Wednesday, February 26, 2020

BERNIE WINS THE ILLEGALS' VOTES IN NEVADA - HE'S PROMISED AMNESTY TO 40 MILLION ILLEGALS SO THEY CAN BRING UP THE REST OF MEXICO AND SUCK OFF WELFARE

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.



Bernie Wins Majority of Hispanics in Nevada
02/23/2020
A+
|
a-
From ABC13.com:
By GARY LANGER
Updated an hour ago
Sen. Bernie Sanders ran competitively in unaccustomed support groups amid the Nevada Democratic caucuses while sweeping the table among Latino, young and very liberal voters, leaving his competitors wrestling inconclusively over the sharply fragmented remains, according to ABC News’ entrance poll results.
Latinos joined the Sanders brigade in Nevada, the most diverse state to participate so far, giving him 51% of their votes, a vast tally in a seven-candidate race. Sanders fell off sharply among blacks, to 27% — yet that was good enough for second place to former Vice President Joe Biden’s 39% among blacks, Biden’s single best group. The Vermont senator won 29% of whites, easily first in this group…
I’m reminded of the arguments in the 2000s over whether Hispanics were Natural Conservatives as mainstream Republicans liked to theorize or whether Hispanics were primarily concerned about immigration policy. As I wrote skeptically in 2002, my impression is that Hispanic voters more tended toward family economic self-interest, which generally meant what FDR’s right-hand man (or to be ideologically more accurate: left-hand man) Harry Hopkins called “tax tax, spend spend, elect elect.”
Are Hispanics - or, for that matter, blacks - going to vote Republican based on these moral views? The answer is already in: no. Except when voting on rare single-issue referendums, such as California's anti-gay marriage initiative California two years ago, the Hispanic electorate seems far more concerned about bread and butter issues. Indeed, in their new book The Emerging Democratic Majority,  John Judis and Ruy Teixeira contend that in American politics, social issues are essentially a luxury item that primarily interest better-off groups.
My general impression of Hispanic voters has long been that outside of some megachurch Protestant evangelicals, they aren’t really all that worked up over family values issues.
Nor, outside of the Diversity Inclusion Equity racketeers are they all that worked up over immigration. (Much less use of terms like “Latinx”: The Sanders campaign did focus groups on whether Hispanics like the term “Latinx” and found that practically nobody did, so they announced they weren’t using it. In contrast, Elizabeth Warren did use “Latinx” and got something like 7% of the vote in Nevada.)
Instead, they tend to be kind of poorly informed and not that interested in politics, but basically open toward voting themselves some benefits at other people’s expense in a no-hard-feelings but-this-is-good-for-me-and-mine way that I don’t take too personally either.
They didn’t vote much for Sanders in 2016 because they didn’t know who he was, but now they know and they like what he’s selling.
If and when this tips Texas Democratic, well, the GOP’s chances in the Electoral College are more or less over, except in occasional Schwarzenegger-in-California type elections. But the Republicans can’t say nobody warned them.

No comments: