Tuesday, November 13, 2012

LA RAZA SUPREMACIST DEMAND AMERICA'S SURRENDER to MEXICANS! - Congress, White House must now deliver on immigration reform - The Hill's Congress Blog

Congress, White House must now deliver on immigration reform - The Hill's Congress Blog



obama hasn't delivered enough to LA RAZA SUPREMACIST?

his admin is infested with la raza, do a search for CECILIA MUNOZ and LA RAZA HILDA SOLIS, his sec. of (illegal) labor.

his nominee to the high court was self-styled "wise latina" and LA RAZA party member SONIA SOTOMAYER who voted NO on e-verify.

he has sued four american states on behalf of the LA RAZA agenda.

he has sabotaged E-VERIFY.

he unleased HOLDER to harass american states attempted to curb LA RAZA VOTING by requiring.... oh, god... AN ID.

he has squandered billions in dream acts to buy illegals' votes.

he has used AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS to fund the MEXICAN FASCSIT PARTY of LA RAZA.

he has openly attended LA RAZA conventions where he referred to Americans (legals) as "our enemies".


he has kissed up to the dictators of Mexico.

he has repeatedly taken border guards off the NARCOMEX border (9,000 last cut), even has he squanders billions protecting the borders of Muslim dictators over there.

he has cut WORKPLACE ENFORCEMENT BY 70%.

he LIED that OBAMAcare did NOT include illegals. he and LA RAZA PELOSI rigged it so it would.

he has promised his la raza party base of illegals...GRINGO-PAID AMNESTY... or continued non-enforcement until there are so many illegals voting, they will turn all 49 other states into LA RAZA-OCCUPIED & LOOTED MEXIFORNIAS!

ASSAULT ON AMERICA TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED - US Chamber gives Republicans cover on immigration overhaul - The Hill

US Chamber gives Republicans cover on immigration overhaul - The Hill

OBAMA NOW COMMENCES BUSH'S 4th TERM....
THE U.S. CHAMBER of COMMERCE FRONTS FOR WALL STREET CRIMINALS.
it's all about keeping wages depressed.
THE MEXICAN HORDES NOW LOOTING IN OUR BORDERS depress wages from $300 to $400 BILLION per year... THAT'S SWEET MUSIC TO THE U.S. CHAMBER of COMMERCE who has always supported obama's assaults on the AMERICAN (legals) WORKER.
this assault means NO E-VERIFY, open and undefended borders for hordes more mexicans, now linning up for obama's amnesty and our jobs.

...BUT HOW CHEAP IS THAT "CHEAP" MEX LABOR???

CA PUTS OUT $22 BILLION PER YEAR IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS... COUNTIES EVEN MORE, WITH L.A. COUNTY LEADING AT $600 MILLION IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, primarily anchor baby breeders.

when a mex hops our borders they instantly get GRINGO-PAID "free" medical at any and all hospital emergency rooms, ANCHOR BABY WELFARE, education, and ever expanding LA RAZA SUPREMACY... illegals above the law!

THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) STAES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY WHERE 90% OF ALL SERVICE and CONSTRUCTION JOBS GO TO ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.

come to los angeles... LOOK AROUND YOU.... hunt for an English speaking American in a job! YOU WILL FIND ONLY HISPANICS that can't or will not speak english!


UNDER OBAMA, TWO-THIRDS OF JOBS GO TO HIS PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS!
 
 
WHEN OBAMA MADE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILDA SOLIS SEC. of ILLEGAL LABOR, HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. BUYING VOTES OF ILLEGALS WITH OUR JOBS.
WHEN OBAMA NOMINATED SELF-STYLED “WISE LATINA” SONIA SOTOMAYER TO THE HIGH COURT, HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. SOTOMAYER VOTED AGAINST E-VERIFY!
WHEN OBAMA SUED THE STATE OF ARIZONA TO BLOCK E-VERIFY, HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING.
…IT’S ALL ABOUT PUTTING ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS TO BUY THEIR VOTES AND KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED.
THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) STATES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY WHERE 90% OF THE SERVICE AND CONSTRUCTION SECTOR JOBS GO TO ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. THIS SAME COUNTY PAYS OUT $600 MILLION TO ILLEGALS ON WELFARE, AND ENJOYS A TAX-FREE MEXICAN UNDERGROUND ECONOMY CALCULATED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $2 BILLION PER YEAR!
 
Two-thirds of jobs go to immigrants during Obama’s four years
Researchers say legals and illegals are more mobile than natives in America
The Washington Times
 October 31, 2012
Bottom of Form
Two-thirds of those who have found employment under President Obama are immigrants, both legal and illegal, according to an analysis that suggests immigration has soaked up a large portion of what little job growth there has been over the past three years.
The Center for Immigration Studies is releasing the study Thursday morning, a day ahead of the final Labor Department unemployment report of the campaign season, which is expected to show a sluggish job market more than three years into the economic recovery.
That slow market, combined with the immigration numbers, could explain why Mr. Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney have struggled to find a winning jobs message in some of the country's hardest-hit postindustrial regions.
"It's extraordinary that most of the employment growth in the last four years has gone to the foreign-born, but what's even more extraordinary is the issue has not even come up during a presidential election that is so focused on jobs," said Steven A. Camarota, the center's research director, who wrote the report along with demographer Karen Zeigler.
His numbers are stark: Since the first quarter of 2009, the number of immigrants of working age (16 to 65) who are employed has risen 2 million, from 21.2 million to 23.2 million. During the same time, native-born employment has risen just 1 million, to reach 119.9 million.
It's a trend years in the making: Immigrants are working more, and native-born Americans are working less.
In 2000, 76 percent of natives aged 18 to 65 were employed, but that dropped steadily to 69 percent this September. By contrast, immigrants started the last decade at 71 percent employment and rose to a peak of 74 percent at the height of the George W. Bush-era economic boom. They since have slid down to 69 percent amid the sluggish economy.
Competitive advantage
The Center for Immigration Studies, which wants the government to impose stricter limits on immigration, based its numbers on the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey.
Alex Nowrasteh, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, which favors letting the markets rather than the government control the flow of immigration, said Mr. Camarota's numbers are "making a mountain out of a molehill."
He said delving into specific numbers explains why immigrants have done better over the past four years: They generally gravitate toward parts of the economy that have picked up faster in the nascent recovery.
"Most of the areas of the U.S. economy that are hiring right now, like agriculture and high-tech industries, are those where immigrants have always been overly represented," Mr. Nowrasteh said.
He also said immigrants are quicker to jump into the rebounding job market while native-born Americans, who under federal law have more welfare options and access to unemployment benefits, are slower to find work.
Mr. Nowrasteh and Mr. Camarota said another factor could be immigrants' mobility.
Natives have roots wherever they live, and it may take higher wages to get them to move for jobs, even if their homes are in depressed areas. Immigrants already have uprooted themselves and can more easily pick places where jobs are available.
Indeed, Mr. Camarota's numbers show that most of the immigrant employment growth went to new arrivals, not to foreign-born residents already in the United States — a figure that suggests immigrants already settled here were having some of the same difficulties as the native-born.
There is some bright news: an uptick over the past year among native-born Americans accounting for two-thirds of all new employment growth.
Full overhaul
Net immigration — both legal and illegal — averaged more than 1.1 million in the 1990s and slightly less than 900,000 in the past decade.
Mr. Camarota said it didn't slow much despite the economic downturn.
"We have a situation where the job market — the bottom fell out, yet we kept legal immigration relatively high without even a national debate," he said. "As a consequence, a lot of the job growth has been going to immigrants."
Immigration has been a touchy political issue for more than a decade, and while all sides agree that the system is broken, efforts to overhaul it in 2006 and 2007 fell short.
This campaign, Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama have talked about streamlining the legal immigration system to allow in more high-tech workers. Mr. Romney has said he wants to "staple a green card" to every advanced degree in science, mathematics or engineering earned by an immigrant.
Beyond that, Mr. Obama has vowed to make legalizing illegal immigrants a major push in a second term — and has said if he wins re-election, he thinks Republicans will embrace that goal, realizing that otherwise, Hispanic voters will reject the GOP.
Mr. Romney has talked about legalizing a small number of illegal immigrants, though he has been studiously vague about his specific plans in an effort to try not to alienate voters on either side of the issue.
Mr. Obama did take action this year to grant many illegal immigrants up to 30 years of age a tentative legal status that prevents them from being deported and authorizes them to work in the United States.
Some Republicans in Congress have criticized Mr. Obama's policy, saying it violates his powers and will mean more competition for scarce jobs.
Mr. Romney has said he would not rescind any stays of deportation that Mr. Obama issues but wouldn't issue any new ones himself.
The current system doles out legal visas based on family ties or employment prospects or even a random lottery designed to increase the diversity of those coming to the United States.
In 2007, senators proposed scrapping the legal system and replacing it with a points-based system that would assign a desirability grade to would-be immigrants. Work skills would have gained under that system.
But that proposal, along with the rest of the bill, collapsed amid a bipartisan Senate filibuster.
Mr. Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute said those decisions shouldn't be left up to bureaucrats anyway.
"The government can't pick winners and losers when it comes to green-energy firms like Solyndra, so what makes you think it can pick winners and losers when it comes to immigration?" he asked rhetorically.
Why the new jobs go to immigrants
By David R. Francis
Wall Street cheered and stock prices rose when the US Labor Department announced last Friday that employers had expanded their payrolls by 262,000 positions in February.
But it wasn't entirely good news. The statisticians also indicated that the share of the adult population holding jobs had slipped slightly from January to 62.3 percent. That's now two full percentage points below the level in the brief recession that began in March 2001.
Why the apparent contradiction? Reasons abound: population growth, rising retirements. But one factor that gets little attention is immigration.
In the past four years, the number of immigrants into the US, legal and illegal, has closely matched the number of new jobs. That suggests newcomers have, in effect, snapped up all of the new jobs.
"There has been no net job gain for natives," says Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University.
In the US, President Bush calls for giving millions of illegal immigrants a kind of guest-worker status as a legal path to US citizenship. So far, no specific legislation to implement his suggestion has been put before Congress.


Meanwhile, US border patrols spend millions of dollars a year trying to keep illegals out. And yet, they keep coming, evidently little discouraged by recession or the 9/11 attacks. In the past four years alone, the number of immigrants ran some 2.5 million to 3 million, of which about half were illegal.
They come for jobs, of course. And the Bush administration makes barely any effort to enforce current law. In 2003, a total of 13 employers were fined for hiring undocumented employees.
In fact, neither Republicans nor Democrats have promoted enforcement of immigration law prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants, says Mr. Sum, head of Northeastern's Center for Labor Market Studies.
What employers really want in many cases by hiring immigrants is to hold down wage costs, experts say.
Most Mexican Immigrants in New Study Gave Up Jobs to Take Their Chances in U.S.
 
By NINA BERNSTEIN  New York Times
A report about the work lives of recent Mexican immigrants in seven cities across the United States suggests that they typically traded jobs in Mexico for the prospect of work here, despite serious bouts of unemployment, job instability and poor wages.
The report, released Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, was based on surveys of nearly 5,000 Mexicans, most of them here illegally.
Those surveyed were seeking identity documents at Mexican consulates in New York, Atlanta and Raleigh, N.C., where recent arrivals have gravitated toward construction, hotel and restaurant jobs, and in Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Fresno, Calif., where they have been more likely to work in agriculture and manufacturing.


Unlike the stereotype of jobless Mexicans heading north, most of the immigrants had been employed in Mexico, the report found.
Once in the United States, they soon found that their illegal status was no barrier to being hired here. And though the jobs they landed, typically with help from relatives, were often unstable and their median earnings only $300 a week, that was enough to keep drawing newcomers because wages here far exceeded those in Mexico.
"We're getting a peek at a segment of the U.S. labor force that is large, that is growing by illegal migration, and that is bringing an entirely new set of issues into the U.S. labor market," said Rakesh Kochhar, associate director for research at the Pew Hispanic Center and author of the study.
The report suggested that policies intended to reduce migration pressures by improving the Mexican economy would have to look beyond employment to wages and perceptions of opportunity.
The survey found that the most recent to arrive were more likely to have worked in construction or commerce, rather than agriculture, in Mexico. Only 5 percent had been unemployed there; they were "drawn not from the fringes, but from the heart of Mexico's labor force," the report said.
After a difficult transition in their first six months in the United States - about 15 percent of the respondents said they did not work during that time - the rate of unemployment plummeted, to an average of 5 percent.
But in one of the most striking findings, 38 percent reported an unemployment spell lasting a month or more in the previous year, regardless of their location, legal status or length of time in the United States.
"These are workers with no safety net," Mr. Kochhar said. "The long-run implication is a generation of workers without health or pension benefits, without any meaningful asset accumulation."
On the other hand, Mr. Kochhar and Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center, said the flexibility of this work force was a boon to certain industries like home construction, an important part of the nation's economic growth since the last recession.
Among respondents to the survey, those who settled in Atlanta and Dallas were the best off, with 56 percent in each city receiving a weekly wage higher than the $300-a-week median. The worst off were in Fresno, where more than half of the survey respondents worked in agriculture and 60 percent reported earning less than $300 a week. The lowest wages were reported by women, people who spoke little or no English, and those without identification.
To some scholars of immigration, the report underlines the lack of incentives for employers to turn to a guest worker program like the one proposed by President Bush because their needs are met cheaply by illegal workers - and all without paperwork or long-term commitment.
Guest workers might instead appeal to corporations like Wal-Mart, the scholars said, where service jobs are now the target of union organizing drives.
"You can't plausibly argue that immigrant-dominated sectors have a labor shortage," said Robert Courtney Smith, a sociologist and author of "Mexican New York: Transnational Lives of New Immigrants." Instead, he said, the report and evidence of falling wages among Mexican immigrants over time point to an oversupply of vulnerable workers competing with each other.
But Brendan Flanagan, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association, which supports a guest worker program, disagreed. "In many places it is difficult to fill jobs with domestic workers," Mr. Flanagan said. "We've seen a simple lack of applicants, regardless of what wage is offered."


Although the survey, conducted from July 2004 to January 2005, was not random or weighted to represent all Mexican immigrants, it offers a close look at a usually elusive population.

Those surveyed were not questioned directly about their immigration status, but they were asked whether they had any photo identification issued by a government agency in the United States. Slightly more than half over all, and 75 percent in New York, said they did not.

The migration is part of a historic restructuring of the Mexican economy comparable to America's industrial revolution, said Kathleen Newland, director of the Migration Policy Institute, a research organization based in Washington.

The institute released its own report on Tuesday, arguing that border enforcement efforts have failed. Workplace enforcement, which has been neglected, would be a crucial part of making a guest worker program successful.

For now, Mexicans keep arriving illegally.

"It doesn't matter if it's winter," said Ricardo Cortes, 23, a construction worker waiting for a friend outside the Mexican consulate in New York on Tuesday. "People are still coming because there's no money over there."


*

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!


*

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.

 

*

 


 

JUDICIAL WATCH

 

SANCTUARY COUNTY LOS ANGELES SPENDS $600 MILLION ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS

County Spends $600 Mil On Welfare For Illegal Immigrants

 

Last Updated: Thu, 03/11/2010 - 3:14pm

 

For the second consecutive year taxpayers in a single U.S. county will dish out more than half a billion dollars just to cover the welfare and food-stamp costs of illegal immigrants.

Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous, may be in the midst of a dire financial crisis but somehow there are plenty of funds for illegal aliens. In January alone, anchor babies born to the county’s illegal immigrants collected more than $50 million in welfare benefits. At that rate the cash-strapped county will pay around $600 million this year to provide illegal aliens’ offspring with food stamps and other welfare perks.

The exorbitant figure, revealed this week by a county supervisor, doesn’t even include the enormous cost of educating, medically treating or incarcerating illegal aliens in the sprawling county of about 10 million residents. Los Angeles County annually spends more than $1 billion for those combined services, including $500 million for healthcare and $350 million for public safety.

About a quarter of the county’s welfare and food stamp issuances go to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their anchor babies, according to the figures from the county’s Department of Social Services. In 2009 the tab ran $570 million and this year’s figure is expected to increase by several million dollars.

Illegal immigration continues to have a “catastrophic impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,” the veteran county supervisor (Michael Antonovich) who revealed the information has said. The former fifth-grade history teacher has repeatedly come under fire from his liberal counterparts for publicizing statistics that confirm the devastation illegal immigration has had on the region. Antonovich, who has served on the board for nearly three decades, represents a portion of the county that is roughly twice the size of Rhode Island and has about 2 million residents.

His district is simply a snippet of a larger crisis. Nationwide, Americans pay around $22 billion annually to provide illegal immigrants with welfare benefits that include food assistance programs such as free school lunches in public schools, food stamps and a nutritional program (known as WIC) for low-income women and their children. Tens of billions more are spent on other social services, medical care, public education and legal costs such as incarceration and public defenders.


*

 

Anchor Babies Grab One Quarter of Welfare Dollars in LA Co

The anchor baby scam has proven lucrative for illegal aliens in Los Angeles County, at considerable cost to our own poor and downtrodden legal citizenry.


The numbers show that more than $50 million in CalWORKS benefits and food stamps for January went to children born in the United States whose parents are in the country without documentation. This represents approximately 23 percent of the total benefits under the state welfare and food stamp programs, Antonovich said.

"When you add this to $350 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for health care, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year -- not including the millions of dollars for education," Antonovich said.


I love children and I'm all for compassion -- smart, teach-them-to-fish compassion. But when laws, the Constitution, and enforcement allow illegal aliens (the operative word here being "illegal") to insinuate themselves into our nation and bleed us of our precious financial resources, then laws, the Constitution and enforcement need to be changed.



ANCHOR BABIES BORN IN OUR BORDERS ARE STILL CITIZENS OF MEXICO!



"Remember 187 -- the Proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens -- was the last gasp of white America in California." ---Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party

ANCHORING AN OCCUPATION and BUILDING A LA RAZA WELFARE STATE IN AMERICA:

“Through love of having children, we are going to take over.” AUGUSTIN CEBADA, BROWN BERETS, THE LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY


 

Anchor Baby Power

 

La Voz de Aztlan has produced a video in honor of the millions of babies that have been born as US citizens to Mexican undocumented parents. These babies are destined to transform America. The nativist CNN reporter Lou Dobbs estimates that there are over 200,000 "Anchor Babies" born every year whereas George Putnam, a radio reporter, says the figure is closer to 300,000. La Voz de Aztlan believes that the number is approximately 500,000 "Anchor Babies" born every year.

 

The video below depicts the many faces of the "Anchor Baby Generation". The video includes a fascinating segment showing a group of elementary school children in Santa Ana, California confronting the Minutemen vigilantes. The video ends with a now famous statement by Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez of the University of Texas at Austin.

http://www.aztlan.net/anchor_baby_power.htm

*

Why the illegals must go!

April 19, 2007

by William Gheen
President, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
www.alipac.us

Today, Americans face an unprecedented illegal immigration crisis facilitated by multi-billion dollar drug and human importing cartels as well as corporations which are inducing the invasion by aiding and abetting illegal aliens and using their influence on the Executive Branch and elections to paralyze existing immigration laws supported by over 80% of the American citizenry.

These events are not random and chaotic. Massive illegal immigration is the result of non-enforcement and under-enforcement of our existing immigration laws.

Supporters of illegal aliens love to claim that our immigration system is broken. The system is not broken. Elite financial and political business interests who could care less about the death and devastation they are causing Americans have sabotaged the system. Their profits continue to rise as they send the rest of America spiraling downward on a path to anarchy and Third World quality-of-life conditions.

By using their influence to suspend our existing laws, these globalist special interests have deprived all Americans of political representation as well as their votes, their voice, and a functioning Republic for which our flag stands.

When the laws of the American people – debated and voted on by their duly-elected Congressional Representatives and signed into law by the President– go intentionally under-enforced by the Executive Branch, all of the principles, sovereignty, and self-governance of Americans are derailed. The will of the American public, the existing laws, the US Constitution, and the borders of our great nation are perceived as market hindrances to the global elite. We the people of America are perceived as peasants and subjects beneath the power of their influence.

The American public has spoken through our lawmakers and in numerous polls. A super majority of Americans want our existing laws enforced, those responsible for illegal immigration fined and/or imprisoned, the borders secured, and illegal aliens deported from the United States for many years or permanently. These fact remain, despite several politicized polls which attempt to manufacture consent and make you believe such views represent a minority.

The truth is that most Americans want the illegal aliens to return to the nations of which they are citizens. The rallying cry is: "Illegals Go Home!"

We could easily list 101 reasons why Americans are upset about illegal immigration. Most are concerned about the 4,000+ preventable deaths of Americans by the criminal acts of illegal aliens on our soil each year. No corporate propaganda will change the fact that most Americans do not want to surrender or capitulate to the lawless masses rushing into our nation.

No poll or politicized source is needed to prove this point because the decision is based upon our nation's successful history and basic common sense. The answer is based on something that every judge, lawmaker, and even street thug knows. The penalties must outweigh the benefits if you want to deter any action.

It is common sense and common practice in America that for any law to be a deterrent, two important factors are in play. First, the laws must be enforced, and second, the penalties for any crime must exceed the benefits to those breaking the law.

It is truly amazing that we find ourselves as a nation having to explain these basic foundations of law to corporations and politicians in the year 2007 despite their existence since the dawn of civilization! Can you imagine what would happen in America if the penalty for robbing a bank was that you had to return half of the money you stole if, and only if, you were apprehended for the crime? What if the penalty for car theft was paying a $2,000 fine if you were caught with the stolen vehicle?

The answers are clear. Within a month, you would not have a bank open in America and you would not be able to keep a car worth more than $2,000 in your driveway for more than a week. How many millions of people would quickly take up the careers of bank robber and car thief once the rewards for the crime were higher than the penalty?

If American businesses and homes left their windows and doors unlocked each night and robbers were merely removed by police when detected – only to try again the next night – what do you think would happen? If big, global businesses practiced the same non-enforcement of security similar to the lack of border security and lack of immigration enforcement they have facilitated for Americans, they would be out of business in a matter of days or weeks. If they left their doors unlocked at night and just pushed people back to the street, America would quickly descend into such chaos and anarchy that we would be unable to sustain a population of 300 million. Our population would take a hit similar to the impact of the Black Plague on Europe, and we would quickly enter a new dark age.

Since illegal aliens can never afford to compensate Americans for what they have taken, they must go. We do not need to go door to door looking for illegals to deport in America. Attrition through enforcement works. Illegal aliens are leaving the states of Georgia and Pennsylvania in droves, not because they are enforcing the laws but because they have simply announced they plan to start!
Unfortunately, the current state of affairs in America has illegals flooding in by the millions each year and many law-abiding Americans fleeing the states of California and Texas and many towns and cities in search of more safety and security. Many Americans are on the run and finding few places left to run to.

The illegal aliens are sending a clear message on the streets of Los Angeles and other major urban centers. They are saying: "This is our land. White, black, and legal Hispanics get out!"


This is great news for the housing and real estate markets, Wal-Mart, and McDonalds. They are growing the economy using rapid population growth. This is great news for big corporations and bad news for Americans.

Attrition through enforcement will work. In fact, if President George Bush were to announce on national television that America would begin securing our borders and enforcing our existing laws in one month, so many illegal aliens would leave America that Mexico would have to set up refuge stations!


Another important reason that the illegal aliens must leave for the long term is that they'll return to their home communities with a message for their neighbors that their ill-gotten gains did not pay off in America. This is the only thing that will stop, or slow, the flow. Deporting illegal aliens and sending them packing is the only real way we can put a stop to this crisis.

The politicians in DC are very aware that Americans want the illegal aliens to go. That is why their latest Scamnesty legislation includes a “touchback”provision. Under these laws, the illegal aliens can hop across the Mexican or Canadian borders where special "Ellis Island" stations are set up for them to pay a fine, receive new documentation and be back in the US within days or hours.


The lunatics advocating this plan are counting on Americans to be so stupid and so gullible that they can say, "Look, the illegals left and walked back in legally. Problem solved!" They are eager to pretend to accommodate the American desires for the illegals to leave while quickly returning their slave labor force to our nation.

They know that Americans want illegals to leave and get behind a long line of legal immigrants waiting to enter the US, including millions of people who have been waiting 5-10 years. These politicians and the illegal aliens need to be shown the way to the back of the line. The back of the line is back in the country in which they are citizens, 5-10 years down the road behind all of the talented and law-abiding people who respect our laws.

If these traitorous corporations and politicians succeed in setting up these Ellis Island stations for “Operation Touchback," the revered symbol of Ellis Island will take on a new meaning that Americans see with contempt and resentment. Ellis Island will become a name associated with the horrendous betrayal of free Americans and the deathblow to the American Republic. This is a symbol of America’s surrender and the subjugation of all her people.

If we allow the politicians in DC to sign off on the many Guest Worker, Temporary Worker, Path to Citizenship, Amnesty, Scamnesty bills written by the US Chamber of Commerce, then no wall with an army on top of it will stop the next 20 million from crashing down on our country. We will have signaled that America is weak and will capitulate and accommodate. Already, the word is out in Central and South America that they can come and stay. Each time President Bush has opened his mouth about such programs, the US Border Patrol reports massive spikes in illegal crossings.

Since there is literally no end to the stream of illegals who want to be in America, this will be the end of America as we have known it and as history has praised it.

In the past, when America has cracked down on illegal immigration and the American people have signaled they want the immigration brakes applied, the policies have worked. New laws written near the turn of the 20th century greatly reduced the amount of immigration into America. When Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower launched large deportation campaigns in the 1950s and 1930s, illegal immigration slowed to minuscule levels as a result.

Whether you agree or disagree with the decisions of the past, these policies were part of the successful formula that have led America to become the most opulent and successful civilization in human history.


While some argue that these enforcement measures were racist and that some American citizens of different races were improperly deported at the time, we now have the technology and methodology in place to assure that American citizens and legal immigrants are not improperly affected by our immigration enforcement efforts.

The difference in 2007 is that the globalist corporations that have hijacked the American government want to stop the American citizenry from applying the brakes this time. They have taken away our ability to determine who can enter our nation and our ability to stop armed and unarmed invasions as granted by the US Constitution.


To take away the self-governance of Americans is to kill the very thing that has made us such a great and successful nation.

In a time of crisis like this, we must stand firm on the principles that have made America an attractive and great nation. We must stand firm on the rule of law. The law must be applied equally to big corporations and illegal aliens alike lest we all become slaves subject to the plans of masters instead of a free and empowered citizenry.


Illegal aliens and corporations must endure penalties for their illegal, deadly, and destructive actions that exceed the benefits they gain from their illegal activities.

The hour is late and it is time for Americans to stand up and say with one voice...


No Amnesty! No Guest Worker! Secure our borders and enforce the existing laws! Restore the American Republic!


The illegals must go.

Illegals go home!





 

VIVA LA RAZA SUPREMACY? illegals reelected obama!

OBAMA'S CRONY CAPITALISM - OBAMA WAS REELECTED BY ILLEGALS and RULES FROM WALL STREET AS HE IS TOLD


MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

*

Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com and read articles and comments from other Americans on what they’ve witnessed in their communities around the country. While most of the population of California is now ILLEGAL, the problems, costs, assault to our culture by Mexico is EVERYWHERE. copy and pass it to your friends.

*

OBAMA HAS TWO AGENDAS. SERVICING BANKSTER DONORS, AND PUSHING OUR BORDERS OPEN FOR MORE ILLEGALS. HE KNOW WE WON’T BE PUNKED BY HIS PERFORMANCES THE SECOND TIME AROUND!

“Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).”

*

Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses


 BY TIMOTHY P CARNEY 

Editorial Reviews

Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.

Congressman Ron Paul says, “Every libertarian and free-market conservative needs to read Obamanomics.” And Johan Goldberg, columnist and bestselling author says, “Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best and an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”

If you’ve wondered what’s happening to America, as the federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages,” this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will make your blood boil.


Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers.

Investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics. In this explosive book, Carney reveals:

* The Great Health Care Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell corporate profits and more government control
* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda
* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)
* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists
* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics

If you’ve wondered what’s happening to our country, as the federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages” that create make-work government jobs, this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will make your blood boil.

*
Praise for Obamanomics

“The notion that ‘big business’ is on the side of the free market is one of progressivism’s most valuable myths. It allows them to demonize corporations by day and get in bed with them by night. Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best. It reveals how President Obama is exploiting the big business mythology to undermine the free market and stick it to entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and consumers. It’s an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”
—Jonha Goldberg, LA Times columnist and best-selling author

“‘Every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich.’ With this astute observation, Tim Carney begins his task of laying bare the Obama administration’s corporatist governing strategy, hidden behind the president’s populist veneer. This meticulously researched book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how Washington really works.”
—David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against Barack Obama

“Every libertarian and free-market conservative who still believes that large corporations are trusted allies in the battle for economic liberty needs to read this book, as does every well-meaning liberal who believes that expansions of the welfare-regulatory state are done to benefit the common people.”
—Congressman Ron Paul

“It’s understandable for critics to condemn President Obama for his ‘socialism.’ But as Tim Carney shows, the real situation is at once more subtle and more sinister. Obamanomics favors big business while disproportionately punishing everyone else. So-called progressives are too clueless to notice, as usual, which is why we have Tim Carney and this book.”
—Thomas E. Woods, Jr., best-selling author of Meltdown and The Politically Incorrect Guideto American History

*

·         Hardcover: 256 pages

·         Publisher: Regnery Press (November 30, 2009)

·         Language: English

·         ISBN-10: 1596986123

·         ISBN-13: 978-1596986121

 

The Obamas’ new home has received a lot of attention in the corporate media and on the blogs. This post will discuss other perspectives.

Hyde Park, where the Obamas have lived since 1994, is home to the University of Chicago (UC) Law School and at least one of UC’s hospitals. Leo Struass taught in the university’s Committee on Social Thought. The Federalist Society was born at UC, and it is the alma mater of many Neo Cons, including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Kenwood, where the Obamas’ new home sits, is a small neighborhood, only 1.09 miles in area. It is bound on the south by Hyde Park, on the north by North Kenwood, and on the west by the neighborhood of Highland. Kenwood was once one of the most elite neighborhoods in all of Chicago.

This map shows the juxtaposition of the Hyde Park and Kenwood neighborhoods:

The Obamas had decided that politics was Barack’s ultimate future while still dating. In 1991, then Michelle Robinson, who was then Obama’s fiancĂ©e, left her job at the law firm of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood. She went to work for the city of Chicago, first as an assistant to Mayor Daley, then as the Executive Director of Public Allies Chicago, a nonprofit that provides leadership training to young adults interested in public service careers.

In 1996, she left the Public Allies to help create a student volunteer program at The University of Chicago. By the time of this interview, she was the Executive Director of Community Affairs for The University of Chicago Hospitals. This is how Michelle portrays her change of career:

She was devastated when her father died from MS complications. “That’s when I started analyzing my life, sitting in a firm,” she recalls, adding that in that same year she also lost one of her best friends from college to cancer. She soon left the firm to pursue a much lower-paying path in the public sector.

The fact is Michelle was actively recruited for City Hall by a close friend, Valerie Jarrett, who was Mayor Daley’s Deputy Chief of Staff at that time. Valerie later became the Finance Chair of Obama’s 2004 US Senate campaign and then First Treasurer of Barack’s political action committee, Hopefund.

It helps to have friends at City Hall. Among other positions, Michelle was appointed twice to sit on the board of the Commission of Chicago Landmarks for two consecutive terms. Michelle maintained this board seat from 1998 to March 2005, although normally a member only serves one 4 year term.

Flush from the success of Barack’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the Obamas decided it was time to find a residence more fitting for their anticipated new status. Barack’s 1995 autobiography Dreams of My Father soared, and they knew Alan Keyes was no threat to their future success in the US Senate elections.

Sitting on the Commission of Chicago Landmarks board, Michelle knew of a permit, waiting for review and approval to sell, for a designated Historical Georgian revival home built in 1910 with four fireplaces, glass-door bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany, and a 1,000-bottle wine cellar owned by a doctor in Kenwood. The Commission is supported not only by donations and taxes but also by charges for permits. It’s a pretty extensive process, and they want a complete history of the house and property when a permit is requested. Once the Board approves a permit, the application goes to the city planning or zoning commission if more than a simple sale is involved.

The doctor who owned the Kenwood home wanted more than the Obamas could afford. As Barack has stated in numerous press interviews, buying the home would be a stretch. Barack contacted his patron Tony Rezko, despite knowing he was under investigation at the time, in order to see what could be done so the Obamas could afford their dream house. Sub-division was likely the agreed-on solution. In order to divide the lot, which the doctor purchased as one entity, he would have to:

– Hire an approved architect and general contractor, who had been involved in renovations and sub-divisions in Kenwood previously

– Have the lots surveyed and new plot plans drawn

– Re-start the Landmark Commission permit approval process

– Hold a public hearing (required).

On page 51 of the Commission on Landmarks Ordinances, one finds a justification for the doctor agreeing to subdividing the land.

The applicant bears the burden of proof that the existing use of the property is economically infeasible and that the sale, rental or rehabilitation of the property is not possible, resulting the property not being capable of earning any reasonable economic return.

Pages 51 and 52 of the Landmark ordinances show how many proofs and other forms of extensive documentation are required in order to subdivide the land. Can any rational person believe the doctor would have been willing to go along with having his property sub-divided, and all the work and time involved, without compensation and assistance? Who paid for this?

With Michelle sitting on the Landmarks board, Commission approval wasn’t expected to be an issue, even though I have not located notice of the Public Hearing from any of the involved boards. From there it would go to the City Planning Board and the Zoning Boards, which also require public hearings. Each of these steps average between 6 weeks and 3 months to complete.

The doctor’s property was located in what Chicago Zoning Terms refer to as Residential Single zone 1, or RS1. This means the house the Obamas bought required 6,250 sq. ft of area. Even if it had the designation lowered to RS2, it still would have required 5,000 square feet, as seen on page 5 of Chicago’s zoning ordinances. Starting on page 8, the ordinances specify setbacks and how much space must be available on each side of a building. The open space on the building’s sides normally conform to Fire Regulations, so that equipment can access all portions of a building during crises.

Public Records at the Chicago Commission on Landmarks, the Chicago Planning Department and Chicago Zoning Boards would show the exact dates of permits, hearings and approvals. Michelle was so confident she listed the Obamas’ condo, which was located on the first floor of a Hyde Park Brownstone. In October 2004, Michelle expressed surprise to a Chicago interviewer that the Condo had sold so quickly, which meant they either had to put off a closing date or write in a lease agreement for a specified amount of time in their Condo purchase contract.

2004 was a year flush with success for the Obamas: the autobiographical book sales increased; the DNC speech had been well received; Obama won his US Senate seat; and Michelle received a recent promotion to a $316,962-a-year position as Vice President at The University of Chicago Hospitals. Their income was over 1.67 million dollars, with anticipation of even greater gains ahead.

All that needed to be done, in the name of the doctor, on the Kenwood property was completed by March 2005, and the house was finally listed. Michelle Obama resigned her seat on the Chicago Commission on Landmarks at the same time. Barack and Michelle closed on their new home in June of 2005, for $1.65 million dollars, $300,000 less than the asking price, and most likely using the proceeds of their Condo for a down payment, while taking out a mortgage for $1.32 million from Northern Trust. Tony Rezko’s wife purchased the newly divided sub-plot for the full price of $625,000 and closed on the same day.

The City of Chicago requires parking permits, or people must rent space at parking garages for around $30 per diem. There is no overnight on-street parking. The Obamas had no yard to park on, and most likely parked on Rezko’s property.

Within in a month of purchasing their new home, the Obamas began the same process the doctor previously went through. Because Tony Rezko was being indicted, they needed to be distanced from him. So the Obamas hired a lawyer and an architect. Additionally, the Obama’s wanted to put up a fence separating the two properties. On page 21 of the Landmark Ordinances above, it states fences for Historic homes can be no more than 5’ high and must not be visible from the street. If the Obamas had purchased a prefab chain, picket or wooden fence, they would have lost the Historic designation and also the eight-year property tax freeze benefit accrued by agreeing to keep the house in conformance with Landmark regulations.

A picture of the front view of Obamas’ house reveals landmark and zoning requirements.

The concrete wall and evergreens were most likely done after the city appropriated land for sidewalks, and the paving of what has been noted as a wide and busy thoroughfare. If you notice, the trees were planted one to two feet behind the concrete wall, most probably a result of zoning constraints.

The new fence was specially fabricated to conform to historic standards, and the $14,000 cost was billed to Rezko per agreement by Obama and Rezko. Obama states he paid for the architect and Lawyer. Strangely enough the fence actually sits ON the property line between the two lots. Obama agreed to yard maintenance for both properties. And given Obama’s history with the Harvard Law Review and his limited known court experience from public records, Obama most likely either edited or personally wrote the legal documents for his sub-division and the fence. On January 12, 2006, the Obamas closed on the 1/6th of Rita Rezko’s property they purchased for $104,500.

Facts not specifically cited above, and much more, can be found in this Chicago Tribune article.

In all likelihood the driveway was previously on Rezko land. Behind the house is most likely an old carriage house converted into a garage. Parking on the street in that type of neighborhood is prohibited by zoning and fire safety laws, unless someone in authority had been previously notified of a large gathering.

One other event of note occurred in 2005. Daniel Mahru, Rezko’s partner in Rezmar for 16 years until the two men had, according to Mahru, “a difference of opinion,” resigned from Rezmar, Rezko’s slum landlord operation. Did Mahru leave because he knew any shady deals while Rezko was being investigated would lead to disaster?

There were lots of people involved in the purchase of the Obamas’ house, and they would all be owed some kind of consideration for their help and support. Obama’s favors from Rezko amount to $925,000, plus an additional $14,000 for the fence, bringing the total cash value to just one person to $939,000.

Will Rezko sit quietly in jail or will he bring Mayor Daley, Governor Blagojevich and Senator Obama down with him?

How will Obama repay the “favors” he owes all these people?

I am sure Patrick Fitzgerald will reveal all these connections and much more in Rezko’s upcoming trial at the end of this month.

 

 
Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com and read articles and comments from other Americans on what they’ve witnessed in their communities around the country. While most of the population of California is now ILLEGAL, the problems, costs, assault to our culture by Mexico is EVERYWHERE. copy and pass it to your friends.

http://www.FAIRUS.org

http://www.JUDICIALWATCH.org

http://www.ALIPAC.us