Friday, March 9, 2018

THE LA RAZA SUPREMACY WELFARE STATE of CALIFORNIA WAGES WAR ON LEGALS, AMERICAN LAWS, U.S. BORDERS and the American People

CALI VS. USA 





Can leftists win the legal fight over sanctuary cities?

   
The Trump administration launched a long overdue legal assault this week on grotesquely unconstitutional new state laws in California that punish compliance with federal immigration laws and provide legal cover for state and local officials to continue brazenly flouting immigration laws and obstructing federal agents trying to enforce them.
Under the longstanding doctrine in American constitutional law known as “dual sovereignty,” states cannot be compelled to enforce federal immigration laws, but they are obliged not to hinder their enforcement. The so-called sanctuary cities that form the bulk of the sanctuary movement really ought to be called traitor cities because they are in open rebellion against the United States, just like the slave states that seceded from the Union before the Civil War.
The sanctuary movement gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans by, among other things, stigmatizing immigration enforcement. Some left-wingers use the dreadful euphemism "civil liberties safe zones" to describe sanctuary jurisdictions. The phrase deliberately blurs the distinction between citizens and non-citizens by implying illegal aliens somehow possess a civil right to be present in the U.S.
“Immigration law “is the province of the federal government” and while there may be “a wide variety of political opinions out there on immigration,” the law is on “the books and its purpose is clear,” U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions told law enforcement officers attending the California Peace Officers Association’s 26th Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day on Wednesday in the state capital of Sacramento.
Sessions continued:
There is no nullification. There is no secession. Federal law is "the supreme law of the land." I would invite any doubters to Gettysburg, and to the graves of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln. A refusal to apprehend and deport those, especially the criminal element, effectively rejects all immigration law and creates an open borders system. Open borders is a radical, irrational idea that cannot be accepted.
The United States of America is not "an idea;" it is a secular nation-state with a Constitution, laws, and borders, all of which are designed to protect our nation's interests.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a radical leftist, bristled at the attorney general’s Civil War rhetoric, moaning that he has no “credibility.”
“As far as I’m concerned, Jeff Sessions should be advised, and I’ll advise him right now, that it’s a bad idea for him to start talking about anything to do with the history of slavery or Reconstruction or the Civil War in the United States,” Harris said in the leftist echo chamber known as MSNBC.
“His credibility is pretty much shot on those issues.”
“I think that these folks are really mired in rolling back the clock in time, and that’s not going to happen,” Harris said.
“California represents the future, and they don’t like it,” the deluded lawmaker said. “Jeff Sessions has clearly put a target on the back of California, and California’s going to fight.”
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) blasted the lawsuit, describing it as “an act of war” against California that is part of “a reign of terror” against illegal aliens.
But California cannot win this battle without tearing the republic apart. Either the Golden State is part of the United States of America, bound by its laws and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, or it is not.
This cannot end well for California where radical leftist office-holders like Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf (D) are doubling down in their reckless defiance of the federal government. Schaaf now tips off illegal aliens about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids to applause from the mainstream media.
Schaaf piously insists her actions have not endangered ICE officers. “How can it be dangerous and illegal simply to tell people what the law is, what their rights are, what their resources are?” she said disingenuously. “That’s all I did.”
California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), the former San Francisco mayor who is running for governor, hailed Schaaf. "We can and must protect immigrant families from Donald Trump's mass deportations,” he said. “I want to thank Mayor Schaaf for her courage and hope more local leaders will follow her lead."
The new federal lawsuit unveiled by Sessions targets three new statutes in the chaotic, crime-ridden, failing “sanctuary state” that is home to more than 2 million aliens whom the Left is using taxpayer money to groom as loyal voters for Democratic Party candidates. The state laws curb the power of California’s state and local law enforcement to hold, question, and transfer detainees at the request of federal immigration authorities, and punish employers for cooperating with those authorities. The seditious laws were enacted to sabotage immigration enforcement efforts and in the process protect Democrats’ base.
The legal action seeks to strike down AB 450, which prohibits private employers from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration officials—including officials conducting worksite enforcement efforts. It attacks SB 54, which prevents state and local law enforcement officials from providing information to the feds about the release date of deportable criminal aliens in their custody. The suit also places a bullseye on AB 103, which imposes a state-run inspection and review scheme of the federal detention of aliens held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts.
“We are a strong, prosperous, and orderly nation,” Sessions said. “And such a nation must have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “I am not aware of any advanced nation that does not understand this fundamental tenet.”
Americans are “right to insist that this country should end the illegality, create a rational immigration flow, and protect the nation from criminal aliens,” Sessions said.
He continued:
It cannot be that someone who illegally crosses the border and two days later arrives in Sacramento, Dubuque, Louisville, and Central Islip is home free – never to be removed. It cannot be the policy of a great nation to up and reward those who unlawfully enter its country with legal status, Social Security, welfare, food stamps, and work permits. Meanwhile those who engage in this process lawfully and patiently and wait their turn are discriminated against at every turn.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration won a rare legal victory on the Left Coast in a sanctuary jurisdictions case.
In a lawsuit brought by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge William H. Orrick ruled Monday that he could not compel the federal government to hand over a specific $1 million grant it is withholding because the state is shielding illegal aliens from federal immigration authorities.
“The weighty and novel constitutional issues posed in this litigation deserve a complete record before they are adjudicated,” the slippery black-robed politician wrote, Anthony Kennedy-style.
This decision may be good news for the Trump administration even though Orrick of March 2018 is rather baldly contradicting Orrick of November 2017.
The judge, who was appointed by President Obama, already ruled on the “weighty and novel constitutional issues” he references pretty conclusively a few months ago, coming down hard against Trump’s executive order. (The judge’s rulings on sanctuary jurisdictions may be read at the court’s website.)
In a separate lawsuit brought by Santa Clara County and San Francisco against President Trump, Orrick granted summary judgment on Nov. 20, 2017 to the two localities. The judge made permanent his previously issued preliminary injunction against Executive Order 13768.
EO 13768, signed by President Trump on Jan. 25, 2017, states it is official administration policy that:
Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.
Section 9(a) of EO 13768 is the specific provision by which federal monies are being withheld from sanctuary jurisdictions. It is also the provision specifically enjoined until the end of time by Orrick three-and-a-half months ago.
Section 9(a) states that to enforce the funding ban, “the Attorney General and the [Homeland Security] Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary.”
Orrick found Section 9(a) was “unconstitutional on its face” and that the counties proved it “has caused and will cause them constitutional injuries by violating the separation of powers doctrine and depriving them of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights.”
Maybe between Nov. 20 and March 5, the legal meaning of the infamous Section 9(a) somehow changed in Orrick’s calculating mind. Maybe the permanent injunction isn’t so permanent anymore; intellectual consistency is not, after all, something for which left-wing jurists are known.
For what it’s worth, in the California v. Sessions lawsuit, Becerra appeared to be taunting Sessions in the title of the proceeding itself by referring to the Alabama-born official by his full, mouthful of a name, to wit, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. As a white man from the Deep South, Sessions is an irresistible target for slimy leftists like Becerra (and Harris).
During Sessions’ U.S. Senate confirmation process, left-wingers relished using the then-nominee’s Southern-sounding, eight-syllable name over and over again as they tried to tar the public servant as a vicious racist. Never mind that Sessions desegregated his state’s schools and crippled the state’s Ku Klux Klan before coming to Washington.
Lawbreaking officials in California may be about to get a surprise, courtesy of the Trump administration.
It was previously reported that federal prosecutors are considering filing criminal charges against elected officials harboring illegal aliens in sanctuary jurisdictions, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee in mid-January.
Jailing the leaders of sanctuary jurisdictions who obstruct ICE agents is long overdue.
Oakland’s Libby Schaaf should be the first leftist politician in California to be perp-walked.


THE STAGGERING COST OF THE WELFARE STATE MEXICO AND THE LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY HAVE BUILT BORDER to OPEN BORDER’

According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s 2017 report, illegal immigrants, and their children, cost American taxpayers a net $116 billion annually -- roughly $7,000 per alien annually. While high, this number is not an outlier: a recent study by the Heritage Foundation found that low-skilled immigrants (including those here illegally) cost Americans trillions over the course of their lifetimes, and a study from the National Economics Editorial found that illegal immigration costs America over $140 billion annually. As it stands, illegal immigrants are a massive burden on American taxpayers.

Pelosi Says Illegal Aliens ‘Make America More American’





 By CNSNews.com Staff | March 7, 2018 | 4:56 PM EST
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Screen Capture)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement today attacking the Trump administration for brining suit against the state of California for enacting laws the interfere with federal enforcement of the immigration laws, which under the Constitution are the responsibility of the federal government.
In her statement, referring to the illegal aliens who would be deported if the Trump administration succeeded in enforcing the immigration law, Pelosi said they “make America more American.”
“The people of California will not be bowed by the Trump Administration’s brazen aggression and intimidation tactics,” she said. “Californians will continue to proudly keep open doors to the immigrants who make America more American. We will fight this sham lawsuit and will fight all cowardly attacks on our immigrant communities.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the federal government’s lawsuit against California in a speech today to the California Peace Officers’ Association.
“[T]he Justice Department has filed a legal action against the State of California, Governor of California Jerry Brown, and Attorney General of California Xavier Becerra, seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief based upon the enactment and implementation of certain provisions of three California laws—Assembly Bill 450 (AB 450); Senate Bill 54 (SB 54); and Assembly Bill 103 (AB 103)—which intentionally obstruct and discriminate against the enforcement of federal immigration law,” the Justice Department said in a statement.
“The complaint contends that the laws in question are preempted by federal law and impermissibly target the Federal Government, and therefore violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,” the DOJ statement said.
The DOJ statement explained the three California laws in question.
“AB 450 prohibits private employers from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration officials—including officials conducting worksite enforcement efforts and other enforcement operations,” it said. “It also requires that private employers notify employees in advance of a potential worksite, enforcement inspection—despite clear federal law that has been on the books for approximately three decades that has no such requirements.”
“SB 54 restricts state and local law enforcement officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities about the release date of removable criminal aliens who are in their custody,” DOJ said.
“These criminal aliens are subject to removal from the United States under federal immigration law, and SB 54 interferes with federal immigration authorities’ ability to carry out their responsibilities under federal law,” it said.
“SB 54 also violates 8 USC 1373, a law enacted by Congress, which promotes information sharing related to immigration enforcement,” said DOJ. “The state law also prohibits the actual transfer of criminal aliens to federal custody, which creates a dangerous operating environment for ICE agents executing arrests in non-custodial settings.”
“AB 103 imposes a state-run inspection and review scheme of the federal detention of aliens held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts,” said DOJ. “This includes review of immigration processes and the circumstances in which aliens were apprehended, and also requires access to privileged federal records that are under ICE’s control. With this law, California is trying to regulate federal immigration detention, which it cannot do under the Constitution.”
Pelosi defended what California has done to thwart federal enforcement of federal immigration laws, saying that what the Trump Administration is trying to do contradicts the system of government created by the Founding Fathers.
 “The Trump Administration’s attacks on California are unacceptable in the federal system of government our Founders created,” she said. “We have a system of checks and balances – not a system in which the executive branch can unilaterally bend states to its will. The federal government cannot force states and localities to participate in the cruel roundup of immigrant families, which spreads fear and thwarts cooperation with local law enforcement.”
The Department of Justice explained what it understands to be the constitutional basis for federal—as opposed to state—authority over immigration law in its suit against California:
“The Constitution affords Congress the power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ U.S. Const., art. I § 8, cl. 4, and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” U.S. Const., art. I § 8, cl. 3, and affords the President of the United States the authority to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ U.S. Const., art. II § 3.
“The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution mandates that ‘[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’ U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2. Thus, a state enactment is invalid if it ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,’ Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941), or if it ‘discriminate[s] against the United States or those with whom it deals,’ South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 523 (1988).
“Based on its enumerated powers and its constitutional power as a sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations, the United States has broad authority to establish immigration laws, the execution of which the States cannot obstruct or discriminate against.”


THE BANKSTER FUNDED DEMOCRAT PARTY: SERVANTS OF THE LA RAZA MEXICAN WELFARE STATE ON THE AMERICAN WORKERS’ BACKS!

THEY DESTROYED THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS, AMERICA’S BORDERS AND ENDLESSLY ASSAULTED THE AMERICAN WORKER IN THEIR EFFORTS TO FINISH OFF THE GOP… And they got filthy rich doing it!



“The Democrats had abandoned their working class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”.  DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE 

THE MURDEROUS MEXICANS….IN PELOSI AND KAMALA’S HOMETOWN!
Everyday there are 12 Americans murdered and 8 children molested by Mexicans!
Steinle’s murderer, Jose Zarate and been deported 5xs!
"While walking with her father on a pier in San Francisco in 2015, Steinle was shot by the illegal alien. Steinle pleaded with her father to not let her die, but she soon passed in her father’s arms."

THE LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY'S VISION OF AMERICA:

DEATH OF THE GOP AND 49 MEXIFORNIAS!

Adios, Sanctuary La Raza Welfare State of California  
A fifth-generation Californian laments his state’s ongoing economic collapse.
By Steve Baldwin
American Spectator, October 19, 2017
What’s clear is that the producers are leaving the state and the takers are coming in. Many of the takers are illegal aliens, now estimated to number over 2.6 million. 
The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that California spends $22 billion on government services for illegal aliens, including welfare, education, Medicaid, and criminal justice system costs. 
                                                                                          
BLOG: MANY DISPUTE CALIFORNIA’S EXPENDITURES FOR THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE IN MEXIFORNIA JUST AS THEY DISPUTE THE NUMBER OF ILLEGALS. APPROXIMATELY HALF THE POPULATION OF CA IS NOW MEXICAN AND BREEDING ANCHOR BABIES FOR WELFARE LIKE BUNNIES. THE $22 BILLION IS STATE EXPENDITURE ONLY. COUNTIES PAY OUT MORE WITH LOS ANGELES COUNTY LEADING AT OVER A BILLION DOLLARS PAID OUT YEARLY TO MEXICO’S ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS. NOW MULTIPLY THAT BY THE NUMBER OF COUNTIES IN CA AND YOU START TO GET AN IDEA OF THE STAGGERING WELFARE STATE MEXICO AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAVE ERECTED SANS ANY LEGALS VOTES. ADD TO THIS THE FREE ENTERPRISE HOSPITAL AND CLINIC COST FOR LA RAZA’S “FREE” MEDICAL WHICH IS ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT $1.5 BILLION PER YEAR.

Liberals claim they more than make that up with taxes paid, but that’s simply not true. It’s not even close. FAIR estimates illegal aliens in California contribute only $1.21 billion in tax revenue, which means they cost California $20.6 billion, or at least $1,800 per household.
Nonetheless, open border advocates, such as Facebook Chairman Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming.
Furthermore, the complexion of illegal aliens has changed with far more on welfare and committing crimes than those who entered the country in the 1980s. 
Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has testified before a Congressional committee that in 2004, 95% of all outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles were for illegal aliens; in 2000, 23% of all Los Angeles County jail inmates were illegal aliens and that in 1995, 60% of Los Angeles’s largest street gang, the 18th Street gang, were illegal aliens. Granted, those statistics are old, but if you talk to any California law enforcement officer, they will tell you it’s much worse today. The problem is that the Brown administration will not release any statewide data on illegal alien crimes. That would be insensitive. And now that California has declared itself a “sanctuary state,” there is little doubt this sends a message south of the border that will further escalate illegal immigration into the state.
"If the racist "Sensenbrenner Legislation" passes the US Senate, there is no doubt that a massive civil disobedience movement will emerge. Eventually labor union power can merge with the immigrant civil rights and "Immigrant Sanctuary" movements to enable us to either form a new political party or to do heavy duty reforming of the existing Democratic Party. The next and final steps would follow and that is to elect our own governors of all the states within Aztlan." 
Indeed, California goes out of its way to attract illegal aliens. The state has even created government programs that cater exclusively to illegal aliens. For example, the State Department of Motor Vehicles has offices that only process driver licenses for illegal aliens. With over a million illegal aliens now driving in California, the state felt compelled to help them avoid the long lines the rest of us must endure at the DMV. 
And just recently, the state-funded University of California system announced it will spend $27 million on financial aid for illegal aliens. They’ve even taken out radio spots on stations all along the border, just to make sure other potential illegal border crossers hear about this program. I can’t afford college education for all my four sons, but my taxes will pay for illegals to get a college education.



If Immigration Creates Wealth, Why Is California America's Poverty Capital?




California used to be home to America's largest and most affluent middle class.  Today, it is America's poverty capital.  What went wrong?  In a word: immigration.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Official Poverty Measure, California's poverty rate hovers around 15 percent.  But this figure is misleading: the Census Bureau measures poverty relative to a uniform national standard, which doesn't account for differences in living costs between states – the cost of taxes, housing, and health care are higher in California than in Oklahoma, for example.  Accounting for these differences reveals that California's real poverty rate is 20.6 percent – the highest in America, and nearly twice the national average of 12.7 percent.

Likewise, income inequality in California is the second-highest in America, behind only New York.  In fact, if California were an independent country, it would be the 17th most unequal country on Earth, nestled comfortably between Honduras and Guatemala.  Mexico is slightly more egalitarian.  California is far more unequal than the "social democracies" it emulates: Canada is the 111th most unequal nation, while Norway is far down the list at number 153 (out of 176 countries).  In terms of income inequality, California has more in common with banana republics than other "social democracies."

More Government, More Poverty
High taxes, excessive regulations, and a lavish welfare state – these are the standard explanations for California's poverty epidemic.  They have some merit.  For example, California has both the highest personal income tax rate and the highest sales tax in America, according to Politifact.

Not only are California's taxes high, but successive "progressive" governments have swamped the state in a sea of red tape.  Onerous regulations cripple small businesses and retard economic growth.  Kerry Jackson, a fellow with the Pacific Research Institute, gives a few specific examples of how excessive government regulation hurts California's poor.  He writes in a recent op-ed for the Los Angeles Times:
Extensive environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also hurting the poor.  By some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50% higher than the national average.  Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics ... found that "in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced ... energy expenditures exceeding 10% of household income."
Some government regulation is necessary and desirable, but most of California's is not.  There is virtue in governing with a "light touch."
Finally, California's welfare state is, perhaps paradoxically, a source of poverty in the state.  The Orange Country Register reports that California's social safety net is comparable in scale to those found in Europe:
In California a mother with two children under the age of 5 who participates in these major welfare programs – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), housing assistance, home energy assistance, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children – would receive a benefits package worth $30,828 per year.
... [Similar] benefits in Europe ranged from $38,588 per year in Denmark to just $1,112 in Romania.  The California benefits package is higher than in well-known welfare states as France ($17,324), Germany ($23,257) and even Sweden ($22,111).
Although welfare states ideally help the poor, reality is messy.  There are three main problems with the welfare state.  First, it incentivizes poverty by rewardingthe poor with government handouts that are often far more valuable than a job.  This can be ameliorated to some degree by imposing work requirements on welfare recipients, but in practice, such requirements are rarely imposed.  Second, welfare states are expensive.  This means higher taxes and therefore slower economic growth and fewer job opportunities for everyone – including the poor.
Finally, welfare states are magnets for the poor.  Whether through domestic migration or foreign immigration, poor people flock to places with generous welfare states.  This is logical from the immigrant's perspective, but it makes little sense from the taxpayer's.  This fact is why socialism and open borders arefundamentally incompatible.

Why Big Government?
Since 1960, California's population exploded from 15.9 to 39 million people.  The growth was almost entirely due to immigration – many people came from other states, but the majority came from abroad.  The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that 10 million immigrants currently reside in California.  This works out to 26 percent of the state's population.

BLOG: COME TO MEXIFORNIA! HALF OF LOS ANGELES 15 MILLION ARE ILLEGALS!
This figure includes 2.4 million illegal aliens, although a recent study from Yale University suggests that the true number of aliens is at least double that.  Modifying the initial figure implies that nearly one in three Californians is an immigrant.  This is not to disparage California's immigrant population, but it is madness to deny that such a large influx of people has changed California's society and economy.

Importantly, immigrants vote Democrat by a ratio higher than 2:1, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies.  In California, immigration has increased the pool of likely Democrat voters by nearly 5 million people, compared to just 2.4 million additional likely Republican voters.  Not only does this almost guarantee Democratic victories, but it also shifts California's political midpoint to the left.  This means that to remain competitive in elections, the Republicans must abandon or soften many conservative positions so as to cater to the center.
California became a Democratic stronghold not because Californians became socialists, but because millions of socialists moved there.  Immigration turned California blue, and immigration is ultimately to blame for California's high poverty level.

ILLEGALS CLIMBING CALIFORNIA’S BORDERS FOR JOBS AND WELFARE: SAN DIEGO … Mexicans (unregistered democrat anchor baby breeders (1,877).
In just the month of October 2017 CBP Border Patrol San Diego border sector reported apprehension of individuals from Bangladesh (12), Brazil (1), Camaroon (3), Chad (1), China (16), El Salvador (76), Eritrea (7), Gambia (4), Guatemala (178), Honduras (54), India (101), Iran (1), Mexico (1,877), Nepal (31), Nicaragua (1), Pakistan (13), Peru (1), Somalia (1), and “Unknown” (1) — a total of 2,379 individuals. These numbers are similar to volumes seen in this sector for October since 2012. MICHELLE MOONS

 




THE ONCE GOLDEN STATE of CALIFORNA, NOW A LA RAZA MEX

 

WELFARE STATE, IS No. 48 OF 50 STATES IN LOWER EDUCATION!

 

MEXICANS LOATHE LITERACY AND ENGLISH… SUCH APES THE

 

GRINGO WHOM THEY HATE!

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/heres-reason-why-ca-schools-are-no.html

 

 

“Mexicans abhor education. In their country, illiteracy dominates. As they arrive in our country, only 9.6 percent of fourth generation Mexicans earn a high school diploma. Mexico does not promote educational values. This makes them the least educated of any Americans or immigrants. The rate of illiteracy in Mexico stands at 63 percent." FROSTY WOOLRIDGE

“Third-generation Latinos are more often disconnected — that is, they neither attend school nor find employment.” Kay S. Hymowitz  

IMPORTING ILLITERACY


TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED WE NEED ENDLESS HORDES OF ILLITERATES JUMPING OUR BORDERS AND JOBS!

That really build a nation? Or just generate “cheap” labor for fast food operators?

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/11/daca-fails-loathing-of-literacy-and.html

 


No comments: