Thursday, August 23, 2012

ICE SUES LA RAZA NAPOLITANO FOR NOT ENFORCING LAWS ON ILLEGALS


 
TO SABOTAGE OUR BORDERS AND BUILD HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS, OBAMA HAS MADE SURE THAT DHS NEVER HAS ENOUGH FUNDS TO FEND OFF THE MEX INVASION.
OBAMA SURE FINDS BILLIONS TO DEFEND THE BORDERS OF MUSLIM DICTATORS OVER THERE!
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano says her department does not have the manpower or money to deport the 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA, so she issued a memorandum last year ordering immigration officials to focus their efforts on dangerous illegal immigrants.
ICE agents sue own agency over deferred deportations
By Alan Gomez, USA TODAY | ABC OTUS News – 4 hrs ago
  •  
A group of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents filed a lawsuit against their own agency Thursday, arguing that the Obama administration is not letting them fully identify and deport illegal immigrants.
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano says her department does not have the manpower or money to deport the 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA, so she issued a memorandum last year ordering immigration officials to focus their efforts on dangerous illegal immigrants. In June, Obama announced a program that will allow up to 1.7 million illegal immigrants brought to the USA as children to have deportations deferred for at least two years.
The 10 ICE agents suing Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton say those directives violate the Constitution and federal immigration law. "We are federal law enforcement officers who are being ordered to break the law," said Chris Crane, an ICE agent and president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, a union for ICE employees. "This directive puts ICE agents and officers in a horrible position."
ICE spokesman Ross Feinstein did not comment on the lawsuit but said more than half of the nearly 400,000 illegal immigrants deported in 2011 had been convicted of crimes, the largest number in the agency's history. He said that shows the decision to focus on the most dangerous illegal immigrants is a policy that works, and June's decision to defer deportation for young illegal immigrants enhances that strategy.
A spokesman for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Obama may have overstepped his authority by ordering the deportation deferments, and Romney would forge a long-term solution with Congress instead of relying on Obama's "stop-gap measure."
"The courts will have to sort this out, but this kind of uncertainty is unacceptable as these young people brought here as children are seeking clarity on their long-term status," spokesman Ryan Williams said.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in a Dallas federal court, requests that a judge strike down the two directives and protect the agents from any retribution for their lawsuit.
The suit is funded by NumbersUSA, a group that proposes lower levels of legal and illegal immigration, and the attorney is Kris Kobach, the secretary of State of Kansas who has helped Arizona and Alabama craft strict anti-illegal-immigration laws. His work on this lawsuit is not part of his official state duties.
The lawsuit was supported by some GOP legislators who have criticized Obama's immigration plans as "backdoor amnesty."
"These agent's mission is to keep our borders secure, but the head of their agency is directing them otherwise, telling them to undermine their missions and contradict immigration law," Sen. David Vitter, R-La.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., said the program actually helps ICE officials by allowing them to focus on the most dangerous illegal immigrants. "Deferred action is a major boost to law enforcement who do not have to waste time on honor students and can do the harder work of actually tracking down and deporting criminals," he said.
FROM HIS FIRST DAYS IN OFFICE, OBAMA HAS HISPANDERED FOR THE ILLEGALS VOTES.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Thursday, April 9, 2009

 Plus, outrage after President Obama prepares to push ahead with his plan for so-called comprehensive immigration reform. Pres. Obama is fulfilling a campaign promise to give
legal status to millions of illegal aliens as he panders to the pro-amnesty, open borders lobby. Tonight we will have complete coverage.
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, February 16, 2009
Construction of the 670 miles of border fence mandated by the Bush administration is almost complete. The Border Patrol says the new fencing, more agents and new technology
have reduced illegal alien apprehensions. But fence opponents are trying to stop the last few miles from being finished. We will have a full report, tonight.


 Plus, even open border advocates agree that the most effective way of fighting illegal immigration is to crack down on the employment of illegal aliens. Yet, those same groups are
opposed to E-Verify, which has an initial accuracy rate of 99.6% making it one the most accurate programs ever. E-Verify was stripped from the stimulus bill but who stripped it out and who is opposed to verifying employment status is still not clear.
 
*
“The president's straddling can work for the time being. But unless he wants to end up in the sawdust, acrobat Obama will eventually have to hop on one horse and lead the way. That would have to be the horse named "Enforcement First."  CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Obama's immigration straddle
If he wants Americans to consider a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens, he'll have to lead on "enforcement first."
By the Monitor's Editorial Board
from the June 23, 2009 edition
*        
On the campaign trail, President Obama promised to make immigration reform a top priority in his first year as president. Now that he's in the White House, he's dragging his heels.
After two postponements, he'll meet with a select group of lawmakers on Thursday to discuss legislation. So far, he's set neither a timeline for a bill, nor outlined one.
The difference between the campaign trail and the Oval Office is political reality. As White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs admitted last week, "The votes aren't there right now."
MOST SOURCES CALCULATE THERE ARE MORE LIKE 40 MILLION ILLEGALS. COME TO CALIFORNIA AND YOU KNOW IMMEDIATELY THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPAGANDA OF 12 MILLION !!!!
For one thing, the timing is all wrong. A move to put the country's 11.6 million illegal immigrants on a "path to citizenship" – and legal jobs – would upset Americans mired in a deep recession.
Meanwhile, the White House has put two big legislative priorities ahead of immigration this year: healthcare and energy. That's a lot for Congress to digest – maybe too much.
Then there's politics. The president owes voters who backed him in swing states such as Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio; many of them strenuously oppose what is seen as amnesty in disguise. On the other hand, he's indebted to Latino voters who helped him carry the key swing states of New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. Indeed, the Democratic Senate majority leader, Harry Reid from Nevada, vows to move on immigration reform this year.
THAT’S WHAT OBAMA IS. A CIRCUS PERFORMER DANCING FOR WALL STREET BRIBES!
This leaves Obama in the role of a circus performer, trying to straddle two horses at once:
He's trying to keep one group with him by continuing many of President Bush's enforcement policies – and by even expanding them. His budget proposes increased funding for E-Verify (the electronic system that allows employers to check the legal status of their workers); more money to hire people to identify criminal illegal immigrants in US jails and prisons – and then deport them; and a commitment to put a barrier of electronic detectors along the Mexican border.
With the other group, the president is refocusing raids on the managers and owners who hire illegal immigrants rather than on the migrants themselves. The Justice Department recently reversed a Bush ruling that had denied effective legal representation to illegal immigrants facing deportation. By concentrating on employers, criminal illegal aliens, and smuggling networks, the total number of deportations will likely fall.
The president's straddling can work for the time being. But unless he wants to end up in the sawdust, acrobat Obama will eventually have to hop on one horse and lead the way. That would have to be the horse named "Enforcement First."
The president should take his cue from Michael Chertoff, the head of homeland security for President Bush. Mr. Chertoff found that the big lesson from failed immigration reform in 2007 was that most Americans want to make sure the law is being enforced before they'll consider anything else.
Obama, too, understands the importance of enforcement. "The American people believe in immigration, but they also believe that we can't tolerate a situation where people come to the United States in violation of the law," he said last week at a Hispanic prayer breakfast. But does he fully perceive the importance of "first?"
If he wants immigration reform, there is no other way than proving his administration is willing and able to uphold the law – first. It must show – through tighter borders, sustained pressure on employers, and reduced numbers of illegal immigrants – that it has the will to enforce the law now and after reform (the last big reform in the 1980s simply helped increase the flow of illegal immigration).
Proving commitment to enforcement will take time and results, and will require gentle persuasion for patience among the backers of citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Political reality affords Obama some time. But only he can deliver the results, and the persuasion.
 
*
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
 
Illegal immigrants netted by local police could be released
 
The Obama administration directive comes as the president begins to assert control of the immigration issue.
 
By Patrik Jonsson  |  Staff writer/ June 23, 2009 edition
Atlanta
Some undocumented immigrants swept up on minor charges such as fishing without a license won’t face federal detention. Instead, they’ll be released on their own recognizance under an Obama administration directive to a Nashville, Tenn., sheriff who charged 6,000 people with immigration crimes over the past 2-1/2 years.
The “release on recognizance” order by Immigration and Customs Enforcement – a branch of the US Department of Homeland Security – could affect at least some of the 66 US law enforcement jurisdictions that are part of a controversial program which, in essence, deputizes local police to act as de facto immigration agents.
The directive, made earlier this month, is the result of overcrowding in federal prisons, but also ties into a broader, ongoing review of the program, known as 287(g), and its impact on immigrant communities.
“There hasn’t been a [policy] change: ICE always puts a priority on criminal aliens who pose a national security threat,” says Matt Chandler, a Department of Homeland Security spokesman in Washington. But he acknowledges: “We are taking a deep, hard look at the program.”
The sheriff who received the ICE email earlier this month, Davidson County’s Daron Hall, says that it’s been standard practice over the past three years to detain most undocumented workers apprehended under the 287(g) program until their immigration court hearing.
Releasing nondangerous detainees could take a bite out of the 287(g) program, experts say. Pre-2006 studies showed that about 85 percent of illegal immigrants released on bond did not show up for their court date.
Releasing those who pose little criminal threat is a sign of shifting priorities on immigration policy in Washington, some say.
“There’s definitely a change in focus,” says Michelle Waslin, senior policy analyst at the Immigration Policy Center in Washington. “[The Obama administration] is reasserting federal control over immigration reform.”
President Obama is scheduled to meet Thursday with congressional leaders about immigration reform.
The 287(g) program has become politically popular in places like Arizona’s Maricopa County, where Sheriff Joe Arpaio uses it to conduct drug and gang raids.
But it’s been widely criticized, too.
In Davidson County, Sheriff Hall hired a prisoner advocate, eased visitation rules, and even changed the jail menu to reflect Tex-Mex tastes after a Hispanic woman in custody gave birth while bearing shackles.
Hall says he met with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano Tuesday morning at a sheriffs’ round table. Secretary Napolitano “wants to see the program more clearly defined so people aren’t doing it differently, which has been a problem,” Hall says.
The sheriff adds that there’s been no directive from ICE to stop processing people for minor violations: “I see this less as a shift in policy and more about economics” of prison management.
Immigration-rights groups say the new directive won’t change anybody’s deportation status, but it will make finding counsel and making preparations for departure easier and more humane for families.
Others see the directive as part of a broader Obama administration move to defang a core tenet of the 287(g) program: The ability of local police to deal with local crime problems such as drug smuggling and immigrant gangs. Last year, local police made 20 percent of all immigration-related arrests in the US.
“For ICE to say, ‘We need to constrict your ability to use the program’ could be a very big problem for those jurisdictions,” says Jessica Vaughan, senior policy analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies.
*
“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
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.
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."
*
from the June 17, 2009 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0617/p09s03-coop.html
 
Solution to immigration reform is in the details
The US can stop 'making do' with the broken status quo by not letting interest groups direct policy with grand concepts.
By Philip Martin and Michael S. Teitelbaum
 
New York
Immigration reform is highly contentious, yet politicians agree on one thing: The current US immigration policy is broken and the status quo does not serve the interests of most workers and employers, nor the broader national interest.
You might then ask, "If most agree that the status quo is broken, why not fix it?" There is a simple answer to this: Since advocates for either side can't get what they want, the current broken model works well enough. THE DEMS LOVE THE OPEN BORDERS = CHEAP LABOR & DEPRESSED WAGES FOR THEIR CORPORATE PAYMASTERS, AND POLITICIANS LIKE PELOSI AND FEINSTEIN THAT HAVE LONG HIRED ILLEGALS!
THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF NO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST HIRING ILLEGALS, BILLIONS IN WELFARE TO INDUCE EVEN MORE TO CLIMB OUR BORDERS, AND NO LEGAL NEED APPLY HERE POLICIES ARE WORKING JUST FINE! JUST VISIT MEXIFORNIA AND SEE!
Supporters of expanded immigration have tried but failed to increase legal immigration and to create paths to citizenship for most of the 11 to 12 million unauthorized. Since those options have not been attainable, the "broken" status quo is the next best option; it allows immigrant numbers to continue to grow, while giving millions of unauthorized migrants time to establish equities and roots in the US, including via US-born children.
Advocates for limits on immigration have also failed to achieve their goals. They want more effective enforcement in the workplace, but strongly oppose both increased legal immigration and another large-scale legalization. Hence for them, too, the broken status quo is the next best thing.
Meanwhile the two most interested groups – unauthorized migrants themselves and their employers – find the broken status quo satisfactory. It enables most unauthorized migrants to use false documents to circumvent the law and find US employment at higher wages than at home. It enables businesses to hire them at wage and benefit levels lower than the market would otherwise require. This minority of employers might prefer legal rather than falsely documented employees, but not if they cost more.
As President Obama prepares to initiate a national conversation on comprehensive immigration reform in the coming months, he should keep in mind that any hope for an effective solution lies in the details.
As with the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), the last "comprehensive" reform, current comprehensive proposals include three key components:
1. A plan to give legal status and a path to citizenship for most of the unauthorized;
2. A promise of more effective workplace enforcement via credible identification to limit employers' ability to hire unauthorized workers;
3. A way to deal with the future influx of migrant workers.
Each of the three elements is complex and contentious.
For legalization: How many of the estimated 11 to 12 million unauthorized should be legalized? How many should be granted US citizenship? Is the government able and willing to run such a program with both efficiency and credibility? What fees, proof of eligibility, and other requirements would be enforced?
The United States immigration debate has been in a similar place before. It was the details that ensured that the comprehensive IRCA reforms of 1986 failed to reduce unauthorized migration.
In concept, IRCA prohibited the knowing employment of persons unlawfully in the US. But the perverse details imposed by some of the same interest groups active today invited the pervasive fraud that made this concept unenforceable. IRCA required employers to examine workers' documents but prohibited them from checking the documents' validity.
The key to successful comprehensive immigration reform is to ensure that the details support, rather than detract from, its goals.
Obama's administration can start by requiring that any legalization plan be evaluated by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) before it is implemented, to ensure that the government can legalize those eligible but prevent the widespread fraud that occurred under IRCA.
Washington also should require the GAO to certify that an effective workplace enforcement system has been implemented before legalization kicks in. And any truly independent commission would need safeguards against being dominated by the most interested interest groups.
Change is clearly needed, but as the president sets out to restart dialogue on immigration reform, he must not allow interest groups to push through another round of "comprehensive" reform that promises one result with grand concepts but whose details take us in another direction.
Not paying close attention to these critical details will only further exacerbate public cynicism and disenchantment. And that would leave us right where we started, with a still-broken policy.
*
“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
 
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
WHY THE NEW JOBS GO TO IMMIGRANTS
By David R. Francis                                                                               
Wall Street cheered and stock prices rose when the US Labor Department announced last Friday that employers had expanded their payrolls by 262,000 positions in February.
But it wasn't entirely good news. The statisticians also indicated that the share of the adult population holding jobs had slipped slightly from January to 62.3 percent. That's now two full percentage points below the level in the brief recession that began in March 2001.
Why the apparent contradiction? Reasons abound: population growth, rising retirements. But one factor that gets little attention is immigration. In the past four years, the number of immigrants into the US, legal and illegal, has closely matched the number of new jobs. That suggests newcomers have, in effect, snapped up all of the new jobs. "There has been no net job gain for natives," says Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University.
 
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Immigration bill sticker shock $127 BILLION (dated)
“WE ARE NOW JUST BEGINNING TO SEE A GLIMPSE OF THE STAGGERING BURDEN ON AMERICAN TAXPAYERS” OF THE MEXICAN INVASION.......
A government study puts the cost of the Senate's version of reform at $127 billion over 10 years.
By Gail Russell Chaddock  - Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON
The price tag for comprehensive immigration reform was not a key issue when the Senate passed its bill last May. But it is now.
One reason: It took the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) - the gold standard for determining what a bill will cost - until last week to estimate that federal spending for this vast and complex bill would hit $127 billion over the next 10 years.
At the same time, federal revenues would drop by about $79 billion, according to the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation. If lawmakers fix a tax glitch, that loss would be cut in half, they add.
In field hearings across the nation this month, House GOP leaders are zeroing in on the costs of the Senate bill. It's a bid to define the issue heading into fall elections and muster support for the House bill, which focuses on border security. They say that the more people know about the Senate version, including a path to citizenship for some 11 million people now in the country illegally, the less they will be inclined to support it.
“WE ARE NOW JUST BEGINNING TO SEE A GLIMPSE OF THE STAGGERING BURDEN ON AMERICAN TAXPAYERS” OF THE MEXICAN INVASION.......
"We are now just beginning to see a glimpse of the staggering burden on American taxpayers the Reid-Kennedy immigration legislation contains," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who convened a field hearing at the State House in Concord, N.H., Thursday on the costs of the Senate bill.
But business groups and others backing the Senate bill say that the cost to the US economy of not resolving the status of illegal immigrants and expanding guest-worker programs is higher still. "In my opinion, the fairer question is: How will illegal immigrants impact the costs of healthcare, local education, and social services without passage of comprehensive immigration reform?" said John Young, co-chairman of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, at Thursday's hearing.
"Had we solved this problem in a truly comprehensive way in 1986 ... we would not have the daily news reporting outright shortages of farm labor threatening the very existence of agricultural industries coast to coast," he adds.
Experts are poring over the new CBO data - and coming up with radically different assessments of the social costs of reform, ranging from tens of billions of dollars higher to a net wash.
On the issue of border security - a feature in both bills - there is little disagreement. The CBO estimates that the cost of hardening US borders in the Senate bill is $78.3 billion over 10 years, or about 62 percent of the bill's total cost.
The fireworks involve new entitlement spending in the Senate version. The CBO sets the price tag for services for some 16 million new citizens and guest workers at $48.4 billion through fiscal year 2016. That includes $24.5 billion for earned income and child tax credits, $11.7 billion for Medicaid, $5.2 billion for Social Security, $3.7 billion for Medicare, and $2.4 billion for food stamps.
But it's easier to estimate the cost of a mile of fence than to assess the prospects for millions of workers, once they can work legally and claim benefits.
“THE AMNESTY ALONE WILL BE THE LARGEST EXPANSION OF THE WELFARE SYSTEM IN THE LAST 25 YEARS” Heritage Foundation
 
"The amnesty alone will be the largest expansion of the welfare system in the last 25 years," says Robert Rector, a senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation, and a witness at a House Judiciary Committee field hearing in San Diego Aug. 2. "Welfare costs will begin to hit their peak around 2021, because there are delays in citizenship. The very narrow time horizon [the CBO is] using is misleading," he adds. "If even a small fraction of those who come into the country stay and get on Medicaid, you're looking at costs of $20 billion or $30 billion per year."
Philip Martin, professor of agricultural economics at the University of California, Davis, was a
member of the US Commission on Agricultural Workers. Michael S. Teitelbaum, a demographer, was a member and vice chair of the US Commission on Immigration Reform.
*
 
THE MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVE SPREADS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES
Everyday there are 12 Americans murdered by Mexicans and 8 children molested!
California Attorney Gen Kamala Harris announced that nearly HALF of all murders in Mex-occupied CA are by MEX GANGS!
 
*
HEATHER Mac DONALD
THE ILLEGAL (MEXICAN) CRIME TIDAL WAVE:
 
 
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/heather-mac-donald-illegal-alien-crime.html
 
*
WILL MEXICO BANKRUPT AMERICA?
CALIFORNIA UNDER MEXICAN-OCCUPATION PAYS OUT $22 BILLION PER YEAR IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS!
 
*
WILL OHIO BE BANKRUPTED BY THE LA RAZA MEX-OCCUPATION THAT NOT ONE LEGAL VOTED FOR?
 
*
HOW MANY BILLIONS ARE MARYLANDERS FORCED TO PAY FOR MEX WELFARE AND LOOTING?
*
BARACK OBAMA, FIRST HISPANDERING LA RAZA “THE RACE” PRESIDENT – HIS LA RAZA SUPREMACIST INFESTED ADMINISTRATION:
*
OBAMA AND MEXICO PROMISE ILLEGALS JUMPING OUR BORDERS OBAMACARE, “FREE” MEDICAL, “FREE” ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING = 18 YEARS WELFARE, AND OUR JOBS!
*
ROBERT RECTOR: THE STAGGERING COST OF MEXICO’S INVASION, OCCUPATION AND EVER GROWING WELFARE STATE
 
*
THE LOOTING OF AMERICA BY MEXICO, BARACK OBAMA and ERIC HOLDER
OBAMA’S HISPANICAZATION of AMERICA:
*
ANCHOR BABIES – HOW MEXICO ANCHORS THEIR OCCUPATION AND EXPAND THEIR WELFARE STATE IN OUR BORDERS!
 
 
 
 



 

 

No comments: