Monday, May 7, 2012

The public-sector jobs crisis: Women and African Americans hit hardest by job losses in state and local governments | Economic Policy Institute - OF THE 40 MILLION ILLEGALS IN OUR BORDERS, HOW MANY ARE IN OUR JOBS, HOW MANY IN OUR PRISONS, HOW MANY ON WELFARE FOR ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING? IS IT TIME TO STOP BEING MEXICO'S JOBS & JAILS PROGRAM?

The public-sector jobs crisis: Women and African Americans hit hardest by job losses in state and local governments | Economic Policy Institute


WHO PAYS FOR THE MEXICAN WELFARE & JOBS STATE IN OUR BORDERS?

WHO ACTUALLY VOTED TO BE LOOTED  BY MEXICO?



DEMS ARE NOW THE PARTY FOR WALL ST BANKSTERS AND ILLEGALS.

“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

AT A TIME WITH STAGGERING UNEMPLOYMENT, OBAMA & HIS LA RAZA INFESTED ADMINISTRATION HAS PUSHED OUR BORDERS OPEN WIDER, SABOTAGED E-VERIFY AND SUED AMERICAN STATES ATTEMPTING TO PUSH BACK THE MEXICAN INVADERS…. AND THEN HANDED THEM COUNTLESS DREAM ACTS TO INDUCE MORE TO HOP OUR BORDERS AND JOBS!

BUT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE… nada! NADA THE DAY AFTER THEY KEPT THEIR PROMISE TO BIG OIL TO PROTECT THEIR MASSIVE WELFARE!



Not a single resolution was offered that called for increasing spending to meet social needs as the American economy staggers through a fifth year of economic slump and mass unemployment.

The major spending cuts in the budget resolution are focused on programs for the poor and the lower-paid sections of the working class. According to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 62 percent of the $5.3 trillion in spending cuts come from “programs that serve people of limited means.” If implemented, the cuts would drastically increase income inequality and poverty.

*

US House of Representatives approves plan to destroy Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps

By Patrick Martin
30 March 2012

The US House of Representatives has adopted a budget resolution that calls for privatization of Medicare and the elimination of Medicaid, food stamps and many other federal entitlement benefits. The resolution is part of a bipartisan campaign to slash spending on social programs.

All but ten of the Republican majority in the House backed the resolution—and those ten wanted even bigger cuts. All Democrats voted against the resolution, while offering their own proposals that called for somewhat less drastic cuts in spending and token tax increases on the wealthy.

Not a single resolution was offered that called for increasing spending to meet social needs as the American economy staggers through a fifth year of economic slump and mass unemployment.

The budget was drafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who last year offered the first-ever proposal for the complete abolition of Medicare. It passed the House but not the Senate.

This year’s resolution was even more sweeping and reactionary. It calls for $5.3 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Part of the savings would be used to reduce the federal deficit, but the bulk of them would go to reward the wealthy with new tax breaks, including abolition of the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, and lowering the top income tax rate from the present 35 percent to 25 percent.

The major spending cuts in the budget resolution are focused on programs for the poor and the lower-paid sections of the working class. According to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 62 percent of the $5.3 trillion in spending cuts come from “programs that serve people of limited means.” If implemented, the cuts would drastically increase income inequality and poverty.

The CBPP analysis found the budget provides for $800 billion in cuts for Medicaid, $1.6 trillion from repealing the expansion of Medicaid and subsidies for low- and moderate-income people, $134 billion in cuts from food stamps, and $463 billion from other programs for low-income individuals and families, including an estimated $166 billion from Pell Grants for low-income college students.

According to other accounts, the budget would cut 200,000 children from Head Start, deny food stamps or WIC food commodities to 1.8 million infants, children and pregnant or nursing women, cut transportation financing by up to $50 billion, and cut unspecified billions from federal employee pensions.

The resolution proposes to turn back the clock on federal programs by more than half a century, capping federal spending at 19 percent of gross domestic product, about the level that prevailed in the 1950s, before the establishment of Medicare and other social welfare programs adopted under the Johnson administration.

In order to accomplish this goal, the age of eligibility for Medicare would be raised from 65 to 67, and end Medicare as a federal entitlement for all those now younger than 55. Anyone who turns 65 after 2023 would be relegated to buying private health insurance with a government grant that would be capped, shifting costs to the individual.

Unlike last year, however, Ryan modified his Medicare plan slightly to obtain a Democratic co-sponsor, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. The Ryan-Wyden plan would give those under 55 the option to stay with traditional Medicare, but only under financing options that would make the federal program unviable.

As Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein noted, the Ryan plan establishes the identical mechanism for the elderly to purchase private insurance—state-run insurance exchanges—that the Obama administration has made the center of its healthcare reform program. Obama proposed this method to cut the cost of healthcare for the government and corporate employers. Ryan proposes the same means to cut the cost of providing healthcare for the elderly.

The other significant feature of the Ryan budget resolution is that it reneges on the agreement reached last August between the Obama administration and congressional Republicans, setting spending levels for the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years. The White House embraced significant cuts in discretionary spending in return for an increase in the federal debt ceiling. This raises the prospect of a new legislative deadlock over the adoption of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2013, and a partial shutdown of the federal government October 1, on the eve of the presidential and congressional elections.

The Obama White House mildly criticized the Ryan budget plan in language that all but begged for an agreement. Senior Obama adviser David Plouffe, appearing on multiple television talk shows last Sunday, reiterated the claim that the Republican resolution “fails the test of balance and fairness and shared responsibility.”

Adding just a touch of populist demagogy, Plouffe continued, “It showers huge additional tax cuts on the wealthy that are paid for by veterans and seniors and the middle class.”

None of the competing budget resolutions debated and voted on by the House Wednesday and Thursday, however, provided any serious alternative.

A proposal based on the Obama administration’s own budget numbers, offered by Republican Congressman Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina in order to ridicule it, was voted down by 414 to zero, without a single Democratic vote.

Three measures offered by various factions of the Democratic Party were all voted down—the Black Caucus budget was defeated 107-314, the Progressive Caucus budget 78-346, and a Democratic leadership budget 163-262.

Significantly, all of these budget resolutions adhered to the spending levels set last August in the bipartisan White House deal. In other words, the Democrats, even in their most liberal guise, accepted the budget cuts endorsed by Obama last year.

The House also defeated, by a vote of 136-285, an alternative to the Ryan budget resolution with even greater cuts, proposed by the Republican Study Group, a caucus of ultra-right and Tea Party members.

One other budget resolution was voted on, and despite its lopsided defeat, the measure was politically significant. A bipartisan group of right-wing Democrats and moderate Republicans proposed a budget plan based on the report of the Simpson-Bowles commission, which Obama appointed to devise a deficit-reduction program.

The resolution was overwhelmingly defeated, by 38 to 382, because few Republicans would vote for a resolution calling for tax increases on the wealthy, and few Democrats wanted to publicly support sizeable cuts in Medicare and Social Security in a bill that was certain to be defeated.

Nonetheless, the bipartisan measure indicated where a deal is to be had once the charade of the November elections is completed. Whatever the configuration of the two parties, in terms of control of the White House, Senate or House of Representatives, there will be a bipartisan deal to slash spending on the poor and working class, while preserving, with only token changes, the enormous tax boondoggles for the wealthy.

This will be presented to the American people, either by President Obama or his Republican successor, as a measure providing “equal sacrifice” or “shared responsibility” for the fiscal crisis of the federal government.


AMERICA… owned and operated by and for billionaires… THE LAND WHERE JOBS GO TO ILLEGALS SO WAGES ARE DEPRESSED!

Then the bills for Wall St.’s looting and the Mexican welfare state go to the American middle class who will be paying for the banksters rape and pillage for generations to come!

Banksters’ profits, bonuses are up! So are foreclosures and welfare for illegals!

*

latimes.com

Opinion

California must stem the flow of illegal immigrants

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


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


*



US tax data shows falling wages, rising inequality

By Andre Damon and Tom Eley
6 November 2010

Average annual wages for US workers fell by $457 in 2009 and the median annual wage fell by $247 to $26,261, according to recently updated data from the Social Security Administration (SSA).

Meanwhile, the incomes of the top-earning corporate executives barely budged in 2009. The pay of the handful of individuals making over $50 million fell by about 7 percent 2009, despite the fact that stocks fell in value by 40 percent, demolishing the claim that executive bonuses are tied to corporate “performance.”

Last year, in the midst of 10 percent unemployment, a relative handful of Americans lived as royalty. In 2009 there were 3,689 individuals who made between $5 million and $10 million, and 1,618 who made $10 million or more, including 425 who made $20 million, and 72 who brought in $50 million or more

These 5,307 tax filers, equivalent to the population of a small town, together took home about $57.62 billion in 2009, about $8 billion more than the bottom 24 million households filing taxes, and a staggering 10 percent of all income earned in the US.

Behind this financial aristocracy are another 72,000 or so individuals and households that reported income of more than $1 million in 2009, and then another 1,611,000 who took home more than $200,000. These top three categories, only 1.7 million tax filers—the top 0.8 percent of those reporting income—cornered about 27 percent of all income, more than combined income of the bottom 100 million or so households, those making less than $40,000.

If anything, this portrait underestimates social inequality in the US, as the data addresses only earnings, and not accumulated wealth.

The sharp decline in wages in 2009 marks an intensification of a longer-term trend of growing social inequality. Adjusted for inflation, the median income in 2009 was $167 less than it was in 2001. The same nine years has been a bonanza for the extremely wealthy. In 1990, there were 739 people making over $5 million per year. By 2009 that figure had increased more than sevenfold, to 5,307.

The SSA data corroborates a recent study by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, which found that two thirds of the total national increase in personal income between 2002 and 2007 went to the wealthiest 1 percent of society.

Significantly, the SSA data suggests that the official unemployment rate, currently at 9.6 percent, grossly underestimates joblessness. Between 2008 and 2009 the total number of wage earners fell by 4.5 million, from 155,434,562 to 150,917,733. But for the same period the Labor Department counted 2.6 million job losses.

The figures were first reported by David Cay Johnston, the Pulitzer Prize-winning former New York Times writer, on tax.com, the website of the nonprofit group Tax Analysts. Commenting on the data, Johnston pointed out the connection between the vast growth of social inequality over the past several years and policies that directly favor the wealthy. In previous writings, Johnston has pointed to the clear connection between the precipitous drop in the effective tax rate for the wealthiest 400 US families, and the concurrent tripling of their wealth between 1994 and 2007.

Last year’s sharp fall in wages is the outcome of an ongoing campaign of restructuring and wage-cutting by US corporations, which dumped millions of workers from their payrolls while forcing those remaining to work harder for less. The Obama administration spearheaded this drive with the forced bankruptcy and restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler, which included a 50 percent wage cut for newly hired auto workers.

The trend continues. The Bureau of Labor Statistics this week reported that worker productivity surged in the second quarter, even as labor costs continued to decline.

*

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.

*

“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."

(SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS IN CALIFORNIA ALONE ARE NOT UP TO $20 BILLION PER YEAR. WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS IN NEVADA, NOW 25% ILLEGAL, IS SOARING!)



*

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.

*

FAIRUS.org

U.S. Taxpayers Spend $113 Billion Annually on Illegal Aliens
America has never been able to afford the costs of illegal immigration. With rising unemployment and skyrocketing deficits, federal and state lawmakers are now facing the results of failed policies. A new, groundbreaking report from FAIR, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers, takes a comprehensive look at the estimated fiscal costs resulting from federal, state and local expenditures on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children.
Expanding upon the series of state studies done in the past, FAIR has estimated the annual cost of illegal immigration to be $113 billion, with much of the cost — $84.2 billon — coming at the state and local level.



*

THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR CHARACTERIZES MEXICO AS THE “MEXICAN GANG CAPITAL OF AMERICA”. THERE ARE MORE MURDERS COMMITTED BY

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.

*

LA RAZA OCCUPATION OF LOS ANGELES: MEXICO’S LOOTING GROUNDS!

Subject: From the L.A. Times Newspaper

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.



*

THE DILEMMA WITH THE MEXICAN INVASION IS THAT MEXICANS LOATHE LITERACY, AND LOATHE ENGLISH! THEY GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL WITH A SECOND GRADE READING ABILITY!

The most insightful study remains one done by the National Research Council in 1997. It gauged federal, state and local fiscal costs and contributions over the lifetime of an immigrant in 1996 dollars. Citizen children were included.

The study found that an immigrant high school dropout -- which characterizes nearly half of today's unauthorized people -- received $89,000 more in services than he paid in taxes in his life. But an immigrant with at least some college -- a quarter of today's unauthorized -- gave $105,000 more than he got. For the high school graduates left, those who arrived during their teens or earlier were slightly profitable for the government, while the children of those who arrived later paid off the small deficit of their parents.

STAGGERING COST OF ILLEGALS ALIENS IN AMERICA


Aliens In America
Taxpayers Taken To The Cleaners
By Frosty Wooldridge
4-10-8

Illegal alien migration into the United States costs American taxpayers $346 billion annually reported by the National Research Council. While employers of illegal aliens rake-in billions of dollars, the US citizens subsidize what may be called organized "Slavery in 21st Century America."

While Congress facilitates outsourcing, insourcing and offshoring of American jobs by the thousands weekly, that same Congress imports 182,000 legal immigrant monthly who need jobs. Another estimated 100,000 illegal aliens arrive each month without jobs. All those immigrants seize jobs from American citizens at slave wages.

What happens to the American taxpayer?

"Immigrants are poorer, pay less tax, and are more likely to receive public benefits than American citizens," said Edwin Rubenstein, reporting on the National Research Council's new book: "The New Americans: Economic, Demographics and Fiscal Effects of Immigration." The Social Contract Winter 2007-08. www.thesoicalcontract.com
*



THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!

*



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.



*



“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.”

*

“Obama’s rejection of any serious jobs program is part of a conscious class war policy. Two years after the financial crisis and the multi-trillion dollar bailout of the banks, the administration is spearheading a campaign by corporations to sharply increase the exploitation of the working class, using the “new normal” of mass unemployment to force workers to accept lower wages, longer hours, and more brutal working conditions.” WSWS.ORG

*

 “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

MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE GENEROUS DONORS TO LA RAZA – THE MEXICAN FASCIST POLITICAL PARTY. THESE FIGURES ARE DATED. CNN CALCULATES THAT WAGES ARE DEPRESSED $300 - $400 BILLION PER YEAR!

*

BELOW, CLICK EMAIL AND SEND THIS POST TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. THEY’RE PAYING TO BE MEXICO’S WELFARE, JAILS AND JOBS PROGRAM!



MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com




OBAMA'S DEPT of LA RAZA JUSTICE HARASSES AMERICANS (LEGALS) IN ALABAMA AGAIN

Justice Dept. Seeks to Intimidate Alabama School Districts
In its relentless quest to prevent state and local officials from enforcing immigration laws, the Department of Justice (DOJ) last week sent another letter of intimidation to the Alabama State Department of Education. In the letter, Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez drops a thinly veiled threat of litigation to persuade Alabama officials to back away from its immigration enforcement law, HB 56, and specifically the provision that requires schools to collect immigration data on its students.
To-date, Perez writes, the DOJ investigation shows that "H.B. 56 has had significant and measurable impacts on Alabama’s school children." These impacts, Perez states, have weighed most heavily on Hispanic and English language learner students.
Perez states these findings are based on local school data and anecdotal evidence. The local school data, which Perez says raises "significant concern," shows that between the start of the school year and February 2012, 13.4 percent of Alabama’s Hispanic schoolchildren withdrew from school. Remarkably, however, Perez appears unable to explain whether those school children re-enrolled in the same school district, re-enrolled in another Alabama school district, or left the state. He also does not specify what the normal withdrawal rate is in any given year to provide context.
Perez cites no other data given to him by the Alabama Department of Education to support his conclusions. Instead, he writes that anecdotal evidence backs up his claim that HB 56 is unlawfully impacting Hispanics residing in Alabama. Writing with deliberate vagueness, Perez states that "many" Hispanic students reported staying home from school or withdrawing out of fear and that "many students" conveyed that HB 56 made them "feel unwelcome in the schools they had attended for years." "Hispanic children," he adds, "reported increased anxiety and diminished concentration in school, deteriorating grades, and increased hostility, bullying, and intimidation."
This letter from the DOJ to the Alabama Department of Education is not the first. In November 2011, Perez sent a letter to Alabama demanding its schools provide data about student absenteeism since the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Nov. 7, 2011) At first, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange balked at the request for local school data, but later the state agreed to cooperate with the DOJ investigation. However, it appears that the local school data, which Alabama sent to the DOJ in early April, did not provide the DOJ with the evidence of discrimination it sought as the most recent letter focused almost entirely on anecdotal reports and recitations of existing federal law.
The timing of this last DOJ letter was also unmistakable. It was sent to Alabama officials the very week the state legislature was scheduled to debate and vote on changes to HB 56. As it turns out, however, the Alabama Senate postponed debate on the legislation to amend HB 56 (HB 658) to this week.



Lloyd Billingsley
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



·Text Size



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









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.



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."



MEXICO PROCLAIMS A VICTORY OVER ILLEGALS IN MEX-OCCUPIED MEXIFORNIA!

NO MORE E-VERIFY!!!

ILLEGALS USING STOLEN AMERICAN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS GET THE JOBS FIRST! AN ILLEGAL WORKING IN OCCUPIED MEXIFORNIA WILL MAKE APPROXIMATELY 8XS TIMES MORE THAN HE/SHE WOULD IN MEXICO, AND CAN GET 18 YEARS FOR EACH “FREE” ANCHOR BABY THEY BREED, AS WELL AS UNLIMITED “FREE” MEDICAL AT HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOMS, AND A LOOOOOOOG MENU OF EVER EXPANDING DREAM ACTS!

VIVA LA RAZA! THE INVASION AND OCCUPATION IS NOW EXPANDING TO ALL OTHER 49 STATES!

HERE’S HOW NO E-VERIFY BREAKS DOWN:



Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal

 CA MAKES E-VERIFY ILLEGAL! COURTESY THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA!

Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal

Here is an example of why hiring illegal aliens is not economically productive for the State of California...


You have 2 families..."Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have 2 parents, 2 children and live in California.


"Joe Legal" works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted...."Jose Illegal" also works in construction, has "NO" Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".


Joe Legal...$25.00 per hour x 40 hours $1000.00 per week, $52,000 per year
Now take 30% away for state and federal tax


Joe Legal now has $31,231.00


Jose Illegal...$15.00 per hour x 40 hours $600.00 per week, $31,200.00 per year
Jose Illegal pays no taxes...

 
Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00


Joe Legal pays Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage
$1000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal now has $19,231.00


Jose Illegal has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00


Joe Legal makes too much money is not eligible for Food Stamps or welfare
Joe Legal pays for food
$1,000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal now has $ 7,231.00


Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and Welfare
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00


Joe Legal pays rent of
$1,000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal is now in the hole... minus (-) $4,769.00


Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy
Jose Illegal pays rent
$500.00 per month
$6,000.00 per year
Jose Illegal still has $25,200.00


Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.


Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.


Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.


Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.


Don't vote/support any politician that supports illegal aliens...
Its WAY PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!


*

*

LA RAZA, THE RACIST MEXICAN SUPREMACIST FASCIST PART  FOR “THE RACE” DEMANDS EVEN MORE GRINGO WELFARE.



FAIR Legislative Update - June 22, 2009

La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens

On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.

La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."


SINCE WHEN HAVE THE MEXICAN FLAG WAVERS EVER “ACCEPTED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY”  FOR ANYTHING? THEY’RE HERE TO PILLAGE ONLY.


La Raza President and CEO Janet MurguĂ­a used the statement to emphasize that "everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health coverage they need." While the statement does not reference illegal immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009).

Specific research has shown that many illegal aliens lack health insurance and represent a disproportionate share of the United States' uninsured population. The Pew Hispanic Center's recent report, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, found that 59% of illegal aliens in the United States had no form of health insurance in 2007, and that 45% of illegal alien children were also without health coverage in 2007. It also found that even the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens were insured at the low rate of 25%, and that there was a significant disparity between the volume of uninsured illegal aliens and the volume of uninsured U.S. citizens and other legal residents. (Pew Hispanic Center Report, April 14, 2009).

Pew's information has support in federal statistics: data collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Census Bureau for the same time frame show that approximately 33.2% of the foreign-born population in the United States (a category which does not differentiate between newly naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and illegal aliens) were uninsured in 2007, and that almost 10 million foreign-born non-citizens lacked health insurance in 2007. (DHS Fact Sheet, February 2009).

(For more information on how illegal immigration is financially impacting the U.S. health care system, see FAIR's Legislative Updates for April 13, 2009, and April 20, 2009).

Democrats on House Approps Committee Kill Another E-Verify Amendment
Last week, during a House Appropriations Committee mark-up for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations spending bill, Committee Democrats rejected an amendment to require federal contractors to use E-Verify if they received federal contracts funded by the bill. (Appropriations Summary).

The week before, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) had offered a similar amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations spending bill. His amendment was subsequently rejected by the Appropriations Committee. (FAIR's Legislative Update, June 15, 2009). This week, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) offered the amendment to the Agriculture Spending bill. Calvert's amendment was rejected entirely on a party-line basis with 23 Republicans supporting and 34 Democrats rejecting the amendment.

The Agriculture spending bill spends almost $23 billion in taxpayer dollars. Over $4 billion dollars alone will be allocated to the Food and Drug Administration and Food Safety and Inspection Service, two important organizations in protecting America's food and drug supply. In addition, the bill provides billions more for programs like the Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and International Food Aid. The bill will also provide funding for rural development, conservation projects, and oversight and enforcement.

With so many American jobs and tax dollars at stake, many Americans are frustrated that Congress refuses to demand that federal contractors use E-Verify. (To learn more about E-Verify, see FAIR's Fact Sheet.). This vote marks the third time in two weeks that Democratic Leadership has rejected amendments requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify.

Pressure Mounting on Obama to Extend TPS Status to All Haitians, Including Illegal Aliens
The Haitian community and other open borders advocates are engaging in a full-court press to have the Obama Administration extend Temporary Protected Status to all Haitians in the United States, including extending legal status to nearly 30,000 illegal aliens, under the premise that environmental and economic conditions in Haiti mandate such a policy.

Under § 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) may extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to individuals — including illegal aliens — from specific nations if that nation is experiencing conditions that create serious risks to health or safety, including armed conflicts, disasters, or other extraordinary but temporary circumstances. TPS, by its nature, was never intended to create a permanent immigration status change, but rather only a temporary one, with DHS making the final decision about when TPS ends. (USCIS Fact Sheet, April 30, 2009).

The Bush Administration rejected appeals by the Haitian government to extend TPS to Haiti as recently as January 2009. Since then, several members of Congress have continued to seek a reversal of that decision including Reps. Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY). Engel and Meeks have been working with international organizations to lobby for TPS status for Haitians. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) has introduced legislation during the 111th Congress that would formalize TPS for Haitians. Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have also expressed support for the idea. (Washington Times, March 18, 2009; Dominica News Online, May 26, 2009; South Florida Caribbean News, June 19, 2009).

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano had initially rejected the idea of extending TPS to Haitians, but Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently commented that the Administration is contemplating the idea. (Associated Press, May 28, 2009). Lobbying groups have seized upon the Obama Administration's indecision, and have made themselves seen and heard in Washington in an effort to force the change in policy. (Id.). These groups include the Haitian Coalition for TPS, the Haitian Citizen United Task Force, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. These groups have reached out to the White House and federal officials to press for the policy shift, arguing that the United States has a humanitarian obligation to do so. (Dominica News Online, May 26, 2009; South Florida Caribbean News, June 19, 2009).

Advocates for extension of TPS to Haitians point to recent economic and weather-related devastation in the small Caribbean nation as justification for the change in policy. (Palm Beach Post, May 21, 2009; Miami Herald, May 26, 2009). AFSC recently declared in a statement that "TPS is the most immediate form of humanitarian assistance the United States government can provide" in light of the current "devastating and overwhelming conditions in Haiti." This same AFSC statement stated that it was not unusual for the United States to extend TPS to foreign nationals of countries experiencing "significant hardship and suffering." (Id.).

Critics of TPS say that the U.S. government has a poor track record of terminating the temporary status, even long after the original justification for TPS existed and despite conditions having improved in the TPS country. For instance, TPS was first extended to Salvadoran nationals in March 2001, but since then TPS status has been extended seven times and still remains in effect. Likewise, Honduras was originally designated for TPS status in January 1999 but has since been extended 13 times with TPS still in effect. Somalia and Sudan were both designated for TPS in the mid-1990s and are still under TPS. (U.S. House Judiciary Committee Hearing, March 4, 1999; DOJ Virtual Law Library).

The idea of extending Temporary Protected Status to Haiti raises the concern that such a move would create an unmanageable wave of refugees coming from Haiti to the United States. In an effort to discourage this possibility, a DHS spokesman said in March: "let me be clear: No one living in Haiti right now should be attempting to come to the United States in hopes that they will be granted TPS." (Washington Times, March 18, 2009). Daniel Erikson, of the Washington think tank Inter-American Dialogue has said TPS "what Haiti needs most is a long-term nation-building effort, not short-term stop-gap measures [like TPS]." (Id.). Erikson also said that: "Granting TPS to Haiti is merely a Band-Aid that cannot heal a deeply wounded country and may raise the risks of a new wave of migration." (Id.).

Senators introduce Legislation to Weaken Secure Driver's License Standards
Last week, Senator Daniel Akaka introduced legislation entitled PASS ID (S. 1261), a bill that would gut the REAL ID Act. Congress passed the REAL ID Act in the wake of the September 11th Terrorist Attacks in order to improve the security of U.S. issued driver's licenses. (Bill Text).

After the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 Commission found that lax security standards had enabled the hijackers to obtain "13 driver's licenses (two of which were duplicates) and 21 USA or state-issued identification cards (usually used for showing residence in the U.S. or a state)." (9/11 Fact Sheet).

With these findings, the Commission recommended that Congress enact requirements for secure identification, stating: "Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.... At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists." (Commission Report, p. 390). Congress responded to the Commission's recommendation by passing the REAL ID Act, a law that takes steps towards a secure form of identification in the United States.

REAL ID's provisions include the following: (1) a requirement that individuals present proof of lawful presence when applying for a driver's license or ID card; (2) a requirement that states "verify" the documents presented by an applicant to prove his or her identity; and (3) a requirement that driver's licenses expire on the same date as an alien's immigration status expires.

Since the enactment of REAL ID, however, illegal alien advocates have sought to undo the law in order to allow illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses. Akaka's bill scales back the purposes for which a secure ID will be needed in the U.S., thereby undermining security. The PASS ID Act also strips the requirement that states "verify" the identification presented, thereby making it easier for illegal aliens, identity thieves and criminals to fraudulently obtain driver's licenses. Finally, PASS ID also dramatically expands eligibility for persons who may obtain a secure ID. For example, under the bill, an illegal alien need only file an application for asylum and receive temporary work authorization in order to be eligible for a secure ID. (Section 242(c)(2)).

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has endorsed the Akaka bill, stating: "Today's introduction of Pass ID… in the U.S. Senate brings us closer to greater compliance with federal standards for secure driver's licenses…. I am committed to supporting this important bill and it is my hope that Congress will pass it into law as quickly as possible." (DHS Press Release).


*



Newsmax



Obama's 'Hispanicazation' of America



Monday, January 10, 2011 08:28 AM




*

Immigrating America Into a Colony of Mexico

Article by Frosty Wooldridge

2004

Published on The Washington Dispatch.

America faces a greater and more dangerous threat from within than from without. While our armed forces secure Afghanistan and Iraq, our own borders stand unguarded 24 hours a day. Al-Qaeda insurgents plan their next attacks somewhere inside our country. They advocate a violent overthrow of America.