Thursday, May 31, 2012

Tomgram: Nick Turse, Hot Drone-On-Drone Action | TomDispatch - BUT OPEN & UNDEFENDED BORDERS WITH NARCOMEX

Tomgram: Nick Turse, Hot Drone-On-Drone Action | TomDispatch


WIKILEAKS EXPOSES OBAMA'S AGENDA OF LA RAZA SUPREMACY AND AN ILLEGAL IN EVERY AMERICAN JOB TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED. THE LEGALS GET THE TAX BILLS FOR THE MEX WELFARE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2012/05/illegals-obama-promises-his-la-raza.html

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikileaks-exposed-obamas-la-raza-open.html


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.


*

Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)






*




ARTICLE


8 Out of 10 Illegals Apprehended in 2010 Never Prosecuted
http://www.alipac.us/article-6162-thread-1-0.html



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

THE LA RAZA DEMS HAVE SABOTAGED E-VERIFY TO HELP EASE MORE ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS. IN MEX-OCCUPIED CA, THE LA RAZA (ILLEGALS) CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY. OBAMA HAS SUED AZ TO STOP E-VERIFY…. HERE’S WHY:

“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”

*

 “The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor

*

“Listen to people from the National Council of La Raza, LULAC, CARECEN, Latino TV networks, the Piolin radio show (that’s Hispanic anti-Rush Limbaugh), and you will see that the U.S. is replete with its own Chavezes-in-waiting.”




ILLEGALS - OBAMA PROMISES HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS EASIER LOOTING THAN EVER... For Their Votes!

WIKILEAKS EXPOSES OBAMA'S AGENDA OF LA RAZA SUPREMACY AND AN ILLEGAL IN EVERY AMERICAN JOB TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED. THE LEGALS GET THE TAX BILLS FOR THE MEX WELFARE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikileaks-exposed-obamas-la-raza-open.html


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.

Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)

ARTICLE

8 Out of 10 Illegals Apprehended in 2010 Never Prosecuted
http://www.alipac.us/article-6162-thread-1-0.html

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

THE LA RAZA DEMS HAVE SABOTAGED E-VERIFY TO HELP EASE MORE ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS. IN MEX-OCCUPIED CA, THE LA RAZA (ILLEGALS) CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY. OBAMA HAS SUED AZ TO STOP E-VERIFY…. HERE’S WHY:

“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”

*

 “The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor

*

“Listen to people from the National Council of La Raza, LULAC, CARECEN, Latino TV networks, the Piolin radio show (that’s Hispanic anti-Rush Limbaugh), and you will see that the U.S. is replete with its own Chavezes-in-waiting.”




MEXICANS MURDER MORE AMERICANS THAN ALL THE MUSLIM MURDERS OVER THERE! Where is the Real Terrorism? OVER THERE ON MUSLIM BORDERS, OR RIGHT HERE ON THE NARCOMEX BORDER?

THERE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 2,000 CALIFORNIANS MURDERED BY MEXICANS THAT FLED BACK OVER THE BORDER.

ACCORDING TO CA ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS, NEARLY HALF OF ALL MURDERS IN MEX-OCCUPIED CA ARE BY MEX GANGS!

WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?

MEXICO'S BIGGEST EXPORTS ARE DRUGS, POVERTY, ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS, AND CRIMINALS!

More Americans Killed by Illegal Aliens than Iraq War, Study Says

"...if our military can understand that Iraq's security depends in measure on the ability to protect its border against insurgents and terrorists, then why isn't our country similarly protecting our own borders?" Jim Brown
OneNewsNow.com
February 22, 2007

Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population.

Mike Cutler, a former senior special agent with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (the former INS), is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and an advisor to Family Security Matters (FSM). He says the high number of Americans being killed by illegal aliens is just part of the collateral damage that comes with tolerating illegal immigration.

"The military actually called for the BORTAC team, ... the elite unit of the Border Patrol, to be detailed to Iraq to help to secure the Iraqi border," Cutler notes. "Now, if our military can understand that Iraq's security depends in measure on the ability to protect its border against insurgents and terrorists, then why isn't our country similarly protecting our own borders?" he asks.

"We are now five and a half years, nearly, after 9/11, and yet our borders remain open," the Center for Immigration Studies fellow observes. "We have National Guardsmen assigned on the border, but it turns out they are unarmed," he points out. "Their rules of engagement are very simple: if armed intruders head your way, run in the other direction."

This situation would "almost be comical if it wasn't so tragic," Cutler asserts. "If our borders are wide open, this means that drugs, criminals, and terrorists are entering our country just as easily as the dishwashers," he says.

The report from FSM estimates that the 267,000 illegal aliens currently incarcerated in the nation are responsible for nearly 1,300,000 crimes, ranging from drug arrests to rape and murder. Such statistics, Cutler contends, debunk the claim that illegal immigration is a victimless crime. "Then we even have another problem," he adds, "and that's the Visa Waiver Program."

According to a recent study from the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Hispanics involved in car crashes are two-and-a-half times more likely to be drunk than white drivers and three times more likely to be drunk than black drivers.

*

TWELVE AMERICANS MURDERED EACH DAY BY ILLEGALS

by Joseph Farah 2006

WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – While the military "quagmire" in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began. Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research. Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001. Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense. But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws. While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001. While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens. A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers. Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.

*

 8 CHILDREN VICTIMS OF ILLEGAL MEX SEX ABUSE PER DAY  

King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually. Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants. As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims. According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons. While the federal government doesn't track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons. In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following: The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien; Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien; 36 percent had been arrested at least five times before. "While the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, (something you or I would probably do if we were in their place), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators," states Peter Wagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration." "That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the 'good' in we get the 'bad' along with them. The question is, how much 'bad' is acceptable and at what price?".



latimes.com

U.S. funding for jailing illegal immigrants falls far short of costs

California is expected to get $90 million this year, but the state spends about $1 billion annually. L.A. County says it gets pennies on the dollar for its expenditures.

By Anna Gorman

February 5, 2010

The $90 million California is expected to receive from the federal government this year for jailing illegal immigrants convicted of crimes is far short of the state's roughly $1 billion annual cost, officials said.

"The federal government has sole control over the nation's borders. The states do not," said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state's finance department. "The incarceration costs associated are borne disproportionally by states like California."
Los Angeles County officials have not projected how much in reimbursement funds they could receive this year.

But in 2009, the county received $15.4 million in federal money, officials said. That is a fraction of the $100 million it spends on average to jail illegal immigrants.

"The federal government reimburses us literally pennies on the dollar what it costs us," Los Angeles County Sheriff's Lt. Mark McCorkle said

The state -- which houses 19,000 illegal immigrants in its prisons and jails -- receives the federal money through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP. Obama's proposed budget plan sets aside $330 million for the incarceration program, down from $400 million last year.

But with California struggling to balance its budget, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is continuing to fight for additional funding, Palmer said.

Last year, Sheriff Lee Baca wrote a letter to the House Appropriations Committee urging an increase in funding for the program.

"Because SCAAP reimburses previously incurred undocumented criminal alien incarceration costs, every dollar of incarceration costs not reimbursed by SCAAP adds a dollar to state and local budget shortfalls that must be offset by reductions in other essential services," Baca wrote.

Although the county does not know exactly how many undocumented immigrants are in its jails, McCorkle said about 3,300 inmates identify themselves as foreign-born.

Officials from states greatly affected by illegal immigration long have argued that their taxpayers should not have to bear the burden for Washington's failure to control the border.

*

GO TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS WEBSITE AND SEND HER A MESSAGE IF YOU WANT HER TO FIGHT MEX CRIME TIDAL WAVE, OR FOR OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY, AND CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT!





206 Most wanted criminals in Los Angeles. Out of 206 criminals--183 are hispanic---171 of those are wanted for Murder.


TEN MOST WANTED CRIMINALS IN CALIFORNIA ARE MEXICANS!


EVERY DAY LA RAZA “THE RACE” MURDERS 12 AMERICANS! DO YOU REALLY WANT THEM TO OCCUPY OUR COUNTRY?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103 Did you know illegals kill 12 Americans a day?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1738432/posts FBI Crime Statistics - Crimes committed by illegals.



ASK YOURSELF IF YOU REALLY WANT OBAMA’S OPEN & UNDEFENDED BORDERS EVEN AS HE CONTINUES TO SQUANDER BILLIONS EVERY MONTH IN WARS TO PROTECT THE BUSH FAMILY’S FRIENDS, THE 9-11 INVADING SAUDIS FROM THEIR ENEMIES, THE IRAQIS AND IRANIANS???

JUDICIAL WATCH

Illegal Immigrant Rapist Had Been Deported 9 Times

Last Updated: Tue, 05/25/2010 - 9:24am

In what appears to be a growing national trend, an illegal immigrant with an extensive criminal record and multiple deportation orders remained in the U.S. long enough to commit yet another atrocious crime.

The tragic case in Washington State marks the latest of many examples illustrating the government’s inefficiency in keeping dangerous illegal aliens out of the United States, even when they have well-documented criminal histories and federal orders to leave the country.

In this case a Mexican national with an extensive criminal record and nine deportation orders raped a woman in Edmonds, a picturesque waterfront town famous for its views of the Olympic Mountains rising above Puget Sound. The illegal immigrant (Jose Lopez Madrigal) was first deported in California more than two decades ago and has since been convicted of a multitude of violent crimes, including armed theft, sexual assault and drug-related offenses.

The crimes were committed in different states—California and Colorado among them—and Madrigal had a staggering number of encounters with law enforcement in the last two decades, according to the local news report that broke the story of his multiple deportations. When he got arrested this last time, it took authorities longer than usual to learn his real identity because he had well over two dozen aliases.

The level of incompetence among federal immigration authorities in this case would be comical if Madrigal’s crimes weren’t so heinous. After the first deportation in 1989 for using a firearm to commit theft, Madrigal got deported several more times in the next few years. In 1999 he was deported three times in a four-month period after drug-related arrests. After a similar offense in 2000 he got deported yet again and in 2002 he got deported after pleading guilty to sexual assault in Denver. In 2003 Madrigal got deported three more times.

It would seem like a huge joke if the illegal immigrant didn’t brutally rape a woman last week. Evidently ashamed, officials at the Homeland Security agency (Immigration and Customs Enforcement—ICE) responsible for removing such thugs refuse to comment on the case. One criminal justice source quoted in the news report says Madrigal is a “poster boy” for the federal government’s ineffectiveness at keeping the most serious criminal aliens out of the United States.

It’s not like this is an isolated incident. In the last few years alone similar cases have rocked the nation. On Mothers’ Day last year a 17-year-old girl was murdered in Nevada by an admitted illegal alien gang member who had been convicted of a felony years earlier and deported.

A year earlier authorities in Arizona discovered that a serial rapist who targeted young girls was a twice deported Mexican who lived and worked in the U.S. despite his documented history of drug charges. He was caught only because the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s largest county (Maricopa) bothered to confirm his immigration status.


*




FOURTEEN YEAR OLD MEXICAN BOY BEHEADS FOUR NARCOMEX RIVALS -

Youth sought in Mexico killings arrested


Edgar Jimenez Lugo, who authorities said was born in San Diego, was wanted on suspicion of killing rivals — allegedly beheading some — as part of his work for a violent drug-trafficking cartel.

*
December 03, 2010|By Tracy Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times



Reporting from Mexico City — A 14-year-old boy who says he's been killing or working for drug cartels since he was 11 has been captured by the Mexican army after a monthlong hunt, authorities said Friday.
Edgar Jimenez Lugo, who authorities said was born in San Diego, was wanted on suspicion of killing rivals — allegedly beheading some of them — as part of his work for an especially violent drug-trafficking cartel.

Jimenez was attempting to board a flight for Tijuana with two sisters Thursday night when authorities detained him in Morelos state south of Mexico City. They were apparently planning to flee the country after the boy's alleged exploits made headlines last month.
"I've killed four people by chopping off their heads," the boy reportedly said after his capture. "I just cut off their heads; I never went and hung the bodies from bridges or anything like that."
Jimenez, alias El Ponchis, was quoted in media reports as saying he had been forced to work for a faction of the Beltran Leyva drug cartel under pain of death ever since henchmen from the group kidnapped him three years ago. He said he was usually high on drugs as he killed.
Marco Antonio Adame, the governor of Morelos, said in a news conference that Jimenez was a U.S. citizen by virtue of his San Diego birth.
The story of the boy had become something of a cause celebre here when it first emerged several weeks ago. Rumors abounded that he was a ruthless decapitator and that some of his work had been videotaped. (Initial reports erroneously put his age at 12.) Mexican media immediately dubbed him "the boy killer" and "the hit boy."
Photographs from Morelos on Friday showed a skinny Jimenez, dressed in baggy cargo pants and a black sweatshirt, standing between two well-armed soldiers in camouflage. His hands are stuck in his pockets and his head barely clears their shoulders.
The drug gang he allegedly worked for, the so-called South Pacific Cartel, has been locked in deadly battle with another Beltran Leyva faction for control of the city of Cuernavaca and other parts of Morelos — a dispute that erupted following the killing of drug boss Arturo Beltran Leyva by Mexican forces a year ago. More than 300 people have been killed in the conflict.
Jimenez reportedly ran with a group of boys and men ages 12 to 23 and represents a trend of ever younger Mexicans working for the cartels as killers, mules and enforcers and in other capacities. If judged guilty, the boy would be the youngest cartel killer known to be in prison.
His age poses a legal dilemma for Mexican authorities, who on Friday were scrambling to figure out which laws and agencies would handle a minor suspected of such egregious crimes.
Also Friday, in another setback for Mexican attempts to put away drug traffickers, a judge acquitted the nicknamed "Queen of the Pacific" of numerous drug-related charges. Sandra Avila Beltran has been in jail since her capture in 2007, accused of serving as a key link between the Sinaloa cartel and its Colombian counterparts. A rare woman in the world of reputed drug lords, Avila remained in custody because of an outstanding extradition request from the United

JUDICIAL WATCH  - GET ON THEIR E-NEWS!
2 Illegal Aliens Protected By Sanctuary Policies Convicted Of Murder



May 11, 2012

In unrelated cases that illustrate the high price communities pay for sanctuary policies, two illegal immigrants—both with extensive criminal records—were convicted of first-degree murder this week in different parts of a border state that has longed protected the undocumented.

In San Francisco a jury found Edwin Ramos, a renowned gang banger, guilty of three first-degree murder counts for the 2008 killings of a 48-year-old man and his two sons. Ramos had a lengthy criminal record when he murdered the family, but San Francisco sanctuary laws shielded him from deportation.

Judicial Watch obtained public records that show police knew Ramos was an active member of the notoriously violent MS-13 street gang and that he had numerous run ins with the law, including arrests for weapons and gang-related charges. Furthermore, police knew Ramos was in the U.S. illegally yet released him after every encounter. In short, the records obtained by JW prove that don’t-ask-don’t tell sanctuary policies protect illegal alien gang bangers and put American citizens at risk.

Regardless, the famously liberal northern California city has long protected illegal immigrants and offered them costly public services that should be reserved for legal residents and citizens. In fact, illegal aliens are assured through costly, Spanish-language advertisement campaigns that they will never be reported to federal officials. In 2007 San Francisco became the nation’s first large municipality to offer illegal aliens official government identification cards.

A few hundred miles south in Los Angeles, another illegal immigrant gang banger (Pedro Espinoza) was also convicted of first-degree murder this week for gunning down a standout high school football player in 2008. Jurors deliberated for about four hours before reaching a verdict, according to a local news report, that says Espinoza proudly sports a tattoo with the initials “B.K,” which police says stands for “Blood Killer.”

Espinoza had just completed a jail sentence for a previous felony when he murdered the 17-year-old star running back, Jamiel Shaw, as he walked home. Like San Francisco Los Angeles has strict policies banning law enforcement officers from inquiring about suspects’ immigration status. In this case it allowed a violent gang banger to gun down a talented young athlete who was being recruited by top colleges.

JW has led a nationwide effort to eradicate don’t-ask-don’t-tell law enforcement policies like the ones that led to these horrific crimes. JW has filed lawsuits against police departments in Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston where officers are prohibited from inquiring about suspects’ immigration status.

*
Illegals Committing Heinous Acts Against Children & civilians in U.S.

PDT
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html

EXAMPLE #1 : • What sort of monster could murder three children in the most brutal manner — one child was beheaded and the two other were nearly decapitated. They also suffered a variety of injuries including blunt force trauma and asphyxiation. The victims, residents of Baltimore, (l. to r.) were siblings Alexis Quezada (10) and Lucero Quezada (9) and their cousin Ricardo Espinoza (9). The two men arrested for the crime were also relatives: Policarpio Espinoza, 22, brother of the father of the two siblings, and Espinoza's cousin Adan Espinoza Canela, 17. The accused are illegal aliens as are the parents of the murdered children. Apparently the arrests were based on DNA/blood evidence.

*
Illegal Immigration and Crime By James R. Edwards, Jr.

Posted November 22, 2004



Immigrant criminality represents perhaps the worst abuse of the liberty aliens enjoy in the United States. Increasingly, the government closest to the people either finds its hands tied or cravenly abrogates its responsibility to fellow Americans within its jurisdiction. Moreover, the illegal element exacerbates the economic and other burdens caused by legal immigration.
The current high rate of sustained, mass immigration—more than one million legal immigrants plus half a million illegal aliens every year—forces many states and localities into turmoil. The illegals certainly live outside the obligations that those who live under the "consent of the governed" owe to each other: While the principles of the Declaration of Independence guarantee all human beings certain natural and unalienable rights, only parties who have consented to our government deserve the full rights of citizenship. Illegal immigrants are not part of the social contract giving legitimacy to this government. American citizens have not given their consent to higher taxes, crowded schools, jammed emergency rooms, clogged roads, unlawful turning of single-family homes into hotels or apartments into tenements, forced multicultural amenities such as bilingual education and multilingual ballots, or welfare and other services subsidizing poverty-prone immigrants. Above all, they never consented to higher crime rates.

While anyone who decries illegal immigration is required to distinguish it from legal immigration, the effects of legal immigration should first be noted. Robert Samuelson recently wrote in his Washington Post column that "Hispanics account for most of the increase in poverty" since 1990. "Compared with 1990, there were actually 700,000 fewer non-Hispanic whites in poverty last year . . . . Meanwhile, the number of poor Hispanics is up by 3 million since 1990. The health insurance story is similar. Last year 13 million Hispanics lacked insurance. They're 60 percent of the rise since 1990." And of course a growing proportion of the Hispanic population is immigrants poorer than their predecessors. Samuelson remarks that the black poverty rate in this period has actually dropped, from 32 to 24 percent.
To add to Samuelson's observations, consider the reports from the Center for Immigration Studies by its Steven Camarota and Harvard's George Borjas detailing the negative economic impact of recent immigrants on native-born wages and employment. Illegal immigrants impose an even greater burden, because they pay few taxes and they drain public services such as health care, education, and other benefits of the welfare state. While many federal programs deny assistance to illegals, many state and local programs and privileges are open to them. The National Academy of Sciences found in a 1997 landmark study that immigrantheaded households in 1994-1995 placed a net annual fiscal burden on California native-born residents of $1,178 per native household.That is, each American family in California subsidized that state's immigrant population by nearly $1,200 a year.
The NAS report also said fiscal impacts tend to benefit the federal government and drain state and local government resources. "Much like anyone else in the population, immigrants use services that are costly to provide, or that others can use less freely—so-called congestion costs. Examples include services from roads, sewers, police and fire departments, libraries, airports, and foreign embassies." Therefore, having a much larger immigrant population (29 percent of the U.S. foreign-born, a fourth of the State's population) bloats California's budget significantly.
The national government has exclusive power over immigration, and it has mandated certain public benefits for immigrants, legal or illegal, such as public education (see the 1982 Supreme Court case, Plyler v. Doe). States and localities then bear the costs and consequences of all immigration.And they respond differently, with differing consequences for their people.
The Florida legislature rejected a bill issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Kansas state legislators voted to give illegal aliens instate college tuition. Alabama and Florida state police work closely with federal immigration enforcers. New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have "sanctuary" policies that keep city employees, even police, from asking about immigration status. An Idaho county commissioner billed Mexico for the $2 million illegal aliens owe for county services.
The impact is seen particularly in crime: Record-high auto thefts in Arizona, drug trafficking in Salt Lake City, human smuggling rings in Los Angeles, D.C. sniper Lee Malvo, money laundering, prostitution, gang murders, and even slavery. Immigration authorities estimate that 84,000 state inmates are aliens, though state and local figures on foreign-born prisoners are hard to come by. At least three quarters of these immigrant state inmates are in Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas—the top immigrant destinations.
Police officers at the local or state level are the law enforcement officials most likely to encounter illegal aliens. Local residents are the crime victims of these aliens. Local, county, or state jails house many of the foreign criminals. Local, county, or state criminal justice systems try these lawbreakers. And local, county, and state taxpayers pay the costs of law enforcement and criminal justice associated with the crimes that immigrants, legal and illegal, commit.
Figures for 1999 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program compensation show claims of $1.5 billion in documented costs incurred by state corrections and local jails for covered aliens. County governments face a special burden, a 2001 report by 24 Southwestern border counties calculated. They spent, from general funds, $894 million on law enforcement and criminal justice in fiscal year 1999. Many of the costs that criminal aliens impose on all state, county, and municipal jurisdictions are not represented in such figures. To cite just one California example, San Diego now spends $50 million a year to handle illegal criminal aliens.
The underworld network built up by millions of alien lawbreakers, who by and large have no fear of capture or of being held accountable, enabled the September 11 terrorists to operate undetected. Latino illegal aliens in Northern Virginia helpfully showed several of the terrorists the ropes on how to secure Virginia driver's licenses fraudulently.
The advancement of "political correctness" and multiculturalism has caused politicians to be less willing to challenge limitations on their authority over resources. Local and state politicians in heavy immigrant-receiving areas have instead expanded immigrant eligibility for public benefits, welfare, assistance programs, health care programs for those without private insurance, and driver's and other licenses. Some states and localities have begun to accept the Mexican matricula consular ID card, though it has been determined to pose a great risk to U.S. national security. Even before the recently reported crossing of 25 Chechens into Arizona, authorities knew that the illegal aliens pose a national security problem.
Dealing with current levels and quality of legal immigration is an immense problem by itself. But it is clear that until alien criminality of every kind is punished, swiftly and surely, Americans who must live with the consequences will continue to suffer higher taxes, lower quality of life, higher threat and fear levels, and less actual safety.




DEMS HAND ILLEGALS NOT ONLY OPEN BORDERS, GRINGO-PAID ANCHOR BABY WELFARE, BUT DREAM ACT DISCOUNTS FOR ILLEGALS IN COLLEGE! BUT WHAT HAVE THEY DONE FOR AMERICAN STUDENTS? NADA!



 PLEASE CONNECT WITH JUDICIAL WATCH.org AND GET ON THEIR E-NEWS… AND SUPPORT THEIR EFFORTS
JUDICIAL WATCH CONTINUES TO PUSH BACK LA RAZA SUPREMACY!

But not in MEXIFORNIA. CA PUTS OUT $20 BILLION IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS, HAS THE WORST EDUCATION IN THE UNION, AND YET LA RAZA DEM, JERRY BROWN REPAID HIS ILLEGAL VOTERS BY VOTING FOR LA RAZA TUITION DISCOUNTS.

*


*

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Judicial Watch Forces New Jersey School to Abandon Discounted Tuition for Illegal Aliens

In a dramatic and clear-cut victory for the rule of law, Judicial Watch forced the County College of Morris (CCM) in New Jersey to reverse an unlawful policy which allowed illegal aliens discounted tuition at the school! As expected, the decision came down last Thursday. The headline of a New Jersey Daily Record article the following day tells the whole story: “Lawsuit Worries Prompted Reversal on College Tuition for Illegal Immigrants.”

As reported by the Daily Record:

One County College of Morris trustee mentioned the prospect of being sued and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills. Others said legal considerations played a part in their deliberations over tuition rates for illegal immigrants.

In the weeks leading up to their vote…CCM's trustees had received letters from freeholders and a national conservative group called Judicial Watch saying they were violating federal laws. Concerns about those laws, and the possibility of lawsuits, seemed to spur a 9-2 vote to charge higher, out-of-state rates to undocumented students even if they live in the county.

Indeed, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, Judicial Watch sent a letter to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for CCM challenging the school’s policy of providing discounted tuition for “undocumented” aliens. CCM immediately informed Judicial Watch that it had commenced a review of its tuition policy. And one week later, the school’s trustees voted to overturn a policy they had established just two months prior.

The chair of the Board of Trustees suggested Judicial Watch had “bullied” the poor Board into reversing itself. My colleague, attorney Paul Orfanedes, answered this charge directly in the media:

‘If you think encouraging people to follow the law is bullying, then we are bullying,’ he said after being told Johnson had used the term ‘bullying’ to describe some of the reaction to CCM's February policy change.

As you can see, sometimes even the threat of a lawsuit can work wonders! This is a tremendous victory for Judicial Watch and its supporters. And we are thrilled CCM’s Board of Trustees made the right decision to bring its tuition policy in line with federal law, even if some trustees may have been reluctant (to say the least).

You may recall Judicial Watch was tipped off to CCM’s illegal policy by the February 18, 2011, edition of The New Jersey Star-Ledger:

For the first time in nearly a decade, illegal immigrants will be allowed to take classes at the County College of Morris in a policy change that is drawing praise from some education officials and sharp criticism from immigration policy activists.

The trustees at the Randolph-based college voted 7-1 earlier this week to reverse a rule barring undocumented students, school officials said. Starting this summer, the public two-year college will be one of the first schools in New Jersey to openly acknowledge it is enrolling illegal immigrants and allowing them to pay the same tuition rate as other county residents.

(Prior to the policy change CCM had barred illegal aliens from admission to the school, so this was quite a switch.)

The article piqued the interest of JW’s lawyers and investigators, who obtained a copy of the CCM admissions policy. And sure enough, it clearly stated that any illegal alien who graduated from an American high school (or possesses a GED equivalent), was under the age of 35, and had lived in the U.S. for five consecutive years, would be eligible for admission. And the policy further stipulated that illegal alien students could pay a discounted in-county tuition rate!

As Judicial Watch noted in its letter, illegal aliens are ineligible for state and local public benefits, such as discounted tuition, under federal law:

There is no way to reconcile CCM’s policy with federal law. The policy provides a public benefit to individuals who are clearly ineligible for benefits [under federal law], and New Jersey has not authorized the provision of such benefits…CCM may not ignore federal laws when those laws are not consistent with its own policy preferences. We hope that CCM will reevaluate its new policy and conform it to the requirements of federal law.

And that’s exactly what happened.

This is not our first attempt to stop institutions of higher education from giving preferential treatment to illegal aliens.



We filed a taxpayer lawsuit in January against the Board of Trustees of Maryland’s Montgomery College for unlawfully allowing discounted “in-county” tuition rates for students graduating from Montgomery County public high schools, regardless of their place of residency or immigration status. (Click here for more information.) In response to our lawsuit, the Maryland Legislature bailed the school out by passing legislation authorizing the illegal alien tuition policy. The good news, however, is that this decision may now be subjected to a voter referendum.

As you can see, Judicial Watch has taken on a leadership role in the debate over taxpayer-financed in-state tuition for illegal aliens. And we will not slow down. We are currently considering action and legal challenges in other states. So stay






*

WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT THAT STANDS UP FOR LA RAZA TO HISPANDER FOR THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES. WHO STANDS UP FOR THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS THAT STRUGGLES TO EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN, EVEN AS THIRD-WORLDERS AND  ILLEGALS ARE BEING IMPORTED TO TAKE ALL THE JOBS?



*



“At the hearing, Dr. Rakesh Kochar, Associate Director for Research at the Pew Hispanic Center, testified that in the year following the official end of the recession (June 2009), foreign-born workers gained 656,000 jobs while native-born workers lost an additional 1.2 million jobs.”



*

“Cowardly” To Reverse Illegal Immigrant Tuition Break


Last Updated: Mon, 04/25/2011 - 3:10pm

New Jersey’s largest newspaper is accusing officials at a public college in Randolph of being “cowardly” and “gutless” for reversing a controversial policy offering illegal immigrants discounted tuition after Judicial Watch challenged it.

Amid strong opposition, trustees at the County College of Morris, a two-year school with an enrollment of about 9,000, voted earlier this year to give illegal aliens cheaper in-state tuition even though New Jersey’s legislature had rejected a measure that would have granted undocumented students the perk at all public institutions of higher learning.

The County College of Morris passed its own policy to help an “increasing number of students” who could not be educated at the school, according to its president. The move could not have come at a worst time, in the midst of a dire financial crisis that has negatively impacted public education at every level in the Garden State.

Judicial Watch quickly challenged the measure, pointing out to college trustees in a letter that illegal immigrants are ineligible for state and local public benefits such as discounted tuition under federal law. Under intense pressure, the County College of Morris responded by saying that it would “reevaluate” its new illegal alien tuition policy by this month. Last week trustees reversed the contentious measure, angering immigration advocates and New Jersey’s biggest newspaper.

In a scathing editorial published this week, the Star-Ledger calls the reversal a victory for the “pitch-fork and torch brigade” that will shape immigration policy if Congress doesn’t pass amnesty legislation. The piece accuses those who oppose illegal immigration of making life as “difficult and miserable as possible” for “each and every” illegal immigrant in the United States “no matter the cost to immigrant families or the communities where they live and work.”

It further points out that, by charging illegal aliens the much higher out-of-state tuition, colleges “close the door on many undocumented teenagers who aspire to better things.” After all, they were brought to this country without any say in the matter, the editorial says. “But it seems there’s not enough punishment to go around for families and their children already forced to live in the shadows.”

Judicial Watch has been a frontrunner in efforts to stop the use of public funds to promote illegal immigration. Earlier this year Judicial Watch filed a taxpayer lawsuit against Maryland’s Montgomery College for unlawfully offering discounted tuition rates to illegal aliens who graduate from local high schools. The policy violates both Maryland and federal law and places a substantial financial burden on Montgomery County taxpayers, who subsidize the cost of students attending the community college.
*

Lawsuit worries prompted reversal on college tuition for illegal immigrants

Trustees' chairwoman says board had been bullied

4:49 PM, Apr. 21, 2011  |  

One County College of Morris trustee mentioned the prospect of being sued and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills. Others said legal considerations played a part in their deliberations over tuition rates for illegal immigrants.

In the weeks leading up to their vote on Wednesday night, CCM's trustees had received letters from freeholders and a national conservative group called Judicial Watch saying they were violating federal laws. Concerns about those laws, and the possibility of lawsuits, seemed to spur a 9-2 vote to charge higher, out-of-state rates to undocumented students even if they live in the county.

The vote came at the end of a meeting in front of more than 200 people that lasted almost four hours and included emotional testimony from dozens of people on both sides of the issue.

After the vote, some undocumented students who said they could not afford out of state tuition rates had tears in their eyes. The vote reversed part of a policy that the same board approved, 7-1, just two months ago.
"I'm not in favor of defending in court a vote of ours that might cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees," trustee Alan Gordon said during the meeting.

Elaine Johnson, chairwoman of the trustees, voted with the minority and said she believed the trustees had been bullied, although she did not specify who was doing the bullying. She said the February vote to charge in-county tuition to undocumented students, many of whom have lived in the U.S. most of their lives, seemed simple at the time.

"Then the bigotry, hatred, threats and lies came," she said. "I realize bullying is so wrong. . . . There is no law that currently exists that makes the act we took (in February) illegal."
The CCM trustees voted on Feb. 26 to allow some undocumented students into the school — as long as they lived in the U.S. at least five years and were here before they were 16. They had been barred following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The trustees also voted to charge in-county tuition to students who live in Morris County.

That gave CCM a written policy similar to what many other county colleges are doing across the state without writing it down. A recent New Jersey Press Media survey found most county colleges, without adopting policies, check only whether students reside in their counties and not whether they are documented.
Morris County freeholders, saying they didn't want to support tuition breaks for illegal immigrants with taxpayer money, asked the CCM trustees to reconsider the lower tuition rates.

"I was pleased with the (Wednesday night) vote, and I also was pleased with the process," said Margaret Nordstom, a freeholder liaison to CCM.
Edward Yaw, president of CCM, said college attorneys in recent weeks had taken a closer look at relevant laws and court cases related to them, and that "the legal aspect" had been a driving factor for many of the trustees' apparent change of heart. Yaw had been in favor of the February policy but didn't take a position on Wednesday's amendment, other than to say it allows undocumented students to get an education. He did say laws related to tuition breaks for undocumented students are ambiguous.

"I still believe there's no law that prohibits the actions (that the board) previously took," Yaw said. "We felt all along the potential was there to be sued by one side or the other."

About one week before the vote, Judicial Watch sent a letter to Johnson saying CCM's policy adopted in February violated a 1996 federal law barring illegal immigrants from receiving "local public benefits" unless they are provided by state law. Judicial Watch has sued a Maryland school over in-county rates for undocumented students.
Paul Orfanedes, director of litigation for Judicial Watch, said his group is considering whether to continue the lawsuit now that Maryland has passed a law that, once signed, would make it the 11th state to offer in-state tuition to undocumented students. He said the letter to CCM was meant to clarify the law.

"If you think encouraging people to follow the law is bullying, then we are bullying," he said after being told Johnson had used the term "bullying" to describe some of the reaction to CCM's February policy change.

Alina Das, a professor with the New York University Law School Immigrant Rights Clinic, said the federal law does not "specifically prohibit" lower tuition rates. The NYU clinic has been giving legal direction to Wind of the Spirit, a local immigrant rights group.

Yaw said CCM might revisit the issue if additional court cases clarify related federal laws.
A related federal statute prohibits providing postsecondary benefits to illegal immigrants based on state residency if the same benefit isn’t available to legal residents. County freeholders have argued that means CCM would have been required to charge in-county rates to students from other states.

However, the California State Supreme Court recently ruled that the federal law didn’t preempt a state law allowing in-state tuition for undocumented students who graduate from California high schools. Judges said in their ruling that the state law is based on where students go to school and not on “residence,” as specified in the federal law. The case is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

CCM’s admissions policy allows admitting undocumented students only if they have graduated from New Jersey high schools. Yaw said a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the California case might offer some guidance and be “a trigger” for additional discussions about offering in-county rates for some illegal immigrants who live in the county.

http://www.JUDICIALWATCH.org

*




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.


*

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

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."