Heritage: Amnestied Illegals Will
Get $9.4T in Benefits; Increase Debt $6.3T'
what is the REAL cost of all that “CHEAP” Mexican labor? Add
it up and then factor in the MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVE and the fact that the
MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS now operate in 2,500 American cities!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/05/will-obamas-amnesty-bankrupt-us.html
WHAT WILL THE OBAMA ORCHESTRATED LA RAZA MEXICAN LOOTING
REALLY COST US… BESIDES THE MEX ASSAULT ON OUR CULTURE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE….???
HERE ARE THE
DEVASTATING FIGURES OBAMA and the DEMOCRAT PARTY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!
more at this link – post on your Facebook and email broadcast
Amnesty's price: $12,433 (PASSED OVER TO AMERICANS IN
TAXES!) for every legalized immigrant household
VIVA LA RAZA AMNESTY and OBAMA’S OPEN BORDERS AGENDA???
City
Journal
How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy
Immigration’s bottom line has
shifted so sharply that in a high-immigration state like California,
native-born residents are paying up to ten times more in state and local
taxes than immigrants generate in economic benefits.
A handful of industries get low-cost labor, and the taxpayers foot the bill.
Pols around the country, intent on
currying favor with ethnic voting blocs by appearing immigrant-friendly, have
jumped on the benefits-for-immigrants bandwagon, endorsing “don’t ask, don’t
tell” policies toward immigrants who register for benefits, giving tax
dollars to centers that find immigrants work and aid illegals, and enacting
legislation prohibiting local authorities from cooperating with federal
immigration officials.
Steven
Malanga
|
|
|
|
The day after
Librado Velasquez arrived on Staten Island after a long, surreptitious journey
from his Chiapas, Mexico, home, he headed out to a street corner to wait with
other illegal immigrants looking for work. Velasquez, who had supported his
wife, seven kids, and his in-laws as a campesino, or peasant farmer,
until a 1998 hurricane devastated his farm, eventually got work, off the books,
loading trucks at a small New Jersey factory, which hired illegals for jobs
that required few special skills. The arrangement suited both, until a work
injury sent Velasquez to the local emergency room, where federal law required
that he be treated, though he could not afford to pay for his care. After five
operations, he is now permanently disabled and has remained in the United
States to pursue compensation claims.
“I do not have the use of my leg without walking with a
cane, and I do not have strength in my arm in order to lift things,” Velasquez
said through an interpreter at New York City Council hearings. “I have no other
way to live except if I receive some other type of compensation. I need help,
and I thought maybe my son could come and work here and support me here in the
United States.”
Velasquez’s story illustrates some of the fault lines in the
nation’s current, highly charged, debate on immigration. Since the mid-1960s,
America has welcomed nearly 30 million legal immigrants and received perhaps
another 15 million illegals, numbers unprecedented in our history. These
immigrants have picked our fruit, cleaned our homes, cut our grass, worked in
our factories, and washed our cars. But they have also crowded into our
hospital emergency rooms, schools, and government-subsidized aid programs,
sparking a fierce debate about their contributions to our society and the costs
they impose on it.
Advocates of open
immigration argue that welcoming the Librado Velasquezes of the world is
essential for our American economy: our businesses need workers like him,
because we have a shortage of people willing to do low-wage work. Moreover, the
free movement of labor in a global economy pays off for the United States,
because immigrants bring skills and capital that expand our economy and offset
immigration’s costs. Like tax cuts, supporters argue, immigration pays for
itself.
But the tale of Librado Velasquez helps show why supporters
are wrong about today’s immigration, as many Americans sense and so much
research has demonstrated. America does not have a vast labor shortage that
requires waves of low-wage immigrants to alleviate; in fact, unemployment among
unskilled workers is high—about 30 percent. Moreover, many of the unskilled,
uneducated workers now journeying here labor, like Velasquez, in shrinking
industries, where they force out native workers, and many others work in
industries where the availability of cheap workers has led businesses to
suspend investment in new technologies that would make them less
labor-intensive.
Yet while these workers add little to our economy, they come
at great cost, because they are not economic abstractions but human beings,
with their own culture and ideas—often at odds with our own. Increasing numbers
of them arrive with little education and none of the skills necessary to
succeed in a modern economy. Many may wind up stuck on our lowest economic
rungs, where they will rely on something that immigrants of other generations
didn’t have: a vast U.S. welfare and social-services apparatus that has
enormously amplified the cost of immigration. Just as welfare reform and other
policies are helping to shrink America’s underclass by weaning people off such
social programs, we are importing a new, foreign-born underclass. As famed
free-market economist Milton Friedman puts it: “It’s just obvious that you
can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.”
Immigration can only pay off again for America if we reshape
our policy, organizing it around what’s good for the economy by welcoming
workers we truly need and excluding those who, because they have so little to
offer, are likely to cost us more than they contribute, and who will struggle
for years to find their place here.
Hampering today’s
immigration debate are our misconceptions about the so-called first great
migration some 100 years ago, with which today’s immigration is often compared.
We envision that first great migration as a time when multitudes of Emma
Lazarus’s “tired,” “poor,” and “wretched refuse” of Europe’s shores made their
way from destitution to American opportunity. Subsequent studies of American
immigration with titles like The Uprooted convey the same impression of the
dispossessed and displaced swarming here to find a new life. If America could
assimilate 24 million mostly desperate immigrants from that great
migration—people one unsympathetic economist at the turn of the twentieth
century described as “the unlucky, the thriftless, the worthless”—surely, so
the story goes, today’s much bigger and richer country can absorb the millions
of Librado Velasquezes now venturing here.
But that argument distorts the realities of the first great
migration. Though fleeing persecution or economic stagnation in their
homelands, that era’s immigrants—Jewish tailors and seamstresses who helped
create New York’s garment industry, Italian stonemasons and bricklayers who
helped build some of our greatest buildings, German merchants, shopkeepers, and
artisans—all brought important skills with them that fit easily into the
American economy. Those waves of immigrants—many of them urban dwellers who
crossed a continent and an ocean to get here—helped supercharge the workforce
at a time when the country was going through a transformative economic
expansion that craved new workers, especially in its cities. A 1998 National
Research Council report noted “that the newly arriving immigrant
nonagricultural work force . . . was (slightly) more skilled than the resident
American labor force”: 27 percent of them were skilled laborers, compared with
only 17 percent of that era’s native-born workforce.
Many of these immigrants quickly found a place in our
economy, participating in the workforce at a higher rate even than the native
population. Their success at finding work sent many of them quickly up the
economic ladder: those who stayed in America for at least 15 years, for
instance, were just as likely to own their own business as native-born workers
of the same age, one study found. Another study found that their American-born
children were just as likely to be accountants, engineers, or lawyers as
Americans whose families had been here for generations.
*
CREATING THE MEX WELFARE STATE FOR ILLEGAL LOOTERS THAT WAVE
THEIR MEX FLAGS IN OUR FACES AND RANT THEY’RE DOING THE WORK WE WON’T!
*
What the newcomers of the great migration did not find here
was a vast social-services and welfare state. They had to rely on their own
resources or those of friends, relatives, or private, often ethnic, charities
if things did not go well. That’s why about 70 percent of those who came were
men in their prime. It’s also why many of them left when the economy sputtered
several times during the period. For though one often hears that restrictive
anti-immigration legislation starting with the Emergency Quota Act of 1921
ended the first great migration, what really killed it was the crash of the
American economy. Even with the 1920s quotas, America welcomed some 4.1 million
immigrants, but in the Depression of the 1930s, the number of foreign
immigrants tumbled far below quota levels, to 500,000. With America’s streets
no longer paved with gold, and without access to the New Deal programs for
native-born Americans, immigrants not only stopped coming, but some 60 percent
of those already here left in a great remigration home.
Today’s immigration
has turned out so differently in part because it emerged out of the 1960s civil
rights and Great Society mentality. In 1965, a new immigration act eliminated
the old system of national quotas, which critics saw as racist because it
greatly favored European nations. Lawmakers created a set of broader
immigration quotas for each hemisphere, and they added a new visa preference
category for family members to join their relatives here. Senate immigration
subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy reassured the country that, “contrary to
the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with
immigrants,” and “it will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
But, in fact, the law had an immediate, dramatic effect,
increasing immigration by 60 percent in its first ten years. Sojourners from
poorer countries around the rest of the world arrived in ever-greater numbers,
so that whereas half of immigrants in the 1950s had originated from Europe, 75
percent by the 1970s were from Asia and Latin America. And as the influx of
immigrants grew, the special-preferences rule for family unification
intensified it further, as the pool of eligible family members around the world
also increased. Legal immigration to the U.S. soared from 2.5 million in the
1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10
million in the 1990s.
As the floodgates of legal immigration opened, the widening
economic gap between the United States and many of its neighbors also pushed
illegal immigration to levels that America had never seen. In particular, when
Mexico’s move to a more centralized, state-run economy in the 1970s produced
hyperinflation, the disparity between its stagnant economy and U.S. prosperity
yawned wide. Mexico’s per-capita gross domestic product, 37 percent of the
United States’ in the early 1980s, was only 27 percent of it by the end of the
decade—and is now just 25 percent of it. With Mexican farm workers able to earn
seven to ten times as much in the United States as at home, by the 1980s
illegals were pouring across our border at the rate of about 225,000 a year,
and U.S. sentiment rose for slowing the flow.
*
THE NUMBER OF ILLEGALS IN THIS COUNTRY IS KEPT SECRET BY OUR
GOV, AND BY DEMAND OF LA RAZA PARTY. MOST NON-GOV SOURCES PUT THE NUMBER AT
ABOUT 38 MILLION… and breeding fast.
*
But an unusual coalition of business groups, unions, civil
rights activists, and church leaders thwarted the call for restrictions with
passage of the inaptly named 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which
legalized some 2.7 million unauthorized aliens already here, supposedly in
exchange for tougher penalties and controls against employers who hired
illegals. The law proved no deterrent, however, because supporters, in
subsequent legislation and court cases argued on civil rights grounds, weakened
the employer sanctions. Meanwhile, more illegals flooded here in the hope of future
amnesties from Congress, while the newly legalized sneaked their wives and
children into the country rather than have them wait for family-preference
visas. The flow of illegals into the country rose to between 300,000 and
500,000 per year in the 1990s, so that a decade after the legislation that had
supposedly solved the undocumented alien problem by reclassifying them as
legal, the number of illegals living in the United States was back up to about
5 million, while today it’s estimated at between 9 million and 13 million.
The flood of
immigrants, both legal and illegal, from countries with poor, ill-educated
populations, has yielded a mismatch between today’s immigrants and the American
economy and has left many workers poorly positioned to succeed for the long
term. Unlike the immigrants of 100 years ago, whose skills reflected or
surpassed those of the native workforce at the time, many of today’s arrivals,
particularly the more than half who now come from Central and South America,
are farmworkers in their home countries who come here with little education or
even basic training in blue-collar occupations like carpentry or machinery. (A
century ago, farmworkers made up 35 percent of the U.S. labor force, compared
with the under 2 percent who produce a surplus of food today.) Nearly
two-thirds of Mexican immigrants, for instance, are high school dropouts, and
most wind up doing either unskilled factory work or small-scale construction
projects, or they work in service industries, where they compete for
entry-level jobs against one another, against the adult children of other
immigrants, and against native-born high school dropouts. Of the 15 industries
employing the greatest percentage of foreign-born workers, half are low-wage
service industries, including gardening, domestic household work, car washes,
shoe repair, and janitorial work. To take one stark example: whereas 100 years
ago, immigrants were half as likely as native-born workers to be employed in
household service, today immigrants account for 27 percent of all domestic
workers in the United States.
*
Although open-borders advocates say that these workers are
simply taking jobs Americans don’t want, studies show that the immigrants drive
down wages of native-born workers and squeeze them out of certain industries.
Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz, for instance, estimate that
low-wage immigration cuts the wages for the average native-born high school
dropout by some 8 percent, or more than $1,200 a year. Other economists find
that the new workers also push down wages significantly for immigrants already
here and native-born Hispanics.
EXPLOITATION OF ILLEGALS. THE NEW AMERICAN SLAVES.
Consequently, as the waves of immigration continue, the
sheer number of those competing for low-skilled service jobs makes economic
progress difficult. A study of the impact of immigration on New York City’s
restaurant business, for instance, found that 60 percent of immigrant workers
do not receive regular raises, while 70 percent had never been promoted. One
Mexican dishwasher aptly captured the downward pressure that all these arriving
workers put on wages by telling the study’s authors about his frustrating
search for a 50-cent raise after working for $6.50 an hour: “I visited a few
restaurants asking for $7 an hour, but they only offered me $5.50 or $6,” he
said. “I had to beg [for a job].”
*
LA RAZA DEMS FEINSTEIN AND BOXER HAVE TAKEN BIG LOOT FROM
THEIR BIG AG BIZ DONORS!
*
In many American
industries, waves of low-wage workers have also retarded investments that might
lead to modernization and efficiency. Farming, which employs a million
immigrant laborers in California alone, is the prime case in point. Faced with
a labor shortage in the early 1960s, when President Kennedy ended a 22-year-old
guest-worker program that allowed 45,000 Mexican farmhands to cross over the
border and harvest 2.2 million tons of California tomatoes for processed foods,
farmers complained but swiftly automated, adopting a mechanical tomato-picking
technology created more than a decade earlier. Today, just 5,000 better-paid
workers—one-ninth the original workforce—harvest 12 million tons of tomatoes
using the machines.
If
the benefits of the current generation of migrants are small, the costs are
large and growing because of America’s vast range of social programs and the
wide advocacy network that strives to hook low-earning legal and illegal
immigrants into these programs. A 1998 National Academy of Sciences study found
that more than 30 percent of California’s foreign-born were on
Medicaid—including 37 percent of all Hispanic households—compared with 14
percent of native-born households. The foreign-born were more than twice as
likely as the native-born to be on welfare, and their children were nearly five
times as likely to be in means-tested government lunch programs. Native-born
households pay for much of this, the study found, because they earn more and
pay higher taxes—and are more likely to comply with tax laws. Recent
immigrants, by contrast, have much lower levels of income and tax compliance
(another study estimated that only 56 percent of illegals in California have
taxes deducted from their earnings, for instance). The study’s conclusion:
immigrant families cost each native-born household in California an additional
$1,200 a year in taxes.
Immigration’s
bottom line has shifted so sharply that in a high-immigration state like
California, native-born residents are paying up to ten times more in state and
local taxes than immigrants generate in economic benefits.
Moreover, the cost is only likely to grow as the foreign-born population—which
has already mushroomed from about 9 percent of the U.S. population when the NAS
studies were done in the late 1990s to about 12 percent today—keeps growing.
And citizens in more and more places will feel the bite, as immigrants move
beyond their traditional settling places. From 1990 to 2005, the number of
states in which immigrants make up at least 5 percent of the population nearly
doubled from 17 to 29, with states like Arkansas, South Dakota, South Carolina,
and Georgia seeing the most growth. This sharp turnaround since the 1970s, when
immigrants were less likely to be using the social programs of the Great
Society than the native-born population, says Harvard economist Borjas,
suggests that welfare and other social programs are a magnet drawing certain
types of immigrants—nonworking women, children, and the elderly—and keeping
them here when they run into difficulty.
Not only have the formal and informal networks helping
immigrants tap into our social spending grown, but they also get plenty of
assistance from advocacy groups financed by tax dollars, working to ensure that
immigrants get their share of social spending. Thus, the Newark-based New
Jersey Immigration Policy Network receives several hundred thousand government
dollars annually to help doctors and hospitals increase immigrant enrollment in
Jersey’s subsidized health-care programs. Casa Maryland, operating in the
greater Washington area, gets funding from nearly 20 federal, state, and local
government agencies to run programs that “empower” immigrants to demand
benefits and care from government and to “refer clients to government and
private social service programs for which they and their families may be
eligible.”
Pols
around the country, intent on currying favor with ethnic voting blocs by
appearing immigrant-friendly, have jumped on the benefits-for-immigrants
bandwagon, endorsing “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies toward immigrants who
register for benefits, giving tax dollars to centers that find immigrants work and
aid illegals, and enacting legislation prohibiting local authorities from
cooperating with federal immigration officials.
In New York, for instance, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has ordered city agencies to
ignore an immigrant’s status in providing services. “This policy’s critical to
encourage immigrant day laborers to access . . . children’s health insurance, a
full range of preventive primary and acute medical care, domestic violence
counseling, emergency shelters, police protection, consumer fraud protections,
and protection against discrimination through the Human Rights Commission,” the
city’s Immigrant Affairs Commissioner, Guillermo Linares, explains.
Almost certainly,
immigrants’ participation in our social welfare programs will increase over
time, because so many are destined to struggle in our workforce. Despite our
cherished view of immigrants as rapidly climbing the economic ladder, more and
more of the new arrivals and their children face a lifetime of economic
disadvantage, because they arrive here with low levels of education and with
few work skills—shortcomings not easily overcome. Mexican immigrants, who are
up to six times more likely to be high school dropouts than native-born
Americans, not only earn substantially less than the native-born median, but
the wage gap persists for decades after they’ve arrived.
*
MEXICANS ARE THE MOST RACIST “LA RAZA”, VIOLENT CULTURES IN
THE HEMISPHERE! THEY LOATHE THIS NATION
BEYOND WHAT THEY CAN LOOT. THAT INCLUDES OUR LANGUAGE, FLAG AND CULTURE!
*
Meanwhile, because their parents start off so far behind,
the American-born children of Mexican immigrants also make slow progress.
First-generation adult Americans of Mexican descent studied in the 2000 census,
for instance, earned 14 percent less than native-born Americans. By contrast,
first-generation Portuguese Americans earned slightly more than the average
native-born worker—a reminder of how quickly immigrants once succeeded in
America and how some still do. But Mexico increasingly dominates our immigration
flows, accounting for 43 percent of the growth of our foreign-born population
in the 1990s.
One reason some ethnic groups make up so little ground
concerns the transmission of what economists call “ethnic capital,” or what we
might call the influence of culture. More than previous generations, immigrants
today tend to live concentrated in ethnic enclaves, and their children find
their role models among their own group. Thus the children of today’s Mexican
immigrants are likely to live in a neighborhood where about 60 percent of men
dropped out of high school and now do low-wage work, and where less than half
of the population speak English fluently, which might explain why high school
dropout rates among Americans of Mexican ancestry are two and a half times
higher than dropout rates for all other native-born Americans, and why
first-generation Mexican Americans do not move up the economic ladder nearly as
quickly as the children of other immigrant groups. …. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOO
MUCH CONTEMPT FOR THIS NATION, OUR LANGUAGE, LITERACY AND THE RULE OF LAW,
WHICH ALL MEXICANS BELIEVE DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM!
“Importing labor is
far more complicated than importing other factors of production, such as
commodities,” write University of California at Davis prof Philip Martin, an
expert on guest-worker programs, and Michael Teitelbaum, a former member of the
U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. “Migration involves human beings, with
their own beliefs, politics, cultures, languages, loves, hates, histories, and
families.”
At the same time, legalization will only spur new problems,
as our experience with the 1986 immigration act should remind us. At the time,
then-congressman Charles Schumer, who worked on the legislation, acknowledged
that it was “a riverboat gamble,” with no certainty that it would slow down the
waves of illegals. Now, of course, we know that the legislation had the
opposite effect, creating the bigger problem we now have (which hasn’t stopped
Senator Schumer from supporting the current legalization proposals). The
legislation also swamped the Immigration and Naturalization Service with masses
of fraudulent, black-market documents, so that it eventually rubber-stamped
tens of thousands of dubious applications.
If we do not legalize them, what can we do with 11 million
illegals? Ship them back home? Their presence here is a fait accompli, the
argument goes, and only legalization can bring them above ground, where they
can assimilate. But that argument assumes that we have only two choices: to
decriminalize or deport. But what happened after the first great migration
suggests a third way: to end the economic incentives that keep them here. We
could prompt a great remigration home if, first off, state and local
governments in jurisdictions like New York and California would stop using
their vast resources to aid illegal immigrants. Second, the federal government
can take the tougher approach that it failed to take after the 1986 act. It can
require employers to verify Social Security numbers and immigration status
before hiring, so that we bar illegals from many jobs. It can deport those
caught here. And it can refuse to give those who remain the same benefits as
U.S. citizens. Such tough measures do work: as a recent Center for Immigration
Studies report points out, when the federal government began deporting illegal
Muslims after 9/11, many more illegals who knew they were likely to face more
scrutiny voluntarily returned home.
If America is ever
to make immigration work for our economy again, it must reject policies shaped
by advocacy groups trying to turn immigration into the next civil rights cause
or by a tiny minority of businesses seeking cheap labor subsidized by the
taxpayers. Instead, we must look to other developed nations that have focused
on luring workers who have skills that are in demand and who have the best
chance of assimilating. Australia, for instance, gives preferences to workers
grouped into four skilled categories: managers, professionals, associates of
professionals, and skilled laborers. Using a straightforward “points
calculator” to determine who gets in, Australia favors immigrants between the
ages of 18 and 45 who speak English, have a post–high school degree or training
in a trade, and have at least six months’ work experience as everything from
laboratory technicians to architects and surveyors to information-technology
workers. Such an immigration policy goes far beyond America’s employment-based
immigration categories, like the H1-B visas, which account for about 10 percent
of our legal immigration and essentially serve the needs of a few Silicon
Valley industries.
*
MEXICO BANKRUPTS CALIFORNIA HOSPITALS - MEX CONSULATES URGE LOOTING OF LEGALS
more at this link – post on your Facebook and email broadcast
While
the Obama Administration halts deportations to work on its secret
amnesty
plan, hospitals across the U.S. are getting stuck with the exorbitant tab of
medically treating illegal immigrants and some are finally demanding
compensation from the federal government.
*
THEY DO SO ON BEHALF
OF THEIR GREEDY BIG AG BIZ DONORS!
CASE STUDY ON THE REAL COST OF MEXICO
AND THE DEM’S ANCHOR BABY FACTORIES HERE:
more at this link – post on your Facebook and email broadcast
Jose Herria emigrated illegally from Mexico to Stockton, Calif., in 1997 to
work as a fruit picker. He brought with him his wife, Felipa, and three
children, 19, 12 and 8 -- all illegals. When Felipa gave birth to her fourth
child, daughter Flor, the family had what is referred to as an "anchor
baby" -- an American citizen by birth who provided the entire Silverio
clan a ticket to remain in the U.S. permanently.
Heather
Mac Donald: White House doesn't want to enforce immigration
more at this link – post on your Facebook and email broadcast
GOP: OBAMA’S AMNESTY HANDOUT WILL COST THE
AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS BILLIONS!
*