Monday, September 16, 2019

SAN FRANCISCO'S HOUSING CRISIS - SENS. DIANNE FEINSTEIN AND HARRIS, NANCY PELOSI AND GAVIN NEWSOM SAY THE REAL SOLUTION IS TO KEEP THE HORDES OF "CHEAP" LABOR FOREIGNERS FLOODING IN

The home, on 17 Laidley St., was listed in March for $675,000, but the agent took if off the market in August. (Google Street)
The home, on 17 Laidley St., was listed in March for $675,000, but the agent took if off the market in August. (Google Street)
US NEWS

San Francisco’s Least Expensive Home Still Costs Nearly $600,000

BY JACK PHILLIPS
September 15, 2019 Updated: September 15, 2019
A house in San Francisco, California that has been described as the least expensive in the city still costs more than half a million dollars.
According to SFGate, the home, located in the city’s Glen Park neighborhood, is 570 square feet with one bathroom. It doesn’t have a garage.
Meanwhile, according to Google Maps pictures, the property doesn’t appear to have a front yard.
The home, on 17 Laidley St., was listed in March for $675,000, but the agent took if off the market in August.


In San Francisco, the median price for a home is $1.35 million (Google Street)

The residential property was placed on the market for $599,000, SFGate reported. The home had its bathroom and kitchen renovated in recent days.
“We’ve been getting all kinds of activity. I’m getting calls from people down south, and they’re saying hey, I can get a house in SF for $599,000 I want it now. Some people are saying I don’t even know what I’d do with it yet, but I want it,” listing agent Jeff Appenrodt with Laurel Realty told the news outlet.
In San Francisco, the median price for a home is $1.35 million, reported the San Francisco Chronicle, citing CoreLogic. In the Bay Area, the median price paid was $815,000 in July.
CoreLogic wrote, “Before this March, the median sale price had risen on a year-over-year basis for 83 consecutive months,” according to the Chronicle.


A Google Maps image shows the Laidley St. neighborhood in San Francisco (Google Street)

Appenrodt told the website that the home has a basement and an attic that could add more square footage to the house if finished.
Realtor.com calculated that with a 30-year fixed mortgage, the home would cost $3,037 per month after property taxes are factored in along with a 20-percent down payment.
Meanwhile, CBS San Francisco reported that San Francisco’s Laidley St. home prices have soared in recent years.
“We have buyers, typically younger, high-tech buyers who are massively wealthy, typically suddenly so, and they’re not really interested in the mansion in Pacific Heights,” said Patrick Carlisle with Paragon Real Estate, according to the station. “They want a beautiful new home, they want a high-tech home, they want a neighborhood ambiance that is lower-key and more relaxed.”
Real estate agents said that Apple Inc. executives have remodeled three homes in the area.
“It’s gotta be sad you know, we have four children who can’t afford to live here, and we’re lucky because my mother-in-law bought this house in the fifties (at) $50,000 or so for two lots,” local woman Judy Tergis, who is a third-generation San Francisco, told the CBS affiliate.



Report: California’s Middle-Class Wages Rise by 1 Percent in 40 Years

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
3 Sep 2019172
6:24

Middle-class wages in progressive California have risen by 1 percent in the last 40 years, says a study by the establishment California Budget and Policy Center.

“Earnings for California’s workers at the low end and middle of the wage scale have generally declined or stagnated for decades,” says the report, titled “California’s Workers Are Increasingly Locked Out of the State’s Prosperity.” The report continued:
In 2018, the median hourly earnings for workers ages 25 to 64 was $21.79, just 1% higher than in 1979, after adjusting for inflation ($21.50, in 2018 dollars) (Figure 1). Inflation-adjusted hourly earnings for low-wage workers, those at the 10th percentile, increased only slightly more, by 4%, from $10.71 in 1979 to $11.12 in 2018.
The report admits that the state’s progressive economy is delivering more to investors and less to wage-earners. “Since 2001, the share of state private-sector [annual new income] that has gone to worker compensation has fallen by 5.6 percentage points — from 52.9% to 47.3%.”
In 2016, California’s Gross Domestic Product was $2.6 trillion, so the 5.6 percent drop shifted $146 billion away from wages. That is roughly $3,625 per person in 2016.
The report notes that wages finally exceeded 1979 levels around 2017, and it splits the credit between the Democrats’ minimum-wage boosts and President Donald Trump’s go-go economy.
The 40 years of flat wages are partly hidden by a wave of new products and services. They include almost-free entertainment and information on the Internet, cheap imported coffee in supermarkets, and reliable, low-pollution autos in garages.
But the impact of California’s flat wages is made worse by California’s rising housing costs, the report says, even though it also ignores the rent-spiking impact of the establishment’s pro-immigration policies:
 In just the last decade alone, the increase in the typical household’s rent far outpaced the rise in the typical full-time worker’s annual earnings, suggesting that working families and individuals are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. In fact, the basic cost of living in many parts of the state is more than many single individuals or families can expect to earn, even if all adults are working full-time.
…
Specifically, inflation-adjusted median household rent rose by 16% between 2006 and 2017, while inflation-adjusted median annual earnings for individuals working at least 35 hours per week and 50 weeks per year rose by just 2%, according to a Budget Center analysis of US Census Bureau, American Community Survey data.
The wage and housing problems are made worse — especially for families — by the loss of employment benefits as companies and investors spike stock prices by cutting costs. The report says:
Many workers are being paid little more today than workers were in 1979 even as worker productivity has risen. Fewer employees have access to retirement plans sponsored by their employers, leaving individual workers on their own to stretch limited dollars and resources to plan how they’ll spend their later years affording the high cost of living and health care in California. And as union representation has declined, most workers today cannot negotiate collectively for better working conditions, higher pay, and benefits, such as retirement and health care, like their parents and grandparents did. On top of all this, workers who take on contingent and independent work (often referred to as “gig work”), which in many cases appears to be motivated by the need to supplement their primary job or fill gaps in their employment, are rarely granted the same rights and legal protections as traditional employees.
The center’s report tries to blame the four-decade stretch of flat wages on the declining clout of unions. But unions’ decline was impacted by the bipartisan elites’ policy of mass-migration and imposed diversity.
In 2018, Breitbart reported how Progressives for Immigration Reform interviewed Blaine Taylor, a union carpenter, about the economic impact of migration:
TAYLOR: If I hired a framer to do a small addition [in 1988], his wage would have been $45 an hour. That was the minimum for a framing contractor, a good carpenter. For a helper, it was about $25 an hour, for a master who could run a complete job, it was about $45 an hour. That was the going wage for plumbers as well. His helpers typically got $25 an hour.
…
Now, the average wage in Los Angeles for construction workers is less than $11 an hour. They can’t go lower than the minimum wage. And much of that, if they’re not being paid by the hour at less than $11 an hour, they’re being paid per piece — per piece of plywood that’s installed, per piece of drywall that’s installed. Now, the subcontractor can circumvent paying them as an hourly wage and are now being paid by 1099, which means that no taxes are being taken out. [Emphasis added]
Diversity also damaged the unions by shredding California’s civic solidarity. In 2007, the progressive Southern Poverty Law Center posted a report with the title “Latino Gang Members in Southern California are Terrorizing and Killing Blacks.” In the same year, an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times described another murder by Latino gangs as “a manifestation of an increasingly common trend: Latino ethnic cleansing of African Americans from multiracial neighborhoods.”
The center’s board members include the executive director of the state’s SEIU union, a professor from the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the research director at the “Program for Environmental and Regional Equity” at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Outside California, President Donald Trump’s low-immigration policies are pressuring employers to raise Americans’ wages in a hot economy. The Wall Street Journal reportedAugust 29:
Overall, median weekly earnings rose 5% from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the same quarter in 2018, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For workers between the ages of 25 and 34, that increase was 7.6%.
Neil Munro
✔@NeilMunroDC


The New York Times laments that reduced immigration does force wages upwards and also does force companies to buy labor-saving, wage-boosting machinery. Instead, NYT prioritizes "ideas about America’s identity and culture.” http://bit.ly/2Zp2u2J 

NYT Admits Fewer Immigrants Means Higher Wages, More Labor-Saving Machines

Americans are getting higher wages and more labor-saving machines because companies cannot get enough immigrants, laments the New York Times.
breitbart.com

59
6:40 AM - Aug 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
34 people are talking about this

ImmigrationPoliticsAmnestyCaliforniahousingimmigrationMigrantmigrationsalarieswages
.
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.S

THE INVITED INVADING HORDES: IT’S ALL ABOUT KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED!
"In the decade following the financial crisis of 2007-2008, the capitalist class has delivered powerful blows to the social position of the working class. As a result, the working class in the US, the world’s “richest country,” faces levels of economic hardship not seen since the 1930s."

"Inequality has reached unprecedented levels: the wealth of America’s three richest people now equals the net worth of the poorest half of the US population."

Warren's core insight was fascinating: She argued that massive expansion of the labor force had actually created more stressful living and driven down median wages. BEN SHAPIRO

 

BLOG…. SO, WHAT DOES LA RAZA WARREN THINK WILL HAPPEN WHEN SHE HANDS 40 MILLION LOOTING MEXCIANS AMNESTY SO THEY CAN BRING UP THE REST OF THEIR FAMILY???

 

How the Quest For Power Corrupted Elizabeth Warren

Ben Shapiro
I first met Elizabeth Warren when she was a professor at Harvard Law School, in 2004. She was fresh off the publication of her bestselling book, "The Two-Income Trap." There's no doubt she was politically liberal -- our only face-to-face meeting involved a recruitment visit at the W Hotel in Los Angeles, where she immediately made some sort of disparaging remark about Rush Limbaugh -- but at the time, Warren was making waves for her iconoclastic views. She wasn't a doctrinaire leftist, spewing Big Government nostrums. She was a creative thinker.
That creative thinking is obvious in "The Two-Income Trap," which discusses the rising number of bankruptcies among middle-class parents, particularly women with children. The book posits that women entered the workforce figuring that by doing so, they could have double household income. But so many women entered the workforce that they actually inflated prices for basic goods like housing, thus driving debt skyward and leading to bankruptcies for two-income families. The book argued that families with one income might actually be better off, since families with two incomes spent nearly the full combined income and then fell behind if one spouse lost a job. Families with one income, by contrast, spent to the limit for one income, and if a spouse was fired, the unemployed spouse would then look for work to replace that single income.
Warren's core insight was fascinating: She argued that massive expansion of the labor force had actually created more stressful living and driven down median wages. But her policy recommendations were even more fascinating. She explicitly argued against "more government regulation of the housing market," slamming "complex regulations," since they "might actually worsen the situation by diminishing the incentive to build new houses or improve older ones." Instead, she argued in favor of school choice, since pressure on housing prices came largely from families seeking to escape badly run government school districts: "A well-designed voucher program would fit the bill neatly."
Her heterodox policy proposals didn't stop there. She refused to "join the chorus calling for taxpayer-funded day care" on its own, calling it a "sacred cow." At the very least, she suggested that "government-subsidized day care would add one more indirect pressure on mothers to join the workforce." She instead sought a more comprehensive educational solution that would include "tax credits for stay-at-home parents."
She ardently opposed additional taxpayer subsidization of college loans, too, or more taxpayer spending on higher education directly. Instead, she called for a tuition freeze from state schools. She recommended tax incentives for families to save rather than spend. She opposed radical solutions wholesale: "We haven't suggested a complete overhaul of the tax structure, and we haven't demanded that businesses cease and desist from ever closing another plant or firing another worker. Nor have we suggested that the United States should build a quasi-socialist safety net to rival the European model."
So, what happened to Warren?
Power.
The other half of iconoclastic Warren was typical progressive, anti-financial industry Warren. In "The Two-Income Trap," she proposes reinstating state usury laws, cutting off access to payday lenders and heavily regulating the banking industry -- all in the name of protecting Americans from themselves. While her position castigating the credit industry for deliberate obfuscation of clients was praiseworthy, her quest to "protect consumers" quickly morphed into a quest to create the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau -- an independent agency without any serious checks or balances. But despite her best efforts, she never became head of the CFPB, failing to woo Republican senators. The result: an emboldened Warren who saw her popularity as tied to her Big Government agenda. No more reaching across the aisle; no more iconoclastic policies. Instead, she would be Ralph Nader II, with a feminist narrative to boot.
And so, she's gaining ground in the 2020 presidential race as a Bernie Sanders knockoff. Ironically, her great failing could be her lack of moderation -- the moderation she abandoned in her quest for progressive power. If Elizabeth Warren circa 2003 were running, she'd be the odds-on favorite for president. But Warren circa 2019 would hate Warren circa 2003.
Ben Shapiro, 35, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of "The Ben Shapiro Show" and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times bestseller "The Right Side Of History." He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles.

Munro: Cornell Study Shows Stagnant Wages Hurting Marriage in U.S.

Getty Images
 6 Sep 2019334
4:14

Fewer women get married when fewer men earn a decent salary in an unstable economy, says a study from Cornell University.

“Most American women hope to marry but current shortages of marriageable men—men with a stable job and a good income—make this increasingly difficult, especially in the current gig economy of unstable low-paying service jobs,” said lead author Daniel Lichter, a professor at Cornell University. He continued:
Marriage is still based on love, but it also is fundamentally an economic transaction. Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women’s educational levels on average now exceed their male suitors.
The study looked at wages and marriage rates from 2008 to 2017, and concluded that “promoting good jobs may ultimately be the best marriage promotion policy,” says the study, which is titled “Mismatches in the Marriage Market,” and was published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.
The study is useful for the populist wing of the GOP, because it shows that rising wages for men in President Donald Trump’s low-immigration economy is good for women’s romantic aspirations and marriage rates. Other data shows that married people — especially women — are far more likely to vote GOP than single people.
Correspondingly, the bad news about wages and marriage is good news for the Democratic Party, which will get extra votes from women if federal policies continue to suppress wages for American men.
The study did not try to show how marriage rates have been impacted by the various federal policies which have flatlined men’s wages for 40 years.
For example, the federal policy of flooding the labor market with immigrants has flatlined wages nationwide for at least two decades. Also, President Barack Obama’s failure to curb opioids — and his reluctance to favor American workers over ‘DACA’ illegals — helped to push millions of Americans out of the workforce and many into their graves.
The Cornell study validated conservatives’ view that women are different from men, and prefer to marry men who earn a higher wage or salary. The press statement said:
The study’s authors developed estimates of the sociodemographic characteristics of unmarried women’s potential spouses who resemble the husbands of otherwise comparable married women. These estimates were compared with the actual distribution of unmarried men at the national, state, and local levels.
Women’s potential husbands had an average income that was about 58% higher than the actual unmarried men currently available to unmarried women. They also were 30% more likely to be employed and 19% more likely to have a college degree.
Middle-class women have the best chance of finding a man who earns more money, the study says.
Low-income women live among men with very little income, partly because they are in jail or are suffering from drugs. And the many women who earn above $40,000 a year face intense competition for the relatively fewer number of men who make more than $65,000 a year.
This shortage of prosperous men means that many high-income women must marry down, the study said. “Women may instead ‘settle’ for a marital match that falls short of their aspirations in a spouse ... This will be expressed in new patterns of marital hypogamy or downward marital mobility,” the study said. 
The problem is worse for women who seek husbands later in life, for example, after spending years in university education:
For example, older women on average were much less likely a suitable marital match ... This is especially true among women who were highly educated ... A 10% increase in age among women with a college degree was associated with a 24.48 percentage point decrease in the likelihood of a suitable match. In contrast, age mattered much less among the least-educated women—those with a high school degree or less who had only a 4.47  percentage point decrease in finding a match. One implication was that delaying marriage, for whatever reason but perhaps especially if pursuing college degrees, had the effect of reducing women’s local-area access to demographically suited marital partners.
Future studies will examine divorce rates among marriages where women recognize that they earn more than their husbands. 
✔@NeilMunroDC


Young Americans got a pay raise of 7.6 percent from late 2017 to late 2018 -- bigger than other groups -- b/c they are more likely to switch jobs in Trump's low-immigration economy. http://bit.ly/2lWHQUD 

Job-Hopping Young Workers Getting Huge Wage Gains, Says Business Center | Breitbart


68



“MORE THAN 10 MILLION” ILLEGALS IN CALIFORNIA ALONE

Xavier Becerra breaks the news, files suit against Trump administration public-charge rule.

August 19, 2019

Lloyd Billingsley
More than 22 million people are illegally present in the United States, according to a recent study by scholars at MIT and Yale. Pew Research pegged the figure at 11 million, and for years it stood as the official count for media and government. It now emerges that 11 million is more like the number illegally present in California alone.
“California is home to over 10 million immigrants,” reads a chart displayed by California attorney general Xavier Becerra and governor Gavin Newsom as they announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s public-charge rule. “Immigrants,” is California code for “illegals,” a term the state’s ruling class has banned. As Rachel Bovard notes at American Greatness, even a legal immigrant’s ability “to stay off the welfare system must be taken into account when considering qualifications for a green card.”  
California heaps welfare benefits on those illegally present, including nearly $100 million for health care in the recent budget. Many of those 10 million illegals came to California specifically to get those taxpayer-funded benefits. It disturbs Becerra and Newsom that this disqualifies the recipients from any future legal status, but there’s more to it. As attorney Madison Gesiotto explains in The Hill, voting must also be taken into account. 
“Voting as an illegal alien in federal elections is a crime punishable by fine, imprisonment, deportation, or inadmissibility.” According to a State Department investigation, false-documented illegals have been voting in federal, state and local elections for decades. In 1996, illegals cast 784 votes against Republican Robert Dornan in a congressional race Democrat Loretta Sanchez won by only 984 votes.
If Newsom and Becerra are certain that more than 10 million people illegally reside in the state, they doubtless know how many voted in 2016. Trouble is, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla refused to release any voter information to a federal voter-fraud probe.
Back in 2015, Padilla told the Los Angeles Times, “At the latest, for the 2018 election cycle, I expect millions of new voters on the rolls in the state of California,” with “new voters” code for ineligible voters. True to form, by March, 2018, more than one million “undocumented” immigrants received driver’s licenses from the state Department of Motor Vehicles, which automatically registered them to vote under the “Motor Voter” program.
Padilla is now claiming that only six “California residents” were erroneously added to voter rolls for 2018, that it was all due to DMV errors, and that none was guilty of “fraudulently voting or attempting to vote.” To paraphrase John Goodman in The Big Lebowski, this is what happens when the governor’s own department of finance, not the official state auditor, investigates the DMV.
In reality, California officials know full well how many non-citizens voted in 2016 and 2018. With more than 10 million illegals in the state, the ballpark figure of one million illegal voters is probably low. In California, illegals are the Democrats’ electoral college, and the Democrats reward them with welfare benefits and protection from deportation through sanctuary laws. This raises another issue.
Illegals’ use of welfare benefits and practice of voting in federal elections disqualifies them from legal residency and citizenship. This makes for a permanent group of more than 10 million foreign nationals in California alone. In these conditions, Congress should start pushing back.
Public officials who apportion taxpayer-funded benefits for foreign nationals should be required to register as agents of the governments of those foreign nationals. The primary candidates would be the governments of Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, which Gavin Newsom visited before he had even toured his own state.
State and federal governments should also bill the foreign governments for welfare, medical, education and incarceration costs. Some of this could be alleviated by a tax on remissions, such as the 33.4 billion Mexicans abroad sent back last year. That amount is impossible without massive inputs from U.S. taxpayers. Legitimate citizens and legal immigrants have no obligation to relieve foreign governments of responsibility for their own citizens.
Meanwhile, as Rachel Bovard also notes, the Trump administration’s new rule only updates a 1996 law proclaiming “inadmissible” those aliens likely to become a public charge. The law was supported by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden and other leading Democrats.  The Trump administration measure gives more definition to what constitutes a welfare benefit, food stamps, Medicaid, public housing assistance and such. Those benefits are all for legitimate citizens and legal immigrants but Bovard cites Census data showing that 63 percent of non-citizens use the welfare system.
Those who thought there were only 11 million illegals nationwide were mistaken. Thanks to Jerry Brown crony Gavin Newsom, and Xavier Becerra, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, Americans now understand that “more than 10 million” illegally reside in California alone, and that might understate the figure.
The MIT-Yale estimate ranges as high as 29.1 million nationwide, more than the population of Australia, with 25,088,636 and a veritable occupation. To all but the willfully blind, politicians have abandoned the rule of law, and made false-documented illegals a protected, privileged class.
This is how a nation loses its sovereignty. 

Census Bureau: 

 

Immigration Driving Half of 

 

U.S. Population Growth


JOHN BINDER

  

2:43

Immigration to the United States is now driving nearly half of all population growth in the country instead of increased birth rates, the U.S. Census Bureau finds.

The latest Census Bureau estimates on the U.S. population reveal that about 48.5 percent of all population growth is driven by the country’s mass illegal and legal immigration policy, where more than 1.5 million foreign nationals are admitted to the country every year.
(Axios)

Axios analysis by Stef Knight details the growing share to which immigration is increasingly driving population growth across the U.S. Since 2011, for example, the level to which immigration has accounted for overall population growth has increased more than 13 percent.

According to the Wall Street Journal analysis, about nine percent of U.S. counties are growing solely because of immigration. This concludes that about nine percent of counties have regional birth rates that do not exceed the annual number of deaths in the area.
Similarly, the Wall Street Journal notes, more than half of all population growth in states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Kansas, and Michigan, among others, is because of immigration.

Though pundits have claimed that the country’s admittance of 1.2 million legal immigrants a year is necessary to increase birth rates, researchers have found that the growth of the immigrant population has little impact on birth rates.

Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research Steven Camarota discovered in his latest study this year that “immigrant fertility has only a small impact on the nation’s overall birth rate,” citing that immigrants in the U.S. raise the nation’s birth rate for all women by two births per 1,000 women.

“Immigration has a minor impact because the difference between immigrant and native fertility is too small to significantly change the nation’s overall birth rate,” Camarota noted in the study.
At current legal immigration levels, the U.S. 

population is set to hit an unprecedented 404 

million residents by 2060 — including a foreign-

born population of 69 million.

The U.S. does not have to rapidly increase its total

resident population and foreign-born population, 

as legal immigration moratoriums have 

been implemented in the past to give time for new

arrivals to properly assimilate to American life. 

Halting all immigration to the country would 

stabilize the population to a comfortable 329 

million residents in the next four decades.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 


OF COURSE, THEY REALLY HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY HAVE JUMPED OUR BORDERS!

“Between 2005 and 2017, chain migration, alone, brought nearly 10 million foreign nationals to the U.S.”


DOJ: Federal Arrests of Foreigners More than Tripled in Last 20 Years

DOJ: Federal Arrests of Foreigners More Than Tripled in Last 20 Years

The number of federal arrests of foreign nationals has more than tripled over the last two decades, new Department of Justice data reveals.
breitbart.com

21
4:05 PM - Aug 22, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
20 people are talking about this

As Breitbart News reported, though non-U.S. citizens represent just seven percent of the total U.S. population, they accounted for 15 percent of all federal arrests and 15 percent of all prosecutions for non-immigration related crimes in 2018. This indicates that non-U.S. citizens were about 2.3 times as likely to be arrested or prosecuted for non-immigration related crimes.
For non-immigration offenses, the total of federal arrests for non-U.S. citizens between 1998 and 2018 increased nearly eight percent, and between 2017 and 2018 rose almost ten percent.
Non-U.S. citizens were most likely to be prosecuted for illegal re-entry, that is illegal aliens who have been previously deported, drugs, fraud, alien smuggling, and misuse of visas.
A 2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report discovered nearly all illegal and legal immigrants in U.S. federal prisons are from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Guatemala.
Between 2010 and 2015, the average annual cost to incarcerate criminal illegal and legal immigrants slightly decreased — as the criminal alien population slightly decreased as well — from $1.56 billion to about $1.42 billion. That cost is paid for by American taxpayers who are forced to offset the costs of mass immigration to the country.
Every year, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million foreign nationals, with the overwhelming majority arriving through the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized are able to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country. Between 2005 and 2017, chain migration, alone, brought nearly 10 million foreign nationals to the U.S.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)