Monday, August 7, 2017

TRUMP'S AMNESTY LIES - 4 MILLION FOREIGN BORN STEALING OUR JOBS

New DHS Data Reveals 4 Million

'Half-Amnestied' Aliens

Washington, D.C. (August 7, 2017) – A new analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies finds a little-known foreign-born labor force of close to four million people. These workers are not included among the one to two million temporary workers or the estimated seven million illegal workers. These "half-amnestied" aliens have Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) allowing them to work legally, but they do not have legal permanent status.

David North, a Center fellow and author of the analysis, bases his estimates on newly released DHS raw immigration data, which also reveals that most of this population receives temporary legal status for reasons unrelated to their skills. They are "as free to move around the labor market as citizens or permanent resident aliens," North writes, and "with a handful of exceptions, they are free of ties to a given employer."

"This is a huge, rarely discussed alien labor force that is all but hidden from the public," North said.

View the full analysis at: https://cis.org/North/Dump-DHS-Data-Reveals-Four-Million-HalfAmnestied-Aliens

The U.S. immigration system has 58 sub-classifications of EAD holders. The largest categories are DACAs (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), asylum applicants, two subgroups of adjustees, plus workers in Optional Practical Training (i.e. foreign college alumni) and Temporary Protected Status.

The numbers recently made public are of annual issuances, and therefore misleadingly small because most EADs are good for 18 months or longer. That means the published numbers do not reflect the full impact of the EAD population on the labor force at any one time. The estimate of four million is thus a snapshot of the current total number of EAD workers rather than the annual flow of approved applications.

North writes, "The major policy point here is that there is a huge alien workforce that remains unrecognized because it is never seen as a group, the way it should be viewed."





You will not hear from Trump's big twitter 

mouth that E-VERIFY should be imposed. 

He's lying about border security like he 

does everything else!


July Jobs— “Trump Effect” Back, 

American Worker Displacement, 

Immigrant Workforce Growth Both...


By Edwin S. Rubenstein


VDare.com, August 5, 2017

More good news: the foreign-born share of total employment fell slightly in July, to 17.11%, from 17.22% in June.

While welcome, this is not necessarily much to celebrate, as June was a month of record displacement. In fact, the foreign-born share of employment in July 2017 was higher than in any July since we have been tracking this statistic (2009.) In only six months since January 2009 have immigrants held a larger share of jobs than in July. So, while the Trump Effect seems to be taking hold, the Obama Effect—immigrant displacement of American workers increased relentlessly during his term in office—is far from erased.

MSM coverage focused on the fact that jobs are being created at rates that keep unemployment in the low 4 percent range. The difference between the 345,000 employment gain reported by the Household Survey and the 209,000 reported by the more widely-cited survey of employers, may well reflect illegals entering the labor force—employees that employers are loath to acknowledge when surveyed.


http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-july-jobs-trump-effect-back-american-displacement-immigrant-workforce-growth-both-stall

You will not hear from Trump's big twitter mouth that E-VERIFY should be imposed. He's lying about border security like he does everything else!


July Jobs— “Trump Effect” Back, American Worker Displacement, Immigrant Workforce Growth Both...


By Edwin S. Rubenstein


VDare.com, August 5, 2017

More good news: the foreign-born share of total employment fell slightly in July, to 17.11%, from 17.22% in June.

While welcome, this is not necessarily much to celebrate, as June was a month of record displacement. In fact, the foreign-born share of employment in July 2017 was higher than in any July since we have been tracking this statistic (2009.) In only six months since January 2009 have immigrants held a larger share of jobs than in July. So, while the Trump Effect seems to be taking hold, the Obama Effect—immigrant displacement of American workers increased relentlessly during his term in office—is far from erased.

MSM coverage focused on the fact that jobs are being created at rates that keep unemployment in the low 4 percent range. The difference between the 345,000 employment gain reported by the Household Survey and the 209,000 reported by the more widely-cited survey of employers, may well reflect illegals entering the labor force—employees that employers are loath to acknowledge when surveyed.


WILL MEXICO ELECT ALL FUTURE AMERICAN PRESIDENTS? WILL THEY NOT VOTE TO EXPAND THEIR LA RAZA FASCIST WELFARE STATE ON OUR BACKS AS THE MEX CARTELS CONTINUE TO SPILL OVER OUR BORDERS???





The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. 
Country may be as high as 144%.



''California is going to be a Hispanic state," said Mario 

Obeldo, former head of MALDEF. "Anyone who does not like 

it should leave." And MEChA's goal is even more radical: an 

independent ''Aztlan,'' the collective name this organization 

gives to the seven states of the U.S. Southwest – Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah."


Judicial Watch Warns California: 11 Counties Have More Voters than Voting-Age Citizens




Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, has sent a letter to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on behalf of the Election Integrity Project, noting that there are 11 counties in the state with more registered voters, and alleging that the state may be out of compliance with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The letter reads, in part:
NVRA Section 8 requires states to conduct reasonable list maintenance so as to maintain an accurate record of eligible voters for use in conducting federal elections.1 As you may know, Congress enacted Section 8 of the NVRA to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Allowing the names of ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of elections.
As the top election official in California, it is your responsibility under federal law to coordinate California’s statewide effort to conduct a program that reasonably ensures the lists of eligible voters are accurate.
Judicial Watch lays out the specifics: 
“[T]here were more total registered voters 
than there were adults over the age of 18 
living in each of the following eleven (11) 
counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), 
Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San 
Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San 
Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano 
(111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).” 
The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. 
Country may be as high as 144%.
The letter contains a threat to sue the Secretary of State if Padilla does not remove from the rolls “persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of death, change in residence, or a disqualifying criminal conviction, and to remove noncitizens who have registered to vote unlawfully.” 
It gives Padilla 14 days to respond, and 90 days to correct alleged violations of the law.
Padilla has been one of the main voices in opposition to President Donald Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, refusing to share voter data with it on the argument that doing so would “legitimize false claims of massive election cheating last fall.”
President Trump has claimed that he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election if not for illegal voting, and his administration has singled outCalifornia as a possible contributor to that margin.
The Election Integrity Project is a California-based volunteer organization that monitors voting irregularities.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

CALIFORNIA MOVES CLOSER TO FINAL ANNEXATION BY MEXICO


DE FACTO CITIZENSHIP PER LA RAZA:

NO TEST, NO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON CRIMINALITY, NO BACK TAXES, NO 

FINES.... JUST JUMP STRAIGHT TO VOTING BOOTHS! AND VOTE OFTEN!!!

 

 

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/07/john-binder-californias-surrender-to.html

 

In 2013, California lawmakers passed legislation that allowed illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses if they can prove to the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) their identity and state residency. The plan was one of the largest victories to date by the open borders lobby.… JOHN BINDER – BREITBART.com



THE FINAL SOLUTION:

America surrenders its borders to the 

MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA, 

now masquerading as UNIDOSus.



An American immigrant is not someone supported by government funds in a "relocation" center; flown over here at government expense; given a cash allowance, free housing, and medical care; and then eased onto local public assistance: Section 8 rental grants, food stamps, WIC, AFDC, clothes from one government-sponsored charity or another, Medicaid, and public schooling, with free lunch and breakfasts and even help with furniture. That's not an immigrant.  That's a future Democrat voter.  ----- RICHARD F. MINITER – AMERICAN THINKER         COM


THE LA RAZA LOOTERS: THEY ALL VOTED DEMOCRAT FOR MORE WELFARE!

While you were sleeping, Mexico was invading, occupying, looting and voting Democrat for more.
“In 1960, according to a USC demographic study, fewer than 10% of the people in the Los Angeles County area were Latino. By 2008, according to federal census estimates, almost half were Latino. Roughly the same was true in the city of Los Angeles.”

''California is going to be a Hispanic state," said Mario Obeldo, former head of MALDEF. "Anyone who does not like it should leave." And MEChA's goal is even more radical: an independent ''Aztlan,'' the collective name this organization gives to the seven states of the U.S. Southwest – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah.”

LA RAZA AGENDA: 3 Examples

Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council "They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over. . We are here to stay."

Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave."
Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General We are practicing "La Reconquista" in California."

Here are a few facts you should consider when you finally look around yourself and see only Mexicans….Mexicans driving, Mexicans in our jobs, Mexicans in our welfare office, Mexicans flooding our healthcare systems, and Mexicans and only Mexicans at all construction sites.


CALIFORNIA UNDER MEXICAN OCCUPATION:

The State Government of CA hands illegals more than $30 BILLION per year in social services. That’s the state level we’re talking about. Counties hand out even more with Mex-occupied Los Angeles leading at $1 BILLION in welfare for Mexico’s anchor baby breeders. No legal in Los Angeles or California were ever given the opportunity to vote on Mexico’s welfare state in our open borders.

California has the largest and most expensive state prison system in the nation. Half the inmates are illegals from Mexico.

There have been more than 2,000 Californians murdered by Mexicans that fled back across the border to avoid prosecution.

According to former CA Attorney General Kamala Harris, now CA senator and advocate for amnesty, nearly HALF the murders in CA are by Mexican gangs.

Los Angeles is America’s and Mexico’s second largest city. Approximately 93% of the murders are committed by Mexicans.

The Los Angeles Police department publishes a list with images of the 200 most wanted criminals in Los Angeles. About 186 at any given time are Mexicans. Most of the rest are Russian and Armenians.

The County of Los Angeles spends about $300 million yearly to jail Mexican criminals.

The City of Los Angeles spends about $10 MILLION per year to clean up Mexican graffiti.

The City of Los Angeles has more than 100,000 homeless and bout 5 MILLION illegals housed and in jobs.

The tax-free underground economy in Los Angeles County is estimated to be in excess of $2 BILLION per year.

The City of Los Angeles tetters on bankruptcy. It will be the largest bankruptcy in American history and will end all City employee pensions. Still there will be no cuts related to the Mexican occupation.

California ranks No. 48 out of 50 states for abominable lower education quality. Mexicans loathe literacy and speaking the gringo language. Most Mexicans graduate from high school not being able to read at a third-grade level.

At Santee Public High School in Los Angeles, classes are taught in Spanish. Books are in Spanish and school assemblies end in “!Viva Mexico, Viva Mexico!”.

Many public schools in CA have prohibited Legals from wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo day.
California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra has been described in the press as a “Puss spewing racist”. Mexicans think of themselves as LA RAZA “The Race”. The A.G.’s website no longer list California’s most wanted criminals as they were all MEXICANS. Becerra, as Congressman, sucked in bribes from Mexican criminals.

There have been more than 82 private enterprise hospitals and clinics in CA driven into bankruptcy due to Mexico’s occupation of CA. It’s calculated that Mexico’s “free” gringo-paid healthcare in CA cost legals $1.5 BILLION per year. No illegal in Mexico received ANY medical attention, welfare or jobs.

The La Raza Sanctuary City of West Hollywood, which employs hordes of illegals, banned the use of gas leaf blowers in 1987. No City ordinances anywhere in CA ever apply to illegals. The City handed out more than 400 fines to gardeners who were all illegals from Mexico. The fines were never paid and were deemed uncollectable as these gardeners all had fraudulent IDs. Therefore they were out there driving unlicensed and uninsured. No illegal caught using a gas leaf blower and with fraudulent ID was or will ever be prosecuted. In CA La Raza is above the law.

In Los Angeles there have been numerous murders of innocent black Americans by Mexican gangs who were “ethnically cleansing” their hoods.

LA RAZA Gov Jerry Brown has signed each and every bill put before him that would expand Mexico’s supremacy in CA. Both houses of the state legislature are now controlled by Mexico.

Gov Jerry Brown has openly proclaimed that California is the Mexican’s “second home”, but when it comes to jobs, a tax-free lifestyle, welfare, “free” medical, education and housing for many, CA is the Mexican’s first home.

Former Mayor of Los Angeles and now candidate for Governor, Antonio Villaraigosa is a former member of the racist, violent, fascist separatist movement of M.E.Ch.A. 

Mexico has 50 consulates in American compared with the United Kingdom which has only 8. These consulates are LA RAZA headquarters to help Mexicans claim their “rights”, which is more welfare and “free” medical.

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General We are practicing "La Reconquista" in California."

ILLEGALS COSTING CALIFORNIA BILLIONS

By Jerry Seper 2004 ( THINK IT’S GOTTEN ANY BETTER SINCE 2004?)

THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published December 7, 2004

Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California -- which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide -- $10.5 (NOW $30 BILLION) billion a year for education, health care and incarceration, according to a study released yesterday. A key finding of the report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said the state's already struggling kindergarten-through-12th-grade education system spends $7.7 billion a year on children of illegal aliens, who constitute 15 percent of the student body. The report also said the incarceration of convicted illegal aliens in state prisons and jails and uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to illegal aliens each amounted to about $1.4 billion annually. The incarceration costs did not include judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes committed by illegal aliens that led to their incarceration. "California's addiction to 'cheap' illegal-alien labor is bankrupting the state and posing enormous burdens on the state's shrinking middle-class tax base," said FAIR President Dan Stein. "Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become," he said.

ALIEN NATION: Secrets of the Invasion….. It
S all about keeping wages depressed!

May 2006 – ALIEN NATION: Secrets of the Invasion – Why America's 
government invites rampant illegal immigration

It's widely regarded as America's biggest problem: Between 12 and 20 million aliens (MOST SOURCES SUGGEST THERE ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY NEARLY 40 MILLION ILLEGALS HERE NOW) – including large numbers of criminals, gang members and even terrorists – have entered this nation illegally, with countless more streaming across our scandalously unguarded borders daily.

The issue polarizes the nation, robs citizens of jobs, bleeds taxpayers, threatens America's national security and dangerously balkanizes the country into unassimilated ethnic groups with little loyalty or love for America's founding values. Indeed, the de facto invasion is rapidly transforming America into a totally different country than the one past generations have known and loved.
And yet – most Americans have almost no idea what is really going on, or why it is happening.

While news reports depict demonstrations and debates, and while politicians promise "comprehensive border security programs," no real answers ever seem to emerge.

But there are answers. Truthful answers. Shocking answers.
In its groundbreaking May edition, WND's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine reveals the astounding hidden agendas, plans and people behind America's immigration nightmare.

Titled "ALIEN NATION," the issue is subtitled "SECRETS OF THE INVASION:

 Why government invites rampant illegal immigration." Indeed, it reveals pivotal secrets very few Americans know. For example:

Did you know that the powerfully influential Council on Foreign Relations – often described as a “shadow government" – issued a comprehensive report last year laying out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter"?

Roughly translated: In the next few years, according to the 59-page report titled "Building a North American Community," the U.S. must be integrated with the socialism, corruption, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. As Phyllis Schlafly reveals in this issue of Whistleblower: "This CFR document asserts that President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin 'committed their governments' to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' and assigned 'working groups' to fill in the details. It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American Summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet 'vigilantes' on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona."

The CFR report – important excerpts of which are published in Whistleblower – also suggests North American elitists begin getting together regularly, and presumably secretly, "to buttress North American relationships, along the lines of the Bilderberg or Wehrkunde conferences, organized to support transatlantic relations." The Bilderberg and Wehrkunde conferences are highly secret conclaves of the powerful. For decades, there have been suspicions that such meetings were used for plotting the course of world events and especially the centralization of global decision-making.

Did you know that radical immigrant groups – including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) and the National Council of La Raza (La Raza) – not only share a revolutionary agenda of conquering America's southwest, but they also share common funding sources, notably the Ford and Rockefeller foundations?

''California is going to be a Hispanic state," said Mario Obeldo, former head of MALDEF. "Anyone who does not like it should leave." And MEChA's goal is even more radical: an independent ''Aztlan,'' the collective name this organization gives to the seven states of the U.S. Southwest – Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah. So why would the Rockefeller and Ford foundations support such groups? Joseph Farah tells the story in this issue of Whistleblower.

Why have America's politicians – of both major parties – allowed the illegal alien invasion of this nation to continue for the last 30 years unabated? With al-Qaida and allied terrorists promising to annihilate major U.S. cities with nuclear weapons, with some big-city hospital emergency rooms near closure due to the crush of so many illegals, with the rapid spread throughout the U.S. of MS-13, the super-violent illegal alien gang – with all this and more, why do U.S. officials choose to ignore the laws of the land and the will of the people to pursue, instead, policies of open borders and lax immigration enforcement?
The answers to all this and much more are in Whistleblower's "ALIEN NATION" issue.

Is there hope? Or is America lost to a demographic invasion destined to annihilate its traditional Judeo-Christian culture, and to the ever-growing likelihood that nuclear-armed jihadists will cross our porous borders and wreak unthinkable destruction here?

There most definitely is hope, according to this issue of Whistleblower. Although most politicians of both major political parties have long since abdicated their responsibility for securing America's borders and dealing effectively with the millions already here illegally, there are a few exceptions – most notably Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo.

May's Whistleblower includes an exclusive sneak preview of Tancredo's forthcoming blockbuster book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security." In an extended excerpt, Whistleblower presents Tencredo's expert and inspired analysis of exactly how to solve the nation's most vexing problem.


REALITY OF THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION AND MEXICAN SUPREMACY:

Banned: The American Flag on Cinco de Mayo

by Kevin McCullough
When 200 hispanic students skipped school last week and marched through downtown Morgan Hill, California chanting "Si se puede" intermixed with "We want respect," none were banned from school attendance on their return.
When five students, one of them an American from latino roots, wore American flags to school as a sign of patriotic speech, they were labeled incendiary. They were instructed to turn their shirts inside-out so as to cover up the American flag. And when they refused to surrender their first amendment right to expression, they were given unexcused absences.
Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez called the flag draped wardrobe "incendiary" because the students had chosen to worn them on May 5, popularly known as Cinco de Mayo. (A date that "celebrates" Mexico's defeat of the French in a single battle, in a war that Mexico eventually lost.)
The school's administration went further in claiming the five students were attempting "to start a fight" and "adding fuel to the fire."

Latino parents chimed in and chided the five students (one of which is of Mexican ethnic heritage) saying, "we're all offended by it."
One parent, Teresa Casillas, claimed her hispanic children were upset by the behavior of the boys wearing the flagged shirts, calling it disrespectful.
Yet for all the outcry, not an ounce of proof has erupted that the boys made any actions of provocation--except wear the shirts on Cinco De Mayo.

One of the more ignorant utterances by one of the hispanic student protestors summed up the stupidity best, "It's disrespectful to do it on Cinco de Mayo," said Jessica Cortez, a Live Oak sophomore. "They can be a patriot on some other day. Not that specific day."

And so this is what the argument has been reduced to.

I mean, you do understand don't you that Cinco de Mayo is not even celebrated en masse by Mexicans?

Yet the militant, belligerent, children of latinos living in Morgan Hill are exhibiting symptoms of a problem that is widespread. Raw naked entitlement that not only flouts the laws, but has now led to the limiting of the most legitimate expression whose freedom should always be protected: patriotism.
It was bad enough that the Obama administration went on a systematic campaign to discredit the recent right of the state of Arizona to reinforce federal guidelines for immigration. It was bad enough that the lies were widely told, and never retracted by news agencies that should have known better.

THE WEEK

Latino power comes full circle in L.A.

Once there was only Edward Roybal in a position of power. Today, as it did long ago, authority rests in many Latino hands.

By Cathleen Decker
April 11, 2010
The announcement last week that Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio will replace Cardinal Roger Mahony as head of the local Catholic diocese capped an assertion of power on the part of Latinos in Los Angeles that is remarkable in its seeming speed.

For decades, only one Latino held unquestioned public power: Edward R. Roybal, the first Latino to win a seat on the Los Angeles City Council. He spent 13 years there, then moved to Congress to serve 30 years, most of that time as the region's only Latino representative.
Now the power positions held by Latinos in the Los Angeles area are multiple and manifest. Besides the Mexico-born archbishop, who is in line to become the first U.S. prelate of Latino heritage to become a cardinal, there is the mayor. The speaker of the Assembly. The sheriff. A county supervisor. Several members of the City Council, of Congress, of the Legislature, of the Los Angeles school board. The head of the most influential civic entity, organized labor.
"It is coming full circle," said UC Berkeley associate professor Lisa García Bedolla, the author of two books on Latino politics. "That's what Los Angeles looked like before becoming part of the United States."

It is hardly accidental, however. The moves to the top in politics and other endeavors have required equal parts population shifts, hard-fought legal pursuit and political strategizing.
Population numbers are only the most obvious propellant for the ambitions of both the community and its leaders.
In 1960, according to a USC demographic study, fewer than 10% of the people in the Los Angeles County area were Latino. By 2008, according to federal census estimates, almost half were Latino. Roughly the same was true in the city of Los Angeles.
While trailing the population levels -- because of lagging citizenship numbers -- the ranks of Latino voters also swelled over those decades.

But their efforts to win elections were thwarted by political lines drawn to diminish their heft. In the mid-1980s, legal challenges began to chip away at those hurdles. First came a legal assault on the Los Angeles City Council's district boundaries, which led to the creation of what was called at the time a "Latino district."

GLORIA MOLINA – RACIST LATINA BITCH
Next came a federal court fight over the Board of Supervisors. A judge ultimately decided that the board had drawn its lines to intentionally discriminate against Latinos. The judge's ruling led directly to the election, in early 1991, of Gloria Molina to the board.

As inspiring to the community as the two legal moves were, however, they essentially accounted for a single seat each. A more prosaic development, term limits, would ultimately do far more, according to García Bedolla.

Beyond the churning of legislative and council seats was the coincident rise of organized labor as a factor benefiting Latinos and other minority candidates. Miguel Contreras, who took over the county labor federation in 1996, ran it like a powerhouse until his death in 2005. His widow and fellow union leader, Maria Elena Durazo, now heads the labor organization.

"They explicitly included immigrants . . . [which] made the Latino community a political force in progressive politics in a way they hadn't been before," García Bedolla said.
A conspiring assist came, at the same time, from the non-Latino head of the local Catholic Church. Mahony had made a name as a friend of immigrants and Latinos before he arrived in Los Angeles in 1985. As the Latino population of the area swelled, he waded into a host of civic entanglements on their behalf.

He publicly defended janitors during a nasty strike. He came out early and forcefully against Proposition 187, the 1994 measure to strip state services from illegal immigrants. (It passed overwhelmingly but was largely struck down by the courts.)

Kenneth Burt, the author of "The Search for a Civic Voice," a history of California Latino politics, credited Mahony for keeping peace in Los Angeles between groups seeking power and those afraid of losing it.

"He had a tremendous impact in empowering the Latino community and in sending a powerful signal that the rise of Latinos should not be seen as a threat," he said. "Even though he's Irish, he's the first Latino cardinal in spirit."

All told, the taking of power has been stunning in its breadth. A Loyola Marymount University study of the top 100 elected positions in Los Angeles from 1959 to 2009 found that for years, only one man -- Roybal -- made the list. The numbers increased only gradually until 1991, when altered political lines and long-thwarted ambition pushed the percentage of Latino seats to 18%. By last year, 33% were held by Latinos.

More subtle, perhaps, has been the more or less tranquil way that change has been accomplished. Although there have been periods of contention, the flow of power from whites and blacks to Latinos has happened with far less gnashing than might have been expected years ago.

In part, that is because both politicians and interest groups have worked at it. Los Angeles' mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, won election in his second attempt by attracting African American voters to go along with the Latino and Jewish voters who had earlier supported him. One of the main forces behind the career of former Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, an African American now running for Congress, has been the Latino-dominated labor movement.

Still, tensions are never far from view. The Republican primary for governor is currently aboil with the subject of illegal immigration, a perennial flash point. Although so far the issue has been of little consequence in the campaign, its presence suggests that some element of the public remains uncomfortable.

"I don't think you can get rid of so many decades of that competition and animosity quickly," said García Bedolla. "I think it's going to be a while before we stop having that sense that anything that is good for me is bad for you."

JUDICIAL WATCH.org 

Feds Probe University’s Device To Help Illegal Border Crossers

Nearly half a year after a professor at a public university spent taxpayer dollars to create a tool that helps Mexicans enter the United States illegally, the area’s congressional delegation has finally decided to investigate the matter.

The activist Chicano professor (Ricardo Dominguez) at the University of California San Diego, a major public institution not far from the Mexican border, proudly announced his new invention—Transborder Immigrant Tool—in November without scrutiny from university officials or the feds. The idea is to help Mexicans enter the U.S. illegally by mapping the safest routes through the notoriously rigorous southern border desert.
The innovative technology is a simple mobile application —inserted into the cheapest available cell phone on the market—which guides illegal aliens through the least dangerous routes, areas with shelter, food, water and so-called Quaker help centers that provide medical attention and directions to the nearest major U.S. highway. The mobile program is touted as an “intelligent agent algorithm” that parses out the best routes and trails on a particular day and hour so that Mexicans can cross the “vertiginous landscape” as safely as possible.

Dominguez, a tenured visual arts professor, was inspired to create the technology by the thousands of Mexicans who have died on their journeys north because they got lost in the treacherous terrain. For months he boasted about his new Transborder Immigrant Tool, but the publicity campaign has come to a screeching halt and his tenure is at risk because federal lawmakers are finally looking into the matter.

(CONGRESSMEN BILBRAY, AND HUNTER 

ARE TWO OF THE VERY FEW ELECTED IN 

MEXIFORNIA NOT WORKING FOR 

EXPANDING THE MEXICAN INVASION)

The area’s three representatives in the U.S. House—Brian Bilbray, Duncan Hunter and Darrell Issa—are demanding that the university’s chancellor provide a precise accounting of public funds associated with the Transborder Immigrant Tool. Referring to it as a “troubling use of taxpayer dollars,” the legislators point out that those who worked on the device may be committing a federal felony by encouraging illegal immigration.

Dominguez has dismissed the probe as a sort of witch hunt, assuring that he used less than $10,000 in taxpayer grants and suggesting the congressman should be more concerned about the cost of investigating him. That amount, the professor believes, will be much more than what he spent on the entire project to help illegal border crossers.

Mexico’s government has provided its nationals with valuable tools to help them cross the border safely but Dominguez is the first American resident, with a salary provided by U.S. taxpayers, to openly promote such a gadget. A few years ago Mexican officials published a 32-page booklet (Guia Del Migrante Mexicano) with safety tips for border crossers and distributed hand-held satellite devices to ensure the violators complete their journey safely.

August 5, 2017

So addicts must show photo IDs to get off drugs, but not to vote?


The homeless, downtrodden, and poor who show up at drug detox centers all must show photo identification to get treatment.  It's done to prevent them from going to more than one center for whatever maintenance fix they may be receiving at the first center.  It is obvious that the government knows everyone has the capability to get a photo ID, so why do so many Democrats block that requirement when it comes to voting?  They use the false arguments of voter intimidation while dismissing the real issue that maintaining a fair election is extremely important to maintaining our freedoms. 
These are the same Democrats (and their media allies) who are complaining that Russia supposedly interfered in our election process.  Yet they do everything they can to block commonsense photo ID requirements that the majority of the public supports to ensure fair elections.  They call people racists who support these laws.  The fact that they fight these photo ID requirements shows they really don't care about the integrity of the voting process.
A couple excerpts from the following ABC News report:
The ID requirements at drug treatment facilities are intended to prevent people from enrolling in multiple programs and selling opioid medication such as methadone on the black market, said a spokesman from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, adding that programs would be liable for misuse of the medications.
Some detox centers will admit a person without ID first and make time later to sort out the person's identity, but doing so comes at risk of running afoul of federal and state regulations on dispensing medications, experts said.
The government requires the poor and elderly to have a photo ID to get food stamps, to open a bank account, to get welfare, to get Medicaid, and to get Social Security among many other things.  Yet..
Democrats will go to court to stop a state requiring people to get a photo ID to vote, using the argument that it is racist.  The fact that they require photo IDs for so many other things the poor and minorities have to do shows what a crock that argument is.
The only reason to block the photo ID laws for voting is to open up voting to fraud.


How many of those billions only go into the pockets of Mexicans who jumped our borders, jobs and welfare offices?





California Risks Billions in 


Sanctuary City Suit Against 


Trump Administration




California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is launching a preemptive legal assault against the Trump Administration’s promise to pull tens of billions of dollars of federal funding from “sanctuary cities” that do not cooperate in enforcement against illegal aliens.

Attorney General Becerra is leading a coalition of 300 cities, 18 counties, and the State of California that intend to sue the Trump Administration over U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ plan to begin cutting off funding to jurisdictions tagged by the U.S. Justice Department as “sanctuary cities” that harbor illegal aliens from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, according to the Sacramento Bee.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Inspector General issued a memorandum in August 2016 advising that sanctuary city practices violate federal law. The IG “finding” empowers Attorney General Sessions with the authority to seek court orders to strip up to about $135 million in federal grants to California state and local law enforcement agencies that refuse to comply with U.S. laws. The Justice Department could also broaden the cut-off to another $360 million in drug enforcement grants to schools, harbors, and airports.
President Trump on January 25th issued Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvement to give the Justice Department the power to ban federal funding for sanctuary cities. U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick III, an Obama appointee, ruled in April that the executive order was unconstitutional, but the Trump Administration has filed an appeal and expects to get a ruling overturning the lower court.
The Trump Administration is seeking broader authority with the Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently passing Kate’s Law, which would increase maximum penalties for criminal aliens who attempt to re-enter the country, and H.R. 3003, which would cut funding to sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration laws.
With the U.S. Senate expected to soon pass similar legislation for President Trump’s signature, California Democrats understand that $93.6 billion in federal funding, amounting to about 37 percent of the state’s $252.5 billion in spending for fiscal year 2015, is at risk of being suspended over issues associated with sanctuary cities.
The breakdown of California’s federal funding, by department, includes: 52 percent for Health and Human Services (Medicaid); an average of 25 percent of all state and local government general revenues for Labor and Workforce Development; 14 percent for Education; 6 percent for Transportation; 2 percent for Legislative, Judicial and Executive; and 1 percent for General Government, which includes Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, Corrections and Rehabilitation, State and Consumer Services.
In an added risk to Democrats, Breitbart California editor Joel Pollak reported on August 5th that Judicial Watch just wrote a letter to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla questioning why 11 of California’s 58 counties appear to be in violation of the U.S. Voter Registration Act by having more registered voters than adults over the age of 18.
With a background that included 13 years working in the Civil Division of the state attorney general’s office, 12 terms in Congress, and being the second ranking Democrat on the powerful U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, California Governor Jerry Brown appointed Becerra as Attorney General in January to gain insight into how far California’s sanctuary cities and counties can push back against President Trump, before his Administration retaliates with a funding cutoff and aggressive enforcement of voter laws.


............ you really want the borders wide open?



Barrio 18: Meet the terrifying gang with 50,000 foot-soldiers across the US and so unashamedly violent it rivals MS-13

  • US has vowed to crack down on ultra-violent transnational gang MS-13

  • But MS-13's arch-rival gang Barrio 18 has a sickening reputation 

  • Founded in Los Angeles and spread throughout Mexico and Central America
  • Believed to have 30,000 to 50,000 members across 20 US states

  • Allied with the Mexican Mafia gang but sworn rivals to MS-13 
MS-13 isn't the only gang sowing violence and terror from Central America to the US: meet Barrio 18.
Arch-rivals to MS-13, Barrio 18 has an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 members across 20 US states and is linked to drugs, murder, kidnappings and other violent crime from Central America to Canada.
'With thousands of members across hundreds of kilometers, and interests in a number of different illicit activities, Barrio 18 is one of the more significant emerging criminal threats in the region,' write analysts for the think-tank InSight Crime.
Last week, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions visited his counterpart in El Salvador to discuss ways to crack down on transnational gangs - MS-13 and Barrio 18 chief among them.
But if history is any guide, eradicating Barrio 18 will be easier said than done. 
Barrio 18 is a terrifying gang that spreads from the US to Central America, rivals to MS-13
Barrio 18 is a terrifying gang that spreads from the US to Central America, rivals to MS-13
A Barrio 18 member displays his tattoos, including 'Brown Pride' and XVIII, on the gang's turf in Los Angeles. The gang has a reported presence in 20 US states
A Barrio 18 member displays his tattoos, including 'Brown Pride' and XVIII, on the gang's turf in Los Angeles. The gang has a reported presence in 20 US states
The gang is also known as the 18th Street Gang. Pictured: Members  in the Quezaltepeque jail outside of San Salvador in El Salvador
The gang is also known as the 18th Street Gang. Pictured: Members in the Quezaltepeque jail outside of San Salvador in El Salvador
Also known as 18th Street, the gang has its roots in Los Angeles of the 1960s, where it was originally composed of Mexican immigrants.

WHAT IS BARRIO 18?

The gang was founded in Los Angeles decades ago, and has spread across the US and Central America.
Members: Estimated 30,000 to 50,000 in the US
Colors: Blue and black
Allied with: Mexican Mafia
Enemies of: MS-13
Activities: Drug dealing, burglary, assault, extortion, prostitution, human trafficking, homicide 
Over the decades, though, Barrio 18 threw open its recruitment to members from Central America as well, often targeting the elementary and middle-school children of immigrants.
As the gang's ranks grew, it became the target of FBI and police crackdowns, sending many of its veteran members to prison.
But time behind bars just gave Barrio 18's shot-callers a fertile new recruiting ground, and it quickly swelled its ranks in federal prisons.
Stepped up deportations also had an unintended effect, spreading the gang's reach to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras as hardened members were shipped back to their native countries, where they have battled brutally with MS-13.
A Barrio 18 member is seen in the 'gang cage' in El Salvador. His tattoos include BEST (for 'Barrio Eighteenth Street'), 666 (for 6+6+6=18) and X8, which stands for absolute gang loyalty
A Barrio 18 member is seen in the 'gang cage' in El Salvador. His tattoos include BEST (for 'Barrio Eighteenth Street'), 666 (for 6+6+6=18) and X8, which stands for absolute gang loyalty
The Barrio 18 gang was founded in Los Angeles and was initially ethnically Mexican, but has grown enormously in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatamala. Pictured: Members in El Salvador
The Barrio 18 gang was founded in Los Angeles and was initially ethnically Mexican, but has grown enormously in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatamala. Pictured: Members in El Salvador
The gang is  notorious for enforcing strict rules and absolute obedience among its ranks
The gang is notorious for enforcing strict rules and absolute obedience among its ranks
Barrio 18 members are seen in a transfer to the San Francisco Gotera penitentiary in 2015. The El Salvadoran government transferred 1,177 members to the US in an effort to curb the gang
Barrio 18 members are seen in a transfer to the San Francisco Gotera penitentiary in 2015. The El Salvadoran government transferred 1,177 members to the US in an effort to curb the gang
Loosely coordinated between cells or 'cliques' even at the local level, Barrio 18 isn't believed to have a 'godfather'-style leader
Loosely coordinated between cells or 'cliques' even at the local level, Barrio 18 isn't believed to have a 'godfather'-style leader
Loosely coordinated between cells or 'cliques' even at the local level, Barrio 18 isn't believed to have a 'godfather'-style leader.
That's made it difficult to target under racketeering laws, the tactic that brought down many Mafia families. 

BARRIO 18 TATTOOS 

18, XVIII or XV3
666 or 99 (for 6+6+6=18 or 9+9=18)
BEST (for 'Barrio Eighteenth Street')
8P (for having killed a police officer)
X8 (total loyalty to the gang) 
The gang is nevertheless notorious for enforcing strict rules and absolute obedience among its ranks, and failure to show proper respect can bring severe punishment, including execution.
Barrio 18 cliques have been linked to the international drug trade, and the gang is closely allied with the Mexican Mafia, another Hispanic organized crime ring with its origins in US prisons. 
Their colors, blue and black, even pay tribute to the Mexican Mafia: blue for the allied gang, and black for Barrio 18's original color.
Barrio 18 tattoos can include: 18, XVIII, XV3, BEST (for 'Barrio Eighteenth Street) and 8P (stands for killing a police officer).
Another tattoo, X8, stands for absolute loyalty to the gang. 
Members of the Barrio 18 gang are presented to the media after a police raid in San Salvador
Members of the Barrio 18 gang are presented to the media after a police raid in San Salvador
The gang has sown terror from its origin in Los Angeles throughout Central America. Pictured: A grandmother and her grandson walk past Barrio 18 graffiti in San Salvador
The gang has sown terror from its origin in Los Angeles throughout Central America. Pictured: A grandmother and her grandson walk past Barrio 18 graffiti in San Salvador
Barrio 18 and MS-13 have waged a bloody gang war with each other spanning several countries
Barrio 18 and MS-13 have waged a bloody gang war with each other spanning several countries
Barrio 18 members are the sworn enemies of MS-13, another gang with its origins in California that has since spread in Central American countries with weakened governments.
'These two gangs have turned the Central American northern triangle into the area with the highest homicide rate in the world,' the US Justice Department wrote in a 2013 report. 
Like MS-13, the decentralized structure of Barrio 18 has made it incredibly resistant to decades of efforts to eradicate it.
'They're worse than a cancer,' gang expert Gabriel Kovnator told the Los Angeles Times all the way back in 1996.
'A cancer you can kill. These guys keep growing.'

Video playing bottom right...

Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:03
Pause
Unmute
Current Time0:03
/
Duration Time1:58
Fullscreen
ExpandClose

BARRIO 18 GANG RULES 

For its members, Barrio 18 enforces absolute obedience to the following rules:
Respect and attend meetings 
Speak the truth at the meetings
Respect the 'palabreros' (veteran members at the top of the gang hierarchy)
Be a good example to the recently initiated members
Don't walk around drunk or sleep in the streets
Respect relatives of the gang members, including their girlfriends
No crack, including the type coated in paint thinner
Fight with the enemy, not amongst yourselves
Don't mention 'the letters' (rival gang MS-13)
Don't use a red bandanna or red hat (rival gang colors)
Search out weapons for the gang
Take revenge for the members who have died for the cause
Don't leave any members behind
Don't graffiti in red
Don't talk about gang business around outsiders
Ask permission before tattooing your face 
You must carry out a 'mission' before getting initiated (getting beaten up for 18 seconds by four members while another counts)
No women in the gang 
No rape
No snitching
Source: InSight Crime 




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764744/Barrio-18-Meet-terrifying-gang-rivals-MS-13.html#ixzz4ozPMp7Ln 



THE LA RAZA PLAN: California’s final surrender to fly the 

Mexican flag within 4 years.


"The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."

  -- - EXCELSIOR --- national newspaper of Mexico


They claim all of North America for Mexico!


(WARNING! THE BELOW LINK IS GRAPHIC ON MEXICAN HATRED OF LEGALS)

NOW MULTIPLY THESE COSTS BY 40 MILLION!

 The NAS estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants based on their educational attainment. Averaging those estimates and applying them to the education level of illegal immigrants shows a net fiscal drain of $65,292 per illegal — excluding any costs for their children.

Deportation vs. the Cost of Letting Illegal Immigrants Stay
By Steven A. Camarota on August 3, 2017


Steven A. Camarota is the director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies.


The findings of this analysis show that the average cost of a deportation is much smaller than the net fiscal drain created by the average illegal immigrant. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported the average deportation cost as $10,854 in FY 2016. In FY 2012, ICE removed 71 percent more aliens with a similar budget, creating an average inflation-adjusted cost of $5,915. This compares to an average lifetime net fiscal drain (taxes paid minus services used) of $65,292 for each illegal immigrant, excluding their descendants. This net figure is based on fiscal estimates of immigrants by education level from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS).1 The total fiscal drain for the entire illegal population is estimated at $746.3 billion. Of course, simply because deportation is much less costly than allowing illegal immigrants to stay does not settle the policy questions surrounding illegal immigration as there are many factors to consider.
Deportation costs:
·         In April of this year, ICE reported that the average cost of a deportation, also referred to as a removal, was $10,854 in FY 2016, including apprehension, detention, and processing.
·         Partly due to policies adopted in the second term of the Obama administration, ICE removed nearly 170,000 fewer aliens in 2016 than in 2012, even though it actually spent 8 percent more in 2016 in inflation-adjusted dollars. The removal of so many more illegal immigrants in FY 2012 means that the average cost per removal in that year was $5,915, adjusted for inflation.
·         If the average cost of a deportation was what it had been in FY 2012, then the larger enforcement budget in FY 2016 would have allowed for 200,000 more removals without spending additional money.
Costs of illegal immigrants:
·         Researchers agree that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education. There is also agreement that immigrants with this level of education are a significant net fiscal drain, creating more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
·         The NAS estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants based on their educational attainment. Averaging those estimates and applying them to the education level of illegal immigrants shows a net fiscal drain of $65,292 per illegal — excluding any costs for their children.2
·         Based on this estimate, there is a total lifetime fiscal drain of $746.3 billion. This assumes 11.43 million illegal immigrants are in the country based on the U.S. government's most recent estimate.
·         The fiscal cost created by illegal immigrants of $746.3 billion compares to total a cost of deportation of $124.1 billion, assuming a FY 2016 cost per deportation, or $67.6 billion using FY 2012 deportation costs.
Important caveats about these estimates:
·         The NAS projects future fiscal impacts. A significant share of the current illegal population are not recent arrivals, so some of the net burden they create has already been incurred. We estimate that one-fifth ($13,058) of the average fiscal deficit the current population of illegal immigrants creates has already been incurred by taxpayers.
·         The above cost estimates are only for the original illegal immigrant, and exclude descendants. Using the NAS net cost estimates for the descendants adds $16,998 to the net fiscal drain.
·         ICE's estimate for deportation costs does not include the costs of the immigration courts run by the Department of Justice. Dividing the court's budget in 2016 by the number deportations adds $1,749 to the average cost of a removal and $770 to the 2012 cost, in 2016 dollars.
·         To create its long-term fiscal estimates, the NAS uses the concept of "net present value" (NPV), which is commonly used by economists. This approach has the effect of reducing the size of the net fiscal drain that unskilled immigrants create because costs or benefits years from now are valued less relative to more immediate costs. If the NPV concept is not used, the actual net lifetime fiscal cost of illegal immigrants is likely $120,000 to $130,000 per illegal alien, or between $1.4 and $1.5 trillion for the entire illegal alien population, excluding descendants.
Introduction
One argument made by opponents of immigration enforcement is that it would be prohibitively expensive to deport all illegal immigrants, so we have to amnesty them.3 Advocates of enforcement argue this is a false choice as it is not necessary to deport all or even most illegal immigrants. Rather, actually enforcing immigration laws would cause many illegal immigrants to return to their home countries on their own.4 It would also discourage new illegal immigrants from coming. Nonetheless, the cost of deportations vs. allowing illegal immigrants to stay is still an important question.
To answer that question, this analysis takes the cost that Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) estimates for the average deportation and compares it to the lifetime fiscal impact of the average illegal immigrant. We estimate two different deportation costs because ICE's immigration enforcement budgets have been relatively stable in recent years, but the number of deportations has varied considerably, creating very different average deportation costs. To calculate the net fiscal impact of the average illegal immigrant, we take their likely education levels and apply fiscal estimates (taxes paid minus costs) developed by the NAS for immigrants by education level. Our findings show that deportation is much less costly than allowing illegal immigrants to stay. Of course, fiscal impacts are not the only consideration when weighting the various policy options.
Methodology
The Costs of Alien Removal
ICE's Costs per Removal. Determining how much it costs to deport, or more accurately formally remove, a non-citizen from the United States is not as straightforward a question as it might seem because ICE has multiple missions and legal responsibilities. Much of what ICE does has nothing to do with immigration, such as countering the smuggling of drugs and contraband across the border; stopping the illegal export of sensitive technology; stopping weapons trafficking; preventing the production and sale of child pornography via the internet; and intercepting stolen art and antiques. In short, the budget of ICE is not a budget solely for immigration enforcement.
In April 2017, ICE estimated that the average cost per deportation was $10,854 in FY 2016. This figure includes "all costs necessary to identify, apprehend, detain, process through immigration court, and remove an alien."5 Based on this description, the estimate seems comprehensive, including the costs for both Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which does most of the immigration removal work, and the legal division, which provides the trial attorneys who prosecute removal cases via the Office of the Professional Legal Advisor (OPLA). These two entities comprise the overwhelming share of spending on removals.
One complicating factor when considering enforcement costs is the number of removals. ICE removed only 240,255 aliens in FY 2016 compared to 409,849 in FY 2012.6 However, the ICE enforcement budget in 2016 was actually 7.62 percent larger than in 2012, adjusted for inflation. Yet they removed about 70.59 percent more people in 2012 than in 2016.7 Based on these numbers, the average cost of a deportation in 2012 was equal to only 54.5 percent of the per-removal cost in 2016.8 Using ICE's per-removal cost figure for 2016 gives an inflation-adjusted cost per removal in 2012 of $5,915 ($10,854 * 54.5 percent).9 If costs were what they had been in 2012, adjusted for inflation, then about 200,000 more aliens could have been removed for the same amount of money in 2016.
The Immigration Courts. Based on the description provided by ICE, the estimated removal costs do not include expenditures for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which is part of the Department of Justice.10 Though it has a few other responsibilities, the overwhelming share of EOIR's workload is for removals. In FY 2016, EOIR's budget was $420.3 million and there were 240,255 removals in that year, which would mean that EOIR's cost per removal was $1,749.11 In 2012, EIOR's budget was $315,389,590 (in 2016 dollars). If we divide this by the number of deportations in 2012, the per-capita court costs were $770.
Declining Number of Removals. It is certainly possible to remove significantly more people with the current budget. The government actually did so in 2012. If enforcement was stepped up it seems almost certain that the lower cost per removal would continue, provided that policies continue to encourage enforcement operations rather than discourage them. During the second term of the Obama administration, policies prohibiting agents from arresting aliens became increasingly stringent. A recent GAO report found that the backlog of pending cases that are carried over from the prior year in immigration court more than doubled between 2006 and 2015.12
In his analysis of the GAO report, former immigration judge Andrew R. Arthur explains that several factors have caused the pace of deportations to slow.13 In addition to ICE arresting fewer aliens, the number of continuances granted by the courts has ballooned and, as a consequence, the number of cases completed by the courts has declined. One of the biggest reasons for the recent slowdown in removals is the priorities of the Obama administration, including the decision to admit so many unaccompanied minors at the border and the burden on the courts resulting from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
The Trump administration has curtailed some of these policies. Moreover, the number of arrests by ICE has increased substantially in the first few months of the new administration even though the administration has yet to implement the president's directive to increase the ERO agent corps.14 The increase in arrests certainly demonstrates that the enforcement capacity of ICE, given its current staffing levels, allows for a much greater level of activity than was seen in Obama's second term. It remains to be seen if the number of removals returns to the same level as 2012. However, if the costs of deportation were what they had been in 2012 then the somewhat larger enforcement budget in 2016 would have allowed for the removal of at least 200,000 more aliens with the same budget.
The Cost of Illegal Immigration
Estimating the Costs of Illegal Immigrants. There is a good deal of agreement among researchers that the education level of immigrants is a key factor in determining their net fiscal impact. As a recent study by the NAS states, the education level of arriving immigrants is one of the "important determinants" of their fiscal impact.15 This finding is similar to a 1997 study by NAS that also examined the fiscal impact of immigrants.16This conclusion also is mirrored by a 2013 study from the Heritage Foundation.17 Referring to the education level of household heads, Heritage concluded that, "Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors." But at the same time, "Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes." My own research has come to the same conclusion.18 The reason for this is straightforward: Those with modest levels of education tend to earn low wages in the modern American economy, and as a result tend to make low tax payments and often qualify for means-tested programs. The less-educated are a net fiscal drain, on average, regardless of legal status or if they were born in the United States or a foreign country.
Education Levels of Illegal Immigrants. In terms of the educational attainment of illegal immigrants, there is a good deal of evidence that they have modest levels of education, much lower than native-born Americans or legal immigrants. The Heritage Foundation study cited above estimated that, on average, illegal immigrants have 10 years of schooling. In an earlier analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of illegal immigrants based on 2011 Census Bureau data, we found that 54 percent of adults have not completed high school, 25 percent have only a high school degree, and 21 percent have education beyond high school.19 The Pew Research Center estimated that 47 percent of all illegal immigrants have not completed high school, 27 percent have only a high school education, 10 percent have some college, and 15 percent have a bachelor's or more.20
We have updated our prior estimate from 2011 for adult illegal immigrants using a combined sample from the 2014 and 2015 Current Population Surveys. We find that adult illegal immigrants have become somewhat more educated since 2011, but the vast majority still have very modest levels of education. Our best estimate is that 49 percent have not graduated high school, 28 percent have only a high school education, 11 percent have some college, 9 percent a bachelor's degree, and 3 percent have a graduate degree.
It is also worth noting that illegal immigrants overall are significantly more educated than we reported in an earlier analysis, which focused only on illegal border-crossers.21 Illegal crossers tend to be the least-educated component of illegal immigration because more educated foreign nationals wishing to come to the United States can often qualify for temporary visas, which they can then overstay.22 The focus of this analysis is the overall illegal immigrant population, which includes both visa overstayers and illegal border-crossers. Even though illegal immigrants overall are more educated than illegal border-crossers and illegal immigrants have become more educated over time, as a group they remain much less educated than the native-born or legal immigrants.
Fiscal Impact by Education Level. The 2016 NAS study mentioned above projected the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants by education. These estimates are expressed as a net present value (NPV). This is a concept used in fiscal studies, and in other contexts, to express the sum total of costs or benefits over long periods of time — in this case a lifetime. NPV represents the fiscal balance (taxes paid minus costs) if we had to spend the money today. Costs or benefits in the future are discounted or reduced based on how long from now they occur. Later in this report, we discuss in more detail the concept of net present value, both its usefulness and it shortcomings.
The NAS study does not report separate estimates for illegal and legal immigrants. Rather, it simply estimates tax payments and expenditures on immigrants as they appear in Census Bureau data, primarily the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement. As a result, the estimates from the NAS are for both legal and illegal immigrants by education. The NAS fiscal projections include eight different scenarios, each with different assumptions about future spending, tax rates, and the future flow of immigrants. It is not entirely clear what set of fiscal assumptions are best, and the NAS study itself does not identify the one best scenario. In Table 1 we simply take all 8 scenarios and average them together by education level.

Fiscal Impact of Average Immigrant by Education

It should be pointed out that in every scenario from the NAS, as shown in Table 1, immigrants without a high school education are a significant net fiscal drain during their lifetimes. That is, they pay less in taxes than they use in services. Those with only a high school education are a net fiscal drain in seven of the eight scenarios. In contrast, the most educated immigrants, those with at least a bachelor's degree, are a net fiscal benefit in all eight scenarios. This is very important because the vast majority of adult illegal immigrants in the country lack a high school diploma or have only a high school education.
Calculating the Fiscal Impact of Illegal Immigrants. The first column of Table 2 reports the average fiscal effect of immigrants by education level, taken directly from the bottom of Table 1. Column 2 shows the education level of illegal immigrants in the country as discussed above. Column 3 multiplies the average cost by the share of illegal immigrants who fall into that educational category and the bottom of column 3 adds up the costs to give a weighted average. This means that, using the NAS average fiscal costs of immigrants by education and assuming the educational distribution of illegal immigrants shown in the table, the average lifetime fiscal drain is $70,788 per immigrant. However, for reasons discussed below we think this figure overstates the net fiscal costs.

Lifetime Fiscal Impact of Illegal Immigrants

As already mentioned, the NAS fiscal analysis is for immigrants overall — both legal and illegal. Although illegal immigrants do access some welfare programs and create other significant costs, it should still be the case that less-educated illegal immigrants create smaller net fiscal costs than less-educated legal immigrants. Unfortunately, the NAS study has very little discussion of how legal and illegal immigrants differ in their fiscal impact. The study does state on page 280 that, "unauthorized immigrants as a group may have a more positive fiscal impact than authorized immigrants." (Emphasis added.) We agree with their tentative conclusion and so we adjust downward the fiscal drain created by less-educated illegal immigrants relative to illegal immigrants.
To estimate the adjustment factor, we use the Heritage Foundation study mentioned above. That study has estimates for immigrants by education and legal status.23 Adjusting has the effect of reducing the fiscal costs for less-educated illegal immigrants, but it also reduces the fiscal benefits for immigrants who are more educated.24 Since highly educated illegal immigrants make up only a small share of all illegal immigrants, adjusting downward their positive fiscal impact has only a modest impact on the fiscal estimates. The right lower corner of Table 2 shows that the fiscal cost of an illegal immigrant once we include the adjustment is $62,582. Adjusting reduces the fiscal cost by $8,205. There is also the issue of inflation. The NAS fiscal estimates are reported in 2012 dollars. If we convert them to 2016 dollars so that they match the ICE 2016 deportation cost estimate, then the net lifetime fiscal drain of illegal immigrants would be $ $65,292.
One way to think about the above estimates is that for every million illegal immigrants in the country there is a lifetime fiscal drain of $65.3 billion on public coffers. If we assume there are 11.43 million illegal immigrants in the country, then the total fiscal costs they create during their lifetimes using the net present value concept is $746.3 billion.25 In short, the savings associated with removing or causing even a modest fraction of the 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants in the country to return home would be significant.
Costs Already Borne. The NAS fiscal estimates are for newly arrived immigrants during their lifetimes projected forward. Since this analysis is concerned with the existing population of illegal immigrants, some share of the net fiscal costs they create has already been incurred. Based on the age of the illegal population and their time already in the United States, we estimate that one-fifth of their costs have already been incurred. If correct, the remaining fiscal costs of illegal immigrants on average are $52,234 ($65,292 * .80).26While the full cost of illegal immigrants is important, when considering deportation costs relative to fiscal costs, the remaining fiscal impact of allowing illegal immigrants to remain is also an important comparison.
Do Net Present Values Make Sense? The concept of net present value employed by the NAS study reduces or "discounts" costs or benefits in the future based on how long in the future they take place. Page 325 of the NAS study states that they used a 3 percent annual discount rate, which is common in this kind of analysis. So, for example, the fiscal balance (whether a net drain or benefit) an immigrant creates two years after arrival is reduced by about 6 percent. After 10 years, the amount is reduced by about 26 percent and at 20 years the discount is 45 percent. This means events that occur further in the future have a smaller impact on the total cost or benefit. Comparing the net present value fiscal costs illegal immigrants create to the costs of removal can be seen as reasonable because a removal has to be paid for up front while the fiscal drain accrues over time. By using a NPV it makes the costs of removal comparable to the lifetime costs illegal immigrants create.
The primary disadvantage of using NPV for fiscal estimates is that it masks the actual size of future outlays created by less-educated illegal immigrants. For example, using a 3 percent annual discount rate, as the NAS study does, means that if an illegal immigrant creates a net fiscal burden of $10,000 in the 23rd year of the projection, only about half of this amount will be added to the total NPV. Without discounting, the actual outlays associated with illegal immigrants are much larger. If the NPV concept is not used, the actual net lifetime fiscal cost of illegal immigrants is likely $120,000 to $130,000 per illegal alien, or between $1.4 and $1.5 trillion for the entire illegal population, again assuming 11.43 million illegal immigrants are in the country.
Making Different Assumptions
Including Descendants. There are four key variables in the above calculations that potentially impact the results. The first is whether to include the children of illegal immigrants. Many of the descendants of less-educated immigrants struggle, often earning low wages themselves and making use of welfare programs and other public services. If we use the NAS study's estimates that include the progeny of immigrants, it adds $16,998 (in 2016 dollars) to the net fiscal drain, raising the total for the average illegal immigrant to $82,290. If we assume 11.43 million illegal immigrants are in the country, then the total cost of illegal immigrants and their descendants would be $940.6 billion. If the concept of net present value is not used, then the costs for illegal immigrants and their children would approach $2 trillion. But the tax payments and costs created by the descendants of immigrants in the NAS study go out 75 years. Projections of this length involve significant uncertainty.
Impact of Different Fiscal Assumptions. The second question is which fiscal scenario from the NAS study to use. (All of the scenarios are shown in Table 1 of this report.) Scenario 1 makes assumptions that are most favorable to the fiscal impact of immigrants. If we use only this scenario, then the net fiscal costs created by the average illegal immigrant drop significantly, to $8,018 in 2016 dollars. This is somewhat less than deportation costs in 2016 and somewhat more than the cost in 2012. But this scenario assumes federal spending will not conform to historical patterns and, instead, that spending will be lower and tax payments higher in the future. Further, this scenario assumes away costs for public goods, interest payments on the national debt, and other expenses. All of this seems extremely optimistic. On the other hand, scenario 8, which makes the most pessimistic assumptions about the future, shows a net fiscal impact for each illegal immigrant of $118,091 in 2016 dollars. Averaging out all the scenarios, as we do, reduces the impact of extreme assumptions and provides a realistic assessment of the likely future fiscal impact of illegal immigrants. The fiscal drain varies significantly depending on which scenario is used, but seven out of eight scenarios show a large negative lifetime fiscal impact for the average illegal immigrant.
Illegal Immigrant Education Level. The third key assumption in our estimates is the education level of illegal immigrants. As already discussed, there is widespread agreement that illegal immigrants are a relatively unskilled population. If we assume that illegal immigrants are as educated as Pew estimated, the average fiscal cost would still be very large — $60,280 in 2016 dollars. This is very similar to our estimate of $65,295. Again, Pew's figures show that about three-quarters of illegal immigrants have less than a high school education or only a high school education, and this makes them a large fiscal drain.
Legal vs. Illegal Immigrants. Finally, there is the question of the difference between the net fiscal impact of all immigrants (legal and illegal) by education level, which is what the NAS estimated, and the fiscal impact of illegal border-crossers. In Table 2 we adjust the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants significantly, reducing the costs of illegal immigrants relative to immigrants of the same education by almost 12 percent, or $8,205. If we instead used a larger discount of 50 percent for all educational categories, the net fiscal costs of illegal immigrants would still be $36,926 in 2016 dollars. Under a 50 percent reduction, every one million illegal immigrants would still create a net fiscal drain of almost $37 billion during their lifetimes.
It is important to keep in mind that, mathematically, any reduction in costs for less-educated illegal immigrants means that the costs of less-educated legal immigrants must be correspondingly higher so that they average out to the NAS estimates for all immigrants. Immigrants in the Census data used by the NAS can only be either legal or illegal. So, for example, we estimate that 47 percent of all immigrants in the United States who lack a high school education are in the country illegally and 53 percent are legal immigrants. The average cost estimate from the NAS study for immigrants with this education level (legal and illegal) is $173,375, as shown in Table 1. Our estimation method, as explained above, reduces this amount by multiplying it by 67.6 percent (a 32.4 percent reduction). As a result, illegal immigrants with this education level create a lifetime fiscal drain of $117,236. This means that legal immigrants who have not graduated high school must create a drain of $223,159 for this to average out to the drain of $173,375 from the NAS study. If we increased the discount for illegal immigrants, thereby lowering their costs, and multiply the NAS estimate by, say, 50 percent, then the costs for illegal immigrants without a high school education would be $86,688, a good deal less than we report. But, the cost for legal immigrants without a high school education would have to grow to $250,249 so that it again averages out to the overall NAS estimate of $173,375 for all immigrants, legal and illegal, with this level of education. This drain for the least-educated legal immigrants seems implausibly large.
It is worth noting that because less-educated legal immigrants create a larger fiscal deficit than less-educated illegal immigrants, amnesty (legalization) for illegal immigrants would almost certainly increase the net fiscal costs to taxpayers, as illegal immigrants would become costly legal immigrants. Of course, this is only true for the less-educated illegal immigrants. The modest share of illegal immigrants who are well educated would be a significant fiscal benefit if legalized.
Conclusion
Overall, different assumptions can affect the results. But because the overwhelming share of illegal immigrants residing in the country have not completed high school or have only a high school education, it would require highly implausible assumptions to avoid a substantial net fiscal drain from this population. In short, illegal immigrants are a large net fiscal drain because of their education levels and this fact drives the results. Deportation, on the other hand, is not that costly relative to the fiscal costs illegal immigrants create. Of course, there are many other factors to consider when deciding on the best course of action than just the fiscal balance between removal and allowing illegal immigrants to remain. That said, deporting a large share of illegal immigrants can be justified from a fiscal point of view.


End Notes
1 Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie, eds., The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, September 22, 2016, p. 286.
2 Please see the methodology section of this report for an explanation of how we adjust downward the NAS fiscal cost estimates, which are for both legal and illegal immigrants, to reflect the costs for illegal immigrants only.
3 Philip E. Wolgin, "What Would It Cost to Deport 11.3 Million Unauthorized Immigrants?", Center for American Progress, August 2015.
4 William W. Chip "Mass Deportations vs. Mass Legalization: A False Choice", Center for Immigration Studies, March 2017.
5 Rafael Carranza, "How much does it cost to deport someone?"USA TODAY, April 28, 2017.
6 "FY 2016 ICE Immigration Removals", Immigration and Customs Enforcement, undated.
7 The 2016 ICE budget, including ERO and OPLA, can be found in this document on page 87. Their combined budgets in 2016 were $3,498,536,000. The FY 2012 budget can be found here. In FY 2012, the combined costs for these entities were $3,115,900,000, or $3,250,818,470 adjusted to 2016 dollars. Using the combined ERO and OPLA budgets and dividing by the number of deportations would produce a higher per-removal estimate than ICE reported to USAToday. However, ICE actually has detailed budget and operations figures that allow them to add up only removal costs excluding expenditures not related to deportation. This allows them to calculate the actual cost of the average deportation.
8 Calculating this percentage can be done simply by multiplying 1/1.7059 by 1/1.0762.
9 The most recent estimate from the U.S. government is that there are 11.43 million illegal immigrants in the country. Multiplying this figure by the deportation costs would create a total cost for deporting all illegal immigrants of $124.1 billion assuming a FY 2016 cost per deportation, or $67.6 billion using FY 2012 deportation costs. See Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytia, "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012", Department of Homeland Security, March 2013.
10 In addition to the courts themselves, EOIR also consists of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an appellate tribunal that reviews orders of removal, denials of relief from removal, and denial of certain immigration benefits applications outside the arena of the deportation process.
11 "FY 2016 ICE Immigration Removals", Immigration and Customs Enforcement, undated.
13 Andrew R. Arthur, "The Massive Increase in the Immigration Court Backlog, Its Causes, and Solutions", Center for Immigration Studies, July 2017.
14 "ICE ERO Immigration Arrests Climb Nearly 40%", Immigration and Customs Enforcement, May 2017.
15 Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie, eds., The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, September 22, 2016, p. 286.
16 James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration,Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 1997.
17 Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, "The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer", Heritage Foundation, May 6, 2013, p. v.
18 Steven A. Camarota, "The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget", Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004.
19 Steven A. Camarota, "Immigrants in the United States, 2010, A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population", Center for Immigration Studies, 2012, p. 69.
20 Jeffrey S. Passel and D'Vera Cohn, "A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States", Pew Hispanic Center, April 14, 2009, Figure 16, p. 11.
21 Steven A. Camarota, "The Cost of a Border Wall vs. the Cost of Illegal Immigration", Center for Immigration Studies, February 2017.
22 In contrast, a person with few years of schooling, a low-paying job, and no property in his or her home country is not likely to qualify for a tourist visa or other temporary visitor visa. Such persons would be seen as "intending immigrants", the terminology of the U.S. consular service; and the visa would be denied. As a result, the overall illegal immigrant population, which includes large numbers of overstayers, is significantly more educated than we previously estimated for new illegal new border-crossers.
23 The Heritage Foundation reports the average fiscal impact for illegal immigrant and legal immigrant households by education level. They also report the number of households by education and legal status. With this information it is a relatively straightforward matter to calculate the average fiscal impact of all immigrant households (legal and illegal) by education. We then divide this amount by the estimated costs for illegal households by education to create an adjustment factor. So, for example, among illegal high school dropout households, the net fiscal impact is -$20,485 a year, and for households headed by a legal immigrant who is a dropout, the drain is a good deal more: -$36,993. In Heritage's estimate, illegal immigrants create a net fiscal cost that is about 55 percent that of the burden created by households headed by high school dropout legal immigrants. But this is not the proper comparison, as the NAS estimates are for all immigrants, not just legal immigrants. Given the number of households Heritage reports, the fiscal impact for all immigrant households (legal and illegal) headed by a dropout must be -$30,294. As this equals .676 of the estimated costs of illegal dropout households reported in the Heritage study, this becomes the adjustment factor. We do the same for the other educational categories. As the Heritage study does not show separate estimates for those with only a bachelor's degree and those with a graduate education, we use the same adjustment factor for both. Taken together, this approach reduces the net fiscal drain of illegal immigrants by almost 12 percent.
24 This reflects the fact that while higher-skilled illegal immigrants are assumed to create a fiscal surplus, they often are unable to find work commensurate with their education level because of their legal status and so have to work at lower-paying jobs. They are also more likely to be paid "under the table" by their employers, reducing their tax contributions relative to their legal counterparts. As a result, they do not have as large a positive impact on public coffers as high-skilled legal immigrants.
25 The most recent government estimate of the illegal immigrant population is 11.43 million. See Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytia, "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012", Department of Homeland Security, March 2013.
26 The biggest limitation of this approach is that the NAS report does not include detailed fiscal balances by years in the United States and education making it difficult to know what share of the costs has already been incurred. Table 8-11 on page 338 of the study reports mortality and emigration assumptions. We do not change these.


L.A.County's $48 (DATED) Million Monthly Anchor Baby Tab
Last Updated: Wed, 08/12/2009 
Taxpayers in the nation’s most populous county dished out nearly $50 million in a single month to cover only the welfare costs of illegal immigrants, representing a whopping $10 million increase over the same one-month period two years ago.

In June 2009 alone Los Angeles County spent $48 million ($26 million in food stamps and $22 million in welfare) to provide just two of numerous free public services to the children of illegal aliens, which will translate into an annual tab of nearly $600 million for the cash-strapped county.

The figure doesn’t even include the exorbitant 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 $400 million for healthcare and $350 million for public safety.

The recent single-month welfare figure was obtained from the county’s Department of Social Services and made public by a county supervisor (Michael Antonovich) who assures illegal immigration continues to have a “catastrophic impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers.” The veteran lawmaker points out that 24% of the county’s total allotment of welfare and food stamp benefits goes directly to the children of illegal aliens—known as anchor babies—born in the United States.

A former fifth-grade history teacher who has served on the county’s board for nearly three decades, Antonovich has repeatedly come under fire for publicizing statistics that confirm the devastation illegal immigration has had on the region. Antonovich represents a portion of the county that is roughly twice the size of Rhode Island and has about 2 million residents.
Numerous other reports have documented the enormous cost of illegal immigration on a national level. Just last year a renowned economist, who has thoroughly researched the impact of illegal immigration, published a book breaking down the country’s $346 billion annual cost to educate, jail, medically treat and incarcerate illegal aliens throughout the U.S.


WELFARE COSTS FOR CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IN L.A. COUNTY OVER $48 MILLION IN JUNE

August 11, 2009—Figures from the Department of Public Social Services show that children of illegal aliens in Los Angeles County collected nearly $22 million in welfare and over $26 million in food stamps in June, announced Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. 

Projected over a 12 month period – this would exceed $575 (THE FIGURES ARE NOW IN EXCESS OF A BILLION PER YEAR) million dollars.
Annually the cost of illegal immigration to Los Angeles County taxpayers exceeds over $1 billion dollars, which includes $350 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $500 million in welfare and food stamps allocations. Twenty-four percent of the County’s total allotment of welfare and food stamp benefits goes directly to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States.

“Illegal immigration continues to have a catastrophic impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,” said Antonovich. “The total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education.”

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 DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ENORMOUS COST OF EDUCATING, MEDICALLY TREATING, OR INCARCERATING ILLEGALS ALIENS. THIS COSTS THE COUNTY AN ADDITIONAL ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

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 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.


CALIFORNIA MOVES CLOSER TO FINAL ANNEXATION BY MEXICO


DE FACTO CITIZENSHIP PER LA RAZA:

NO TEST, NO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON CRIMINALITY, NO BACK TAXES, NO 

FINES.... JUST JUMP STRAIGHT TO VOTING BOOTHS! AND VOTE OFTEN!!!

 

  

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/07/john-binder-californias-surrender-to.html

 


In 2013, California lawmakers passed legislation that allowed illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses if they can prove to the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) their identity and state residency. The plan was one of the largest victories to date by the open borders lobby.… JOHN BINDER – BREITBART.com

No comments: