Friday, February 28, 2020

BERNIE SANDERS' COMMUNISM - BUT ISN'T HE ONLY PROMISING TO EXPAND PELOSI'S MEXICAN SOCIALIST WELFARE STATE ON MIDDLE AMERICA'S BACKS???

The effect on the American workers?  Wages driven downward to compete with the illegally present new entrants. 

THEY ASSAULT OUR BORDERS, JOBS, WELFARE LINES AND INSTITUTIONS.

He added, “Illegal immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower overhead.” PAUL BEDARD

Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $6.5K a year each: Report

VIDEO:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/report-illegal-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-6-500-a-year-each?utm_source=Washington%20Secrets_02/06/2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_Washington%20Secrets&rid=117930

Illegal immigrants in growing numbers are flooding into so-called sanctuary cities and states where they are consuming up to $6,500 in taxpayer-funded services, according to a new review of costs in 10 small states.
The surge is having an outsized effect on smaller states and is cutting funds for services to veterans, children, and disabled Americans, according to the report provided exclusively to Secrets from the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
The report said illegal immigration costs the 10 states $454 million. “To put that figure into context, that $454 million expenditure is more than 200 times what the state of Montana budgets for its entire Veterans Affairs program, and it is 2.5 times the total sum that West Virginia invests in its state university,” said the report.
And, it added, illegal immigrants cost between $4,000 and $6,500 annually above any tax benefit they provide.
“In many ways, the influx of immigrants into less populous areas of the country has an even greater impact on long-time residents than it does in larger and more urban areas,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “These areas have neither the tax base, nor the economic and social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the growing numbers of immigrants taking up residence.”
The 10 states analyzed in the study, Small Migrant Populations, Huge Impacts, were New Hampshire, Mississippi, Alaska, Maine, North Dakota, West Virginia, South Dakota, Vermont, Montana, and Wyoming.
“Many local officials tout immigration, including illegal immigration, as a remedy to economic stagnation. However, as this report reveals, the reality is precisely the opposite,” said Stein.
He added, “Illegal immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower overhead.”
The report comes on the heels of a key U.S. Supreme Court decision to let the Trump administration block entry to immigrants who are likely to burden taxpayers.
FAIR’s report also showed that sanctuary cities are a growing attraction for illegal immigrants, especially in smaller states where the costs of living can be lower.
The key findings from the report to Secrets:
  • In each of these states, each illegal immigrant resident carried a net tax deficit of between $4,000 and $6,500 annually.
  • Some 415,000 foreign-born reside in these 10 states, of whom about 88,000 (or 21%) are illegal immigrants. Additionally, there are about 35,000 U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants in these states.
  • Collectively, these illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children cost taxpayers in the 10 states about $454 million each year for the provision of essential services such as education and healthcare.
  • Local schools struggle to provide educators and cover the costs of instruction for 50,000 K-12 students classified as Limited English Proficient.
  • A growing number of sanctuary jurisdictions (29 and counting, including the entire state of Vermont), and lower living costs are a magnet for illegal immigrants.
  • The growing immigrant population competes with legal residents for jobs in economically depressed areas.
“This report highlights the fact that the adverse effects of unchecked mass immigration, combined with an immigration selection process that does not choose people based on individual merit, job skills and education, are now being felt in all parts of the country. Americans, in every part of the nation, are being affected by antiquated and unenforced immigration policies, which is why it is at the top of the list of voter concerns heading into the 2020 elections,” said Stein.

Report: Taxpayers Forking Over Up to $6,500 per Illegal Alien

By Rob Shimshock | February 6, 2020 | 12:24pm EST



(CNSNews.com) -- Much of the media attention garnered by the border crisis typically revolves around states that border Mexico like Arizona and Texas. Yet a February report reveals the devastating economic consequences of illegal aliens on taxpayers as far north as Montana.
Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in the ten states with the fewest immigrants around $454 million per year, which works out to a net tax deficit of $4,000 to $6,500 per illegal, according to a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
“In many ways, the influx of immigrants into less populous areas of the country has an even greater impact on long-time residents than it does in larger and more urban areas,” FAIR President Dan Stein said in the report's news release. “These areas have neither the tax base, nor the economic and social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the growing numbers of immigrants taking up residence.”


 
FAIR examined migration to Alaska, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming in its study and found that 88,000 out of the 415,000 foreign-born residents in these states are illegal aliens, or 21 percent. Around 35,000 others are citizen children of illegal aliens.
“Many local officials tout immigration, including illegal immigration, as a remedy to economic stagnation. However, as this report reveals, the reality is precisely the opposite,” Stein continued. “Illegal immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower overhead.”
FAIR notes that 29 sanctuary jurisdictions exist in these 10 states, including the whole state of Vermont. 
The report also examined the financial implications of immigrants more generally, noting that more than 50,000 K-12 students in the ten states examined are categorized as having limited English proficiency (LEP). FAIR estimated that taxpayers spend $96 million on the education of these students. 
Nationwide, the immigration nonprofit calculated that taxpayers spent $59.8 billion educating LEP students in 2016, up from $51.2 billion in 2010.
Matt O’Brien, director of research at FAIR, expanded on the impact of immigration on Lewiston, Maine, a city the nonprofit honed in on in its analysis, while speaking with CNSNews.com.
Lewiston, which has a population under 40,000, has taken in more than 7,500 migrants during the past decade-and-a-half. Between 2004 and 2017, the percentage of LEP students in the town went from five to 30 percent.
“You’re putting all of the kids that have to go through that school system at a deficit that they have to recover from after they get out of the public school system," O’Brien told CNSNews.com. “Now they have to compete with the massive amount of immigrants...as they’re trying to get entry-level jobs.”
The FAIR report highlighted employers’ preference for hiring foreign-born workers, who demand lower wages, over American citizens.
“This report highlights the fact that the adverse effects of unchecked mass immigration, combined with an immigration selection process that does not choose people based on individual merit, job skills and education, are now being felt in all parts of the country. Americans, in every part of the nation, are being affected by antiquated and unenforced immigration policies, which is why it is at the top of the list of voter concerns heading into the 2020 elections,” Stein concluded in the release.
Rob Shimshock is the Commentary Editor at CNSNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @ShimshockAndAwe.


Breadline Bernie Makes It Harder for the Left to Hide Its Love Affair with Communism


On a recent episode of 60 Minutes, as Anderson Cooper narrates, a video is shown of Bernie Sanders suggesting, in the 1980s, that the Cuban people didn't help to overthrow Fidel Castro because the Castro regime had "educated their kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society."  While it might have been politically prudent to walk that contention back, Bernie doubled down.  "We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba," Sanders said, "but you know, it's unfair to simply say that everything is bad.  When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did?  He had a massive literacy program.  Is that a bad thing?"
That's not a bad thing in Bernie Sanders's estimation.  He thinks of "massive literacy programs" much the same as he once described government breadlines: "that's a good thing."
In Tuesday night's debate in South Carolina, he tripled down, telling the audience that, like Barack Obama, he thinks "Cuba made progress on education."  This statement was met with loud boos.  "Really?  Literacy programs are bad?" Sanders asked. 
Fabiola Santiago of the Miami Herald was there in Castro's re-education camps.  Her mother was fired from her teaching job for "her refusal to teach Communist dogma to her students."  Her father, a "merchant of flour goods," had his business confiscated by the communist regime to pay for that "literacy program," and rather than operate it as "an employee of the state," he was "sent to work in the agricultural fields as punishment." 
Sure, people were persecuted and jailed for political dissent, had their property stolen, were paralyzed in fear of government reprisal, and were executed by the thousands to maintain that heightened level of fear.  But hey, that Castro fellow started a "massive literacy program," says Bernie.
The New York Times reports that Lourdes Diaz, a Cuban-American and president of the Democratic Hispanic Caucus in Broward County, was "totally disgusted and insulted" by Bernie's comments.  "Maybe this will open people's eyes to how super, super liberal and radical Bernie is.  I'm not going to defend him anymore.  I'm over it."
But is Bernie really a "radical" among progressives for praising murderous communists?  Though it somehow has flown under the radar for a lot of Democrats, Bernie Sanders, with his soft criticism and obvious admiration for some features of communism, is just what the Left really looks like without its ultra-thin mask of political moderation. 
After all, the same New York Times that quoted Ms. Diaz praised an even more murderous, freedom-strangling communist regime in 2017.  The editors gave ample space for Kristen R. Ghodsee's similarly tepid criticism and lavish praise for communism, in an article salaciously titled "Why Women Had Better Sex under Socialism."
Ghodsee's article leads with a picture of a Soviet working woman "on a collective farm near Moscow in 1955."  She's clean, smiling happily, and prettily dressed for her grueling day of work in the fields, which means it's all but certainly a Soviet propaganda photo that the New York Times felt obliged to again employ for the photo's originally intended purpose.  "When Americans think of Communism in Eastern Europe," Ghodsee writes, "they think of travel restrictions, bleak landscapes of gray concrete, miserable men and women languishing in long lines to shop in empty markets, and security services snooping on the private lives of citizens." 
Much of that is true, Ghodsee must admit.  But a study of East and West German women conducted after the fall of the Soviet Union, she says, found that "Eastern women had twice as many orgasms as Western women."  They may have had to "line up for toilet paper," but their quality of life in the bedroom (which is more important than things like freedom of movement, personal privacy, access to food, or personal hygiene, we are to presume) was far greater than their Western counterparts, according to the one cherry-picked study and a few anecdotes she cites.  
Better sex is just one of the ways that East was better than West, she says.  Women there enjoyed "major investments in their education" and "full incorporation into the labor force."  These women, you see, had the good fortune to live in a nation where "[a]fter the Bolshevik takeover, Vladimir Lenin and Aleksandra Kollontai enabled a sexual revolution in the early years of the Soviet Union."  This is in contrast to all those women in the West, who had the misfortune of living there by choice and, rather than being forced into labor, chose to stay at home and enjoy "all the labor-saving devices produced by the roaring capitalist economy."  
It is but a sidebar for Ghodsee, I suppose, that the Bolshevik takeover she cites led to the single greatest political scourge against human life and liberty that our world has ever known, leaving over a hundred million corpses in its wake over the last century.  Her takeaway from all of the history seems to be that Western women may think it would be a crummy life to not have washing machines to launder their clothing, or to be forced to work long hours in manual labor professions like farming, or have to wait for hours in line for government-issued toilet paper, but think of all the great sex those women could have had under communism!
Think about this for a moment.  The New York Times is the most prominent periodical of the Left, and its writers, like Bernie, are plumbing the depths of the darkest and deadliest ideology in the history of humankind to find the good in it.  Meanwhile, they are struggling mightily to tarnish the American ideas of free markets and limited government by arguing, via their "1619 Project," that Americans' ancient participation in the slave trade diminishes the copious blessings and human freedom that these ideas have fostered. 
This is the kind of "news" that the New York Times sees fit to print these days, unfortunately.  It's tough to argue that these pro-communist and anti-American maunderings that have appeared on the pages of the Times for years are any less crazy or radical than Crazy Bernie.    
Openly praising Castro on a presidential debate stage hits pretty close to home for many Florida voters, just as I suppose Ghodsee's comments praising communism for fostering a swinging sex life on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain must have been similarly received by women who lived there.  Unfortunately for Democrats, millions more Americans heard Bernie whitewashing communism as the likely Democratic presidential nominee than read the New York Times. 
Not only has Bernie Sanders made it impossible for Democrats to win in Florida if he is their nominee, but he also continues to expose the Left for what it truly is.  While that's a very bad thing for progressives who hoped that the Democratic Party could hide the radicalism of its sharp leftward turn in recent years, it's a very good thing for any Americans who can still recognize that communism is evil to its core and that there are marked similarities between it and the "democratic socialism" now being presented as its less dangerous cousin. 
Image: AFGE via Flickr.


That baggage in Bernie's closet is bulging the closet door



Bernie Sanders, who demonstrated his appeal to Latino voters in Nevada by winning 53% of their votes, seems impervious to any critical examination of his actual record.
But it turns out his political closet is bulging with anti-Latino secrets — not the Castro kind, but the kind that might just vaporize his support as word gets out.
Here's Tucker Carlson with just a whiff of what's brewing:
Carlson points out that Sanders was against illegal immigration before he was for it and essentially understood that helping the working class here might just mean not importing competition from abroad to drive their wages down.  An illegal alien from Honduras, for instance, often consents to earning starvation wages and living in a room with 12 other people in some place like Lancaster, Calif., simply because his dollars earned can be converted to a princely living when sent back home.  The effect on the American workers?  Wages driven downward to compete with the illegally present new entrants.  Too bad about those guys.
Sanders knew this, until he didn't. Carlson points out that this is a major flipflop in Sanders' position, given that he now supports open borders, and not just open borders, but free health care, free college, and free everything else to all comers who manage to sneak past the border guards he incidentally wishes to abolish.  And sure enough, now that he's the Democratic frontrunner, riding in on his wave of Latino support.
Fine and dandy, maybe they forgive him that or, at least as likely, don't know and don't care.  Maybe they don't believe that this would drive their own wages to Guatemalan levels, not realizing that they're now in an argument with math.
But there's more to it than just a Sanders flip-flop to an open-borders position as a pander to the Latino vote.
Sanders, according to Townhall's Guy Benson, who found some interesting opposition research dug up by an anti-Sanders #NeverTrump, has a mean streak when it comes to Latinos.
In one of the very few things he ever did legislatively (and he did very little, indeed), Sanders co-sponsored a bill to dump Vermont's and Maine's toxic nuclear waste onto a little Latino Texas town against the locals' wishes, giving them the stiff arm when they protested and turning a tidy profit for his wife, who's still drawing checks.  Benson writes:
Out of pure curiosity, I clicked the link in one of his tweets, and...wow:
(1) In 1998, then-Rep. Sanders cosponsored a bill that would allow Vermont and Maine to dump their nuclear waste in a poor and largely Latino town in Texas called Sierra Blanca.
(2) A Texas Observer article in 1998 covered protestors from Sierra Blanca confronting Rep. Sanders and being given the stiff arm. The story's headline was "Sanders to Sierra Blanca: Drop Dead." Sanders even rebuffed an offer to visit Sierra Blanca, telling its residents, "Absolutely not. I'm gonna be running for re-election in the state of Vermont."
(3) Liberal hero Paul Wellstone—an actual progressive Democrat—gave a speech on the Senate floor calling this dump "environmental racism." Former Texas Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes called Sanders actions "insanely callous."
(4) After Congress approved the proposal, environmental regulators rejected the Sierra Blanca site. But a different site in Andrews County, Texas gained approval a few years later and Vermont/Texas maintain an interstate waste agreement.
(5) In 2016, Sanders' tax returns revealed that as of 2014 Jane Sanders was still drawing a small salary as an alternate commissioner for the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission as part of the agreement with Vermont that her husband pushed.
He hasn't made any amends or flip-flops on that one, and his wife is still drawing checks, maybe hoping no one notices.
It goes to show the essential heartlessness of socialism in action, as checks and balances are erased in a system of all power going to the government, and people, in the name of "the people," count for nothing, particularly if they get in the way with protests.
That's a pretty good skeleton from Sanders's closet for anyone, but it ought to end Latino support for Sanders in particular, unless these Sanders Latinos actually like it.  Since establishment Democrats now say they will do anything to stop Sanders from becoming the Democratic nominee, even if it means destroying their own party, one can be fairly sure that these kinds of stories are going to be getting out, courtesy of their mainstream media allies, pretty soon.
Good. 




California: Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Arrested for Triple Homicide

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5440581937224467578#editor/target=post;postID=509287874521447180

(RCSO)
1:31
A twice-deported illegal alien, accused of murdering three men in the sanctuary state of California, has been arrested by law enforcement officials.
Jose Luis Torres Garcia, a 33-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, was identified this week by Riverside County Sheriff’s Office in Southern California for allegedly murdering three men execution-style, as Breitbart News reported. The victims include 50-year-old Jaime Covarrubias Espindola, 38-year-old Jose Maria Aguilar-Espejel, and 28-year-old Rodrigo Aguilar-Esepjel.
Garcia had been on the run, fleeing to Cheyenne, Wyoming, but was arrested by local authorities there when he was pulled over for a traffic stop. During his arrest, police found 15 pounds of marijuana in his vehicle.
According to law enforcement, Garcia already has an active warrant for his arrest for allegedly drunk driving and a warrant for drug crimes before the murders. Though the illegal alien was previously deported from the U.S. twice, he returned to California at an unknown time following his last deportation.
Law enforcement officials were worried that Garcia may have fled to Mexico before locating him. He will now be held on a $3 million bond for the murders.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 

No comments: