
Victor Davis Hanson
11/25/2010
We
know illegal immigration is no longer really unlawful, but is it moral?
Usually
Americans debate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. Supporters of open
borders rightly remind us that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes. Often their
payroll-tax contributions are not later tapped by Social Security payouts.
Opponents
counter that illegal immigrants are more likely to end up on state assistance,
are less likely to report cash income, and cost the state more through the
duplicate issuing of services and documents in both English and Spanish. Such
to-and-fro talking points are endless.
So is the debate over beneficiaries
of illegal immigration. Are profit-minded employers villains who want cheap
labor in lieu of hiring more expensive Americans? Or is the culprit a cynical
Mexican government that counts on billions of dollars in remittances from its
expatriate poor that it otherwise ignored?
Or
is the engine that drives illegal immigration the American middle class? Why
should millions of suburbanites assume that, like 18th-century French
aristocrats, they should have imported labor to clean their homes, manicure
their lawns and watch over their kids?
Or
is the catalyst the self-interested professional Latino lobby in politics and
academia that sees a steady stream of impoverished Latin American nationals as
a permanent victimized constituency, empowering and showcasing elite
self-appointed spokesmen such as themselves?
Or
is the real advocate the Democratic Party that wishes to remake the electoral
map of the American Southwest by ensuring larger future pools of natural
supporters? Again, the debate over who benefits and why is never-ending.
But
what is often left out of the equation is the moral dimension of illegal
immigration. We see the issue too often reduced to caricature, involving a
noble, impoverished victim without much free will and subject to cosmic forces
of sinister oppression. But everyone makes free choices that affect others. So
ponder the ethics of a guest arriving in a host country knowingly against its
sovereign protocols and laws.
First,
there is the larger effect on the sanctity of a legal system. If a guest
ignores the law -- and thereby often must keep breaking more laws -- should
citizens also have the right to similarly pick and choose which statutes they
find worthy of honoring and which are too bothersome? Once it is deemed moral
for the impoverished to cross a border without a passport, could not the same
arguments of social justice be used for the poor of any status not to report
earned income or even file a 1040 form?
Second,
what is the effect of mass illegal immigration on impoverished U.S. citizens?
Does anyone care? When 10 million to 15 million aliens are here illegally,
where is the leverage for the American working poor to bargain with employers?
If it is deemed ethical to grant in-state tuition discounts to
illegal-immigrant students, is it equally ethical to charge three times as much
for out-of-state, financially needy American students -- whose federal
government usually offers billions to subsidize state colleges and
universities? If foreign nationals are afforded more entitlements, are there
fewer for U.S. citizens?
Third,
consider the moral ramifications on legal immigration -- the traditional great
strength of the American nation. What are we to tell the legal immigrant from
Oaxaca who got a green card at some cost and trouble, or who, once legally in
the United States, went through the lengthy and expensive process of acquiring
citizenship? Was he a dupe to dutifully follow our laws?
And
given the current precedent, if a million soon-to-be-impoverished Greeks, 2
million fleeing North Koreans, or 5 million starving Somalis were to enter the
United States illegally and en masse, could anyone object to their unlawful
entry and residence? If so, on what legal, practical or moral grounds?
Fourth,
examine the morality of remittances. It is deemed noble to send billions of
dollars back to families and friends struggling in Latin America. But how is
such a considerable loss of income made up? Are American taxpayers supposed to
step in to subsidize increased social services so that illegal immigrants can
afford to send billions of dollars back across the border? What is the morality
of that equation in times of recession? Shouldn't illegal immigrants at least
try to buy health insurance before sending cash back to Mexico?
The
debate over illegal immigration is too often confined to costs and benefits.
But ultimately it is a complicated moral issue -- and one often ignored by all
too many moralists.
Victor
Davis Hanson
Victor
Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford
University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.
THE
SITUATION OF LA RAZA SUPREMACY IS MUCH WORSE THAN THIS AUTHOR COVERS IN HIS
ARTICLE ON DREAM ACTS.
THERE
ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) COUNTIES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
WHERE HALF OF ALL JOBS GO TO ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.
LEAD BY LA RAZA SUPREMACIST LIKE GIL CEDILLO, THE STATE PASSED A LAW QUICKLY
SIGNED BY LA RAZA DEM JERRY BROWN (ELECTED BY ILLEGALS) THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL
FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY.
LOS
ANGELES COUNTY PAYS OUT $600 MILLION TO ILLEGALS ON WELFARE (source: JUDICIAL
WATCH). NOT A SINGLE LEGAL VOTED TO BE MEXICO’S ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING CENTER, OR
WELFARE LOOTING STATE!
ONE-THIRD
OF THE DRIVERS IN MEXIFORNIA ARE ILLEGALS DRIVING ILLEGALLY WITHOUT LICENSES,
INSURANCE AND FREQUENTLY IN CARS REGISTERED IN NOMINEE’S NAMES TO AVOID BEING
IMPOUNDED WHEN CAUGHT. LA RAZA SUPREMACIST GIL CEDILLO AND THE LA RAZA FACTION
IN SACRAMENTO ARE PUSHING TO END THAT. HEY. THEY’RE ILLEGALS, INVITED HERE TO
KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED FOR THE PAYMASTERS OF THE LA RAZA DEMS, LIKE CONGRESSWOMAN
ZOE LOFGREN. NEARLY 95% OF THE CAMPAIGN BRIBES THIS ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS,
CHAIN MIGRATION, AMNESTY OR AT LEAST CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT, ARE FROM
EMPLOYERS THAT BENEFIT FROM SOME OF THIS STAGGERINGLY EXPENSIVE “CHEAP” MEX
LABOR.
WHO
BENEFITS?
LA
RAZA DEM, AND ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS AND NO E-VERIFY SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN
HAS LONG HIRED ILLEGALS AT HER S.F. HOTEL, JUST MILES FROM HER $16 MILLION
DOLLAR WAR PROFITEER’S MANSION!
LA
RAZA DEM, AND ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS
AND NO E-VERIFY CONGRESSWOMAN NANCY PELOSI HIRES ILLEGALS AT HER RESTAURANTS AND HER ST. HELENA, NAPA WINERY.
BARBARA
BOXER, ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN CA HISTORY, WAS REELECTED BY
ILLEGALS BASED ON HER PLATFORM OF CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT AND NO E-VERIFY!
NOT
ONCE, BUT THREE TIMES….!!! ON BEHALF OF THEIR BIG AG BIZ DONORS, BOXER AND
FEINSTEIN HAVE PUSHED FOR A “SPECIAL AMNESTY” FOR 1.5 MILLION ILLEGAL FARM
WORKERS…… DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONE-THIRD OF THESE FARM WORKERS COME TO GROW
ANCHOR BABIES AND COLLECT WELFARE!
*
SOMETHING ELSE THE OCCUPIED
LEGALS SHOULD KNOW: ACCORDING TO CA ATTORNEY GEN. KAMALA HARRIS (AN OPEN
BORDERS LA RAZA DEM), NEARLY HALF OF ALL MURDERS IN MEXIFORNIA ARE BY MEXICAN
GANGS!!!
*
THE
STATE OF CA OPERATES DEFICITS OF $28 MILLION AND STILL PAYS OUT $20 BILLION IN
SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS!
NOT
ONE LEGAL VOTED FOR ANY OF THIS!
BUT
THEN THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA IS DOES NOT INCLUDE LEGALS!
Lloyd
Billingsley
The DREAM and the Nightmare
In California, students are better off being illegal immigrants than legal.
30 March 2012
The DREAM and the Nightmare
In California, students are better off being illegal immigrants than legal.
30 March 2012
Last
year, Governor Jerry Brown signed the California DREAM Act, which makes
students in the country illegally eligible for grants and waivers to attend one
of the state’s public colleges or universities. The students must have attended
school in the state for three years, “affirm that they are in the process of
applying to legalize their immigration status,” and show both financial need
and academic achievement. Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, the Los Angeles Democrat who
authored the DREAM Act, hails the legislation as a victory for those “in the
country through no fault of their own.” Opponents such as Republican
assemblyman Tim Donnelly—a first-term legislator not given to understatement—called
Cedillo’s legislation the “California
Nightmare Act,” said it is “morally
wrong,” and would create “a new
entitlement that is going to cause tens of thousands of people to come here
illegally from all over the world.”
Poster
children for the DREAM Act abound. Mandeep Chahal, for example, was six years
old when her parents brought her to the United States from India. Chahal wants
to be a doctor; her fellow students at Los Altos High School near Palo Alto
voted her the person “Most Likely to Save the World.” That’s a tall order, but
to deny such a person the opportunity seems unreasonable. “Many parents of
these children pay taxes for many services they cannot get,” argues Cedillo.
Cedillo’s
point implies that illegal immigrants are the only ones subject to this
dynamic. But consider: my taxes subsidize the Medi-Cal system, which provides
medical care for low-income state residents, but I couldn’t “get” health care
that way, even in the year my income was so low that my daughter qualified for
a Pell Grant. Likewise, the taxes of, say, a California welder help pay for
top-drawer pensions and benefits for state
government employees, but he can’t enjoy those benefits himself. Neither is he
entitled to get a government job merely because his taxes help pay the salaries
and benefits of workers at the Department of Motor Vehicles, CalTrans, the
California Air Resources Board, the Franchise Tax Board, California’s
Department of Education, the State Board of Equalization, the Coastal
Commission, and on and on.
The
taxes of a fast-food worker help subsidize the University of California at
Berkeley, but nothing guarantees that taxpayer admission to Berkeley. The state’s
Master Plan for Higher Education does
guarantee everyone a place in the system, whether at a community college, a
state university, or within the UC system. But no one is promised a place at
the top, and the system grants no special favors to legal immigrants. When I
came to the United States, legally, in 1977, I had been studying at the
University of Windsor, a four-year school in my hometown of Windsor, Ontario. I
wanted to continue my studies at San Diego State University but was not allowed
to transfer because I hadn’t attended high school in California. SDSU
administrators suggested I try the state’s community college system, which
seemed a step down from what I had in mind. But eventually, I put two children
through San Diego State. They’re now working in productive careers, a tax
burden to no one. No legislation rewards parents for that achievement or for
coming to the United States with proper documents.
Cedillo’s law, by contrast,
rewards those who came to California illegally. Will the law, therefore,
encourage more people to enter the state illegally, as Donnelly and other
critics assert?
(IN FACT THERE ARE MORE THAN
11 MILLION ILLEGALS IN SOUTHERN CA ALONE! NOW NEARLY 40% OF CA ARE ILLEGALS,
33% OF NEVADA AND 24% OF COLORADO. MOST
NON LA RAZA PROPAGANDA SOURCES BUT THE NUMBER OF ILLEGALS AT 40 MILLION
AND BREEDING LIKE BUNNIES!)
Recall
how Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986, which gave amnesty to several million undocumented
immigrants. A quarter of a century later, the number of illegal immigrants
stands at 11.5 million. It seems clear
that the 1986 act didn’t discourage foreign nationals from entering the United
States without signing the guest book. One of those who obtained
citizenship under the Act was Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa, who made his way
through UC Berkeley and Harvard Medical School and is now associate professor
of neurosurgery and oncology at the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in
Baltimore. Quinones-Hinojosa and others who have spoken out in support of the
DREAM Act often give the impression that their cases are typical of illegal
aliens. Not exactly. Amnesty measures, however well-intentioned, usually bring
unintended consequences.
THE REALITY OF LA RAZA’S LOOTING OF CA:
Consider Ignacio Mesa Viera,
subject of a recent front-page story in the Sacramento Bee.
He came to the United States illegally in 1979 to work and help his family, as
he explained, but was convicted on a drug offense in 1995. He was deported but
returned to the United States, whereupon he was busted for another drug offense
in 2008. Before his recent deportation, the U.S. government was paying for
Viera’s kidney dialysis, a treatment that can cost more than $60,000 a year. “I
imagine that the reason they don’t want to let me stay in this country,” Viera
told the Bee, “is they don’t want to be paying for this.”
Cedillo
and his colleagues need to know that everybody’s taxes pay for services they
and their children “cannot get”—including kidney dialysis and other expensive
medical treatments courtesy of the federal government. Meantime, as a University of California report noted last year, tens of
thousands of middle-class, taxpaying legal residents are being squeezed out of
an affordable college education even as the legislature contrives to provide
scholarships for the children of illegal aliens. The lawmakers’ solution is to create yet another
entitlement in the form of a new $1 billion scholarship program for students
whose families earn less than $150,000 a year. Such is life in the Golden
State, even with a DREAM Act in place.
Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film
Industry in the 1930s and 1940s and the former editorial
director of the Pacific Research Institute.
*
*
OBAMA
HAS PROMISED HIS LA RAZA “THE RACE” PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS AMNESTY, NO
E-VERIFY, NO I.D. FOR REQUIRED OF ILLEGALS VOTING… OR AT LEAST CONTINUED
NON-ENFORCEMENT!
OBAMA
HANDS MASSIVE WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, ALONG WITH OUR JOBS TO BUY THE ILLEGALS'
ILLEGAL VOTES!
The
truth about the DREAM Act
Published
March 20, 2012
|
FoxNews.com
The
DREAM Act has become a rallying cry for President Obama, members of his
administration, and liberal Democrats everywhere. President Obama has vowed to
“keep fighting for the DREAM Act,” which would grant amnesty to millions of
illegal immigrants.
It’s
true when listeners or those polled don’t know the facts that the DREAM Act has
some appeal. After all, we are all naturally sympathetic when children are
involved.
But
the descriptions of the DREAM Act voiced by President Obama and his cohorts are
not accurate. And the consequences are never told.
DREAM
Act supporters claim that only children would benefit from such a bill, but the
facts tell another story. Under most DREAM Act proposals, amnesty would be
given to individuals up to the age of 30—not exactly children. And some other
proposals don’t even have an age limit.
These
supporters also maintain that illegal immigrants can’t go college without the
DREAM Act. But the truth is that illegal immigrants can already go to college
in most states.
And
ultimately, most versions of the DREAM Act actually don’t even force illegal
immigrants to comply with all the requirements in the bill, such as going to
college or joining the military. The administration can waive requirements
because of “hardship”at its complete discretion.
DREAM Act proposals are
also a magnet for fraud. Many illegal immigrants will fraudulently claim they
came here as children or that they are under 30. And the federal government has
no way to check whether their claims are true or not.
Such massive fraud occurred after the 1986 amnesty for illegal
immigrants who claimed they were agricultural workers. Studies found two-thirds
of all applications for the 1986 amnesty were fraudulent.
(ANYONE THAT THINKS THERE ARE ONLY 11 MILLION ILLEGALS IN OUR
BORDERS SHOULD COME VISIT CA! LOOK AROUND AND TRY TO FIND A NON-HISPANIC
ENGLISH SPEAKING LEGAL! CA IS NOW 40% ILLEGAL. NEVADA IS NOW 33% ILLEGAL.
COLORADO IS NOW 20% ILLEGAL. AND LA RAZA IS NOW MOVING INTO THE AMERICAN SOUTH)
And
this amnesty did nothing to stop illegal immigration. In 1986, there were about
three million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. Today, there are an
estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and about seven million of
them work here, unfairly taking jobs from unemployed Americans.
While DREAM Act
supporters claim that it would only benefit children, they skip over the fact
that it actually rewards the very illegal immigrant parents who knowingly
violated our laws. Once their children become U.S. citizens, they can petition
for their illegal immigrant parents and adult siblings to be legalized, who
will then bring in others in an endless chain.
This
kind of chain migration only encourages more illegal immigration, as parents
will bring their children to the U.S. in hopes of receiving citizenship.
President Obama tried to
get the DREAM Act passed during a lame duck session about a year ago but it
faced bipartisan opposition in Congress. This hasn’t stopped the administration
from passing its agenda. The Obama administration does everything it can to let
illegal immigrants stay here, which compounds the problem.
Political
appointees at the Department of Homeland Security recently issued
new deportation guidelines that amount to backdoor amnesty and strike another
blow at millions of unemployed U.S. workers.
Under
the administration’s new deportation policy, DHS officials review all incoming
and most pending cases before an immigration court to determine if the illegal
immigrant can remain in the U.S. Since the administration has made clear that
many illegal immigrants are not considered priorities for removal, including
potential DREAM Act beneficiaries, this could open the door to allow millions
of illegal immigrants to live and work in the U.S. without a vote of Congress.
The Obama administration
has also cut worksite enforcement efforts by 70%, allowing illegal immigrants
to continue working in jobs that rightfully belong to citizens and legal
workers. And the list goes on and on – this administration has a pattern
of ignoring the laws and intent of Congress.
The United States is based on the rule of law but the Obama
administration already has dirty hands by abusing administrative authority to
grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act doesn’t stop illegal
immigration—it only encourages more of it by rewarding lawbreakers.
Rep.
Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
No comments:
Post a Comment