OPEN BORDERS ADVOCATE SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM WANTS STATES TO FIX LOOMING UNEMPLOYMENT CRISIS - NANCY PELOSI SAYS BIDEN'S AMNESTY WILL ENABLE 40 MILLION ILLEGALS TO BRING UP THE REST OF MEXICO AND KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED

Bullard Says Unemployment Could Rise to 30%

Photo by John Vachon/Library Of Congress/Getty Images

JOHN CARNEY

23 Mar 202

The unemployment rate in the U.S. could hit 30 percent, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James Bullard said in Bloomberg News interview.

“This is a planned, organized partial shutdown of the U.S. economy in the second quarter. The overall goal is to keep everyone, households and businesses, whole,” Bullard said. “It is a huge shock and we are trying to cope with it and keep it under control.”

That would be the highest rate of unemployment since the Great Depression.

Bullard said he expects economic growth to plunge 50 percent in the second quarter but for the economy to bounce back later in the year, so long as the appropriate measures are taken by the fiscal and monetary authorities.

“I would see the third quarter as a transitional quarter,” Bullard said. The next six months, however, could be very strong. “Those quarters might be boom quarters,” he said.

Bullard also said the Fed was far from being “out of bullets,” as some Fed watchers have claimed.

“There is more that we can do if necessary,” he said. “There is probably much more in the months ahead depending on where Congress wants to go.”

Exclusive—Sen. Lindsey Graham Calls on Governors Nationwide to Develop Plan to Fix Coronavirus Unemployment Loophole

2,671

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

MATTHEW BOYLE

26 Mar 2020Washington, D.C.4,010

12:33

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and a top ally of President Donald Trump, told Breitbart News exclusively on Thursday that he is calling on governors, especially those in red states, to develop a fix to an unemployment loophole in the massive $2 trillion coronavirus rescue passage the Senate passed Wednesday night.

The bill, for which Graham and 95 other senators voted, passed the U.S. Senate unanimously on Wednesday evening. It only got 96 votes because four GOP senators are quarantining due to either having coronavirus or concerns they might have been exposed. The bill is expected to pass the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday morning via voice vote, House leaders say, and will make its way to President Trump’s desk, where he is expected to sign it.

The bill contains many positive things to help rescue the economy, including direct payments to many Americans as well as funds for a variety of industries and loans for small businesses that will be forgiven, assuming they maintain their workforces. But one particular part of the bill, Graham told Breitbart News, represents a potential serious threat to the economy as a whole—and he said that while he voted for the overall package, this problem needs to be fixed soon.

“There’s a lot of good stuff—that’s why I voted for it,” Graham told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on Thursday afternoon.

The problem, the senator explained, is that this bill includes an additional $600 per person per week if they are laid off or unemployed. The federal government has never had a federal unemployment program, as those matters and benefits have been handled by the states until this bill. The issue here, however, as Graham explained, is that in some cases people may end up—by collecting unemployment checks from both their state and the federal government—making more money per week during the four-month duration of this novel federal unemployment program than they would should they keep their job.

“I was willing to reimburse people—to supplement unemployment benefits to their actual wages up to $50,000,” Graham said. “Make you whole. The unemployment benefit in South Carolina is $326. So the federal government created the $600 supplement for every state. My goal was to make people whole up to around $48,000 or $49,000. What’s happened here is if you make $30,000, you’re going to wind up getting reimbursed under unemployment up to $48,000. Your weekly pay will go from a $30,000 salary to a $48,000 or $49,000 salary.”

In the state of South Carolina, for instance, the maximum weekly unemployment benefit, Graham said, is $326 a week. So people who are laid off due to the coronavirus crisis would collect that, plus an extra $600 per week from the federal government under this bill. Given the unique nature of the coronavirus crisis—which is the fault of no American—Graham said his and other senators’ goal is to ensure that people are “made whole,” in that they get their whole salary through these expanded unemployment benefits. But, he is concerned that this loophole in the program, where the states and federal government are not in sync with each other, may end up making it such that somebody makes more money by collecting both unemployment benefits than they would by working.

“Let’s use South Carolina as an example—$326 a week is the maximum benefit,” Graham said. “I want to be more generous than that. We have a $600 federal pot. If you’re making $30,000 a year, I don’t know what that is a week. About $576. So you should go from $326 up to $576, but under the way the bill is written, you’d get $600 on top of the $326. That incentivizes people not to work, because the computer can’t make the adjustment, which is bizarre to me because to get the unemployment benefits you have to give the agency information on your wages—what you make at work—and who your employer is.”

In other words, somebody making $30,000 a year in South Carolina could end up making more than a $48,000 salary during the four months in which this program is in place. That makes the average hourly wage of collecting unemployment under this system in South Carolina around $23 an hour—more than many well-paying jobs in the state. The issue is similar, with different numbers, in other states. That could have an adverse effect on hiring—as companies like Amazon, which is reportedly looking to hire right now, would be competing against the government paying higher wages for not working than they can afford to pay for somebody to work.

“The average hourly wage for unemployment benefits in South Carolina would be $23.14 an hour,” Graham said. “So if you’re making $15 working, you look like a chump. So, bottom line is it’s going to be difficult for people to hire because they’re competing with a $23 an hour government wage. So, like Amazon wants to hire 100,000 people? They’d probably take $14 or $15 an hour. But they’d have to jack their wages up, which would affect the entire economy. So this artificially incentivizes people to stay out of the workforce and it makes hiring in certain areas of the economy almost impossible due to the technological glitch.”

If someone were making more than that—say $30 or $40 an hour—Graham says, “you would only go on unemployment if you were laid off.”

“But here’s the really perverse incentive: The average household income in South Carolina for a couple, a family, or household is $51,000. Under this bill, if you have a husband and wife—if they’re making $51,000 together in combined income—under this bill, each one would get $926 or whatever it is and they would go from a household income of $51,000 to over $90,000. The incentive for the couple is to not go to work for four months.”

What Graham wants to happen is for anyone affected by the coronavirus crisis to make their full salary if they are laid off during it. But what he does not want is the government making it such that people make more money by collecting unemployment benefits than by working. In other words, he wants to set it up in states whereby the state unemployment benefit would match their salary—whereas currently the state provides people a benefit that is less than their full salary. The full $600 extra from the federal government should match up to what someone is making, but not have them making more than when they were employed.

“We want to make them whole, but we want to not have a system where they make more money to not work,” Graham said. “I was the first Republican to reach across the aisle and say ‘let’s beef up unemployment.’ I never dreamed that we’d come up with this system. I never dreamed that we would have a system that pay people not to work. I wanted to make them whole, people in the low level of the economy. But it went the other way. In South Carolina if you combine the two, it’s $23 an hour. Ted Cruz told me in Texas it’s $28 an hour. So, a lot of people are not making $28 an hour in Texas.”

The issue, Graham said, is the state unemployment systems—which are different in each state—are months away from modernizing payment structures and technology to be able to make people whole but not pay them more to not work.

“Here’s the problem. The reason we can’t do this apparently is, they tell me, that state unemployment insurance systems can’t do this,” Graham said. “We land two men on the moon, but I’ve been told it’s going to take six to eight months for state unemployment insurance systems to be able to cut a check for the difference between a state unemployment benefit and your actual income. That to me is astounding, that in the 21st century state unemployment systems can’t make this adjustment in less than six or eight months. Now, what does that mean? It means for the next four months, we’re going to have an incentive to leave the workforce.”

Graham said that the problem needs to be fixed as soon as possible, because if the virus resurges in the fall, even after public health efforts by the Trump administration vanquish it this go around, then the country may need to turn back to this system as a solution again.

“So I am not going to tolerate this as the answer for the country,” Graham said. “The virus will probably come back in the fall, and this will hit us all over again and when there’s a big spike in unemployment due to the containment policies we face a Hobson’s choice here. With 3.3 million unemployment claims announced this morning, it’s probably going to get worse here. So it’s imperative that we fix this so that we don’t incentivize people to leave the workforce. We need to fix this because this problem is going to be with us for a very long time.”

So to answer the problem, Graham said, he is calling on Republican governors nationwide and red state insurance commissioners to develop a solution that can serve as a model for the nation.

“So what I’m going to do when we get back is create incentives for states to fix this problem, so that you get made whole but you don’t get a pay raise,” Graham said. “I am looking for a conservative governor to show the country how to do this. I believe that a governor that can figure out, a state unemployment commissioner that can figure out how to fix the system is going to get rewarded by the federal government, but it’s also going to help the economy. Under the current system you’re literally paying people more not to work.”

Graham has not, since this interview with Breitbart News on Thursday afternoon, spoken with any governors yet, but he intends to begin doing so soon, starting with South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster.

“I’m going to start with my governor,” Graham said. “I was told by [Eugene] Scalia: Y’all need to call somebody at Labor. There are rules on the books that won’t be followed. The rules are you can’t get unemployment if you quit, so if people leave their jobs to get more unemployment that’s not going to be enforced. You need a small army to enforce that. Employers are not going to throw their people over. So I hear about all the way the law works, I live in the real world—I live on Main Street—and I know exactly what’s going to happen here. If you make $23 an hour not to work for four months, most people will probably do that.”

Graham said he’s confident that somewhere in America, a governor or insurance commissioner will solve this problem.

“Somebody will invent a software that can be widely applied,” Graham said. “Then again—in Bernie’s world, Bernie Sanders’ world, I’m being mean. But I think we’re being smart, because most Americans would prefer to work, and most Americans want to pay their government to pay people more to work than not to work. In Bernie’s world, that’s fine—he’s okay with a $23 an hour minimum wage.”

Then, when a state develops a solution, Graham will take that back to Congress and offer it up for the whole country.

“Then I get the Congress to basically revisit this issue and take the solution and spread it around and give people 30 days to implement, and give them money to help implement it, and if they don’t they’re going to lose some of that benefit,” Graham said. “Carrots and sticks.”

Graham said the coronavirus pandemic has exposed a previously unknown vulnerability in the state-run unemployment system, and now with the federal government creating its first-ever such program—even though it’s temporary—those weaknesses are being thrust into the spotlight.

“Our state unemployment system was like our testing system: It wasn’t set up to deal with a pandemic,” Graham said. “Well, this may not be the last one we have and this thing may come back in the fall so we have to fix it now. Every day we go forward it puts pressure on the economy. You can’t really regenerate because you’ve created a perverse incentive for people to be out of the workforce.”

That’s why Graham is hopeful that a state somewhere in the union, probably one with a GOP governor, will sort this out.

“We’re making a call to arms here to see if we can get some state to figure this out, so we can make people whole but not create an incentive to get out of the workforce, because this is a real problem and people will be incentivized not to go back to work, and people who need to hire are going to have a hard time of it,” Graham said.

In a state like Florida, where immigrants make up about 25.4 percent of the labor force, American workers have their weekly wages reduced by about 12.5 percent. In California, where immigrants make up 34 percent of the labor force, American workers’ weekly wages are reduced by potentially 17 percent.

 

 'Moderate' Biden's Rush to the Middle

And why it won't work.

March 24, 2020 

Don Feder

Now that he’s all but won his party’s nomination, Joe Biden can follow the time-honored strategy of Democratic presidential candidates by scurrying to the political center.

He’ll pretend he didn’t say what he said (in Joe’s case, the age-associated-memory-loss thing will help), or he’ll offer an explanation so incoherent that everyone will fall asleep trying to figure out what he means, or he’ll tell skeptics, “Don’t be such a horse’s ass.”

It won’t work.

The Sanders-AOC-Tlaib-Omar gang won’t shut up. They’ll keep barging into the conversation and embarrassing him with middle-class voters. But if he disowns them, he risks losing half the party.

Throughout the primary season, the media did its best to sell Biden as a moderate, a regular guy -- good ol' Lunch Bucket Joe, a throwback to the days when Democrats stole your money, but didn’t give it to illegal aliens.

Biden the moderate is pure media hype. Lately, Joe has been telling the Resistance: I’m Sanders too, but a Sanders who doesn’t scare the hell out of normal people – a Sanders who can win.

            Here are a few of his channeling-my-inner-Bernie moments:

1.  Immigration – "Lunch bucket Joe” wants wide-open borders: free health care for illegals and no deportation except for felonies committed in the United States (felonies in Mexico don’t count, neither does drunk driving, says Joe). Biden demonstrated his clear-thinking and firm grasp of the issue when he proclaimed during a speech in January that DACA recipients   become Americans before many Americans do. (He neglected to explain the process whereby Americans become Americans.) A November report showed that 1 in 10 “Dreamers” have a criminal record – but they may have been tagged for something inconsequential, like drunk driving.
 

2.  Taxes – In the words of the 5th Dimension song, “Up, up and away.” Repeal the Trump tax cuts and double the capital gains tax. In all, Biden envisions $3.2 trillion in tax increases. With the country trying to make up for the economic losses of COVID-19, punishing investment will work wonders.
 

3.  College Tuition – Biden recently adopted Sanders’ College-for-All Act -- free tuition for students at public colleges and universities whose family income is below $125,000, and regardless of the student’s major. Why should those majoring in transgender studies be denied public support for training that will allow them to make a crucial contribution to society.
 

4.  Government health care – While criticizing Sanders’ Medicare for all, Biden’s plan has been called Medicare for Most: Bringing back the individual mandate and spending $750 billion to expand Obama Care.
 

5.  Climate and energy – Joe’s positions here might be called the Lime Green New Deal. He started with the grandiose pronouncement, “We are going to get rid of fossil fuels.” This includes no new fracking, off-shore drilling or spending for pipeline infrastructure. The candidate who’s said to have blue-collar appeal told miners to learn computer programing – Hillary-style elitism at its worst. There goes Pennsylvania, Wyoming and West Virginia. There’s also $1.7 billion to establish the framework for his plan to achieve zero carbon emissions by 2050.
 

6.  Gun control – Biden says Beto O’Rourke (“Hell yes, we’re going to take away your AR-15!”) will be in charge of firearms policy in his administration, because no one needs “a clip that holds 100-rounds.” There goes every state with a large contingent of sportsmen.
 

7.  Abortion – Biden wants publicly funded abortion. He’ll also use abortion as a litmus test for court appointments. This will be a big hit with traditional Catholics. The South Carolina priest who refused to give communion to Joe in November may have started a trend.
 

8.  Bringing civility back to government – Joe told the Human Rights Campaign  that with Trump as president, “virulent people” and “the dregs of society” have a friend in the White House. Basket of intolerables here we come.

All of this puts the Vice President far outside the mainstream of American politics. If that weren’t enough, while he’s trying to rationalize, modify and explain away what he said, like the ghosts of dialectical Christmas past, Sanders, Warren and the squad will relentlessly try to pull him to the left.

The Trump campaign can reasonably ask what Biden will give Bernie and company if elected. Will he make Sanders Secretary of HHS, Warren Secretary of Treasury, Ilhan Omar Ambassador to Israel?

While the Vice President scurries to the middle, the radical rodents will block his way and gnaw away at his credibility.

Bernie Sanders: ‘Of Course’ Cheap Illegal Workers Drive Down U.S. Wages

Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

JOHN BINDER

 14 Jan 2020326

3:30

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) admits cheaper illegal alien workers drive down wages for America’s working and middle class but continues to support amnesty for illegal aliens, decriminalization of the United States-Mexico border, and throwing out President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” executive order.

Sanders navigated through the issue during an interview with the New York Times, attempting to explain his previous statements where he has admitted that opening the U.S. border is detrimental to the nation-state and has slammed the concept of hemispheric open borders.

During the exchange, Sanders says “of course” cheaper illegal alien workers hired by businesses at “$5 an hour” will “lower wages” for America’s working class, who are often looking for entry-level jobs.

“Yeah, if you’re being paid $5 — if you’re being paid $5 an hour, now of course it’s going to lower wages,” Sanders said. “Why would I hire at a higher wage?”

Later in the interview, though, Sanders backs away from immigration’s wage-suppression impact on Americans and focuses on a $15 minimum wage — suggesting that illegal aliens be legalized and paid the same wage as Americans.

“All I am saying is that if for whatever reason, I’m paying you $5 an hour, okay,” Sanders said. “You don’t think that’s going to lower the wages that she gets?”

Legal immigration levels, where 1.2 million mostly low-skilled legal immigrants and hundreds of thousands of foreign visa workers are admitted to the country annually, have driven the number of foreign born workers in the U.S. to its highest level since 1996. This is in addition to the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who enter the country every year.

Most immigrants to the U.S. immediately begin competing for blue-collar and white-collar jobs against millions of Americans who want full-time employment.

John Binder  @JxhnBinder

No Labor Shortage: 11M Americans Out of Work, But All Want Full-Time Jobs https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/10/no-labor-shortage-11m-americans-out-of-work-but-all-want-full-time-jobs/ …

No Labor Shortage: 11M Americans Out of Work but Want Full-Time Jobs

There remain more than 11 million Americans who are out of work despite claims by the big business lobby of a so-called "labor shortage."

breitbart.com

681

5:28 PM - Jan 10, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

388 people are talking about this

Extensive research by economists like George Borjas and analyst Steven Camarota reveals that the country’s current mass legal immigration system burdens U.S. taxpayers and America’s working and middle class while redistributing about $500 billion in wealth every year to major employers and newly arrived immigrants. Similarly, research has revealed how Americans’ wages are crushed by the country’s high immigration levels.

For every one percent increase in the immigrant portion of American workers’ occupations, their weekly wages are cut by about 0.5 percent, Camarota finds. This means the average native-born American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by perhaps 8.75 percent since 17.5 percent of the workforce is foreign born.

In a state like Florida, where immigrants make up about 25.4 percent of the labor force, American workers have their weekly wages reduced by about 12.5 percent. In California, where immigrants make up 34 percent of the labor force, American workers’ weekly wages are reduced by potentially 17 percent.

Likewise, every one-percent increase in the immigrant portion of low-skilled U.S. occupations reduces wages by about 0.8 percent. Should 15 percent of low-skilled jobs be held by foreign-born workers, it would reduce the wages of native-born American workers by perhaps 12 percent.

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

 

 

 

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

NEIL MUNRO

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."

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-class-war-over-paying-living-wages.html

"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."

PAUL BEDARD - THE STAGGERING COST OF MEXICO'S OCCUPATION AND LOOTING - Should we be helping our own instead?

 

Record $135 billion a year for illegal immigration, average $8,075 each, $25,000 in NY

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/record-135-billion-a-year-for-illegal-immigration-average-8075-each-25000-in-ny/article/2635757

 

by Paul Bedard | 

The swelling population of illegal immigrants and their kids is costing American taxpayers $135 billion a year, the highest ever, driven by free medical care, education and a huge law enforcement bill, according to the the most authoritative report on the issue yet.

And despite claims from pro-illegal immigration advocates that the aliens pay significant off-setting taxes back to federal, state and local treasuries, the Federation for American Immigration Reform report tallied just $19 billion, making the final hit to taxpayers about $116 billion.

State and local governments are getting ravaged by the costs, at over $88 billion. The federal government, by comparison, is getting off easy at $45 billion in costs for illegals.

President Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and conservatives in Congress are moving aggressively to deal with illegals, especially those with long criminal records. But their effort is being fought by courts and some 300 so-called "sanctuary communities" that refuse to work with federal law enforcement.

The added burden on taxpayers and the unfairness to those who have applied to come into the United States through legal channels is also driving the administration's immigration crackdown.

The report, titled "The Fiscal Burden Of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers," is the most comprehensive cost tally from FAIR. It said that the costs have jumped about $3 billion in four years and will continue to surge unless illegal immigration is stopped. It was provided in advance exclusively to Secrets.

"Clearly, the cost of doing nothing to stop illegal immigration is far too high," said FAIR Executive Director Dan Stein. "President Trump has laid out a comprehensive strategy to regain control of illegal immigration and bring down these costs," said Stein. "Building the wall, enhancing interior enforcement and mandating national E-Verify will go a long way in bringing these ridiculously high costs under control," he added.

Over 68 often shocking pages, FAIR documents the average $8,075 in state, local and federal spending for each of the of 12.5 million illegal immigrants and their 4.2 million citizen children.

Broadly, the costs include $29 billion in medical care, $23 billion for law enforcement, $9 billion in welfare, $46 billion for education.

Just consider the cost of teaching an illegal alien child who doesn't speak English. FAIR estimates an average cost of over $12,000 a year, and that can reach $25,000 in New York. Add to that welfare, health care, school lunches, and the per student price soars.

In state costs alone, California leads the list at $23 billion per year, followed by Texas at $11 billion, and New York at $7.4 billion.

And it also documents the taxes paid and how they don't come close to offsetting the costs. What's more, FAIR noted that 35 percent of the illegal population operate in an underground economy hidden from tax collectors. And worse, employers hire illegals and either pay them cheaply or under the table.

"The United States recoups only about 14 percent of the amount expended annually on illegal aliens. If the same jobs held by illegal aliens were filled by legal workers, at the prevailing market wage, it may safely be presumed that federal, state and local governments would receive higher tax payments," said FAIR.

Key findings pulled from the report:

·                     The staggering total costs of illegal immigrants and their children outweigh the taxes paid to federal and state governments by a ratio of roughly 7 to 1, with costs at nearly $135 billion compared to tax revenues at nearly $19 billion.

·                     The nearly $135 billion paid out by federal and state and local taxpayers to cover the cost of the presence of 12.5 million illegal aliens and their 4.2 million citizen children amounts to approximately $8,075 per illegal alien and citizen child prior to taxes paid, or $6,940 per person after taxes are paid.

·                     On the federal level, medical ($17.14 billion) is by far the highest cost, with law enforcement coming second ($13.15 billion) and general government services ($8 billion) third.

·                     At the state and local level, education ($44.4 billion) was by far the largest expense, followed by general public services ($18.5 billion) and medical ($12.1 billion).

·                     The top three states based on total cost to state taxpayers for illegal immigrants and their children: California ($23 billion); Texas ($10.9 billion), and New York ($7.5 billion).

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com

Cost Study 2017 Web by Anonymous XPD7OrbmF on Scribd

Featured Video FAIR Donald Trump Immigration Washington Secrets Paul Bedard

More than 52 million Americans live in economically distressed communities

By Sandy English
28 September 2017

A new analysis of Census data shows that the so-called economic recovery under the Obama administration was an unmitigated catastrophe for the 20 percent of the American population that live in the poorest areas of the United States and that gains of jobs and income have gone overwhelming to the top 20 percent richest areas.

“The 2017 Distressed Communities Report,” published by the Economic Innovation Group (EIG), analyzes the census data for 2011-2015 for people living in each of the nearly 7,500 American zip codes according to several criteria.

The EIG’s Distressed Communities Index (DCI) considers the percentage of the population without a high school diploma, the percentage of housing vacancies, the percentage of adults working, the percentage of the population in poverty, the median income ratio (the percentage of median income that a zip code has for its state), the change in employment from 2011 to 2015, and the change in the number of businesses in the same period.

The report divides the findings for zip codes into five quintiles based on these indicators, rated from worst- to best-performing: distressed, at risk, mid-tier, comfortable, and prosperous.

The results show that distressed communities—52.3 million people or 17 percent of the American population—experienced an average 6 percent drop in the number of adults working and a 6.3 percent average drop in the number of business establishments.

“Far from achieving even anemic growth from 2011 to 2015,” the report notes, “distressed communities instead experienced what amounts to a deep ongoing recession.”

Further, “fully one third of the approximately 44 million Americans receiving SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or food stamps) and other cash public assistance benefits (such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)) live in distressed communities.” The report notes that most distressed communities have seen zero net job growth since 2000.

Residents in these zip codes are five times more likely to die than those in prosperous zip codes. Deaths from cancer, pregnancy complications, suicide, and violence are even higher. “Mental and substance abuse disorders are 64 percent higher in distressed counties than prosperous ones, with major clusters in Appalachia and Native American communities where rates exceed four or five times the national average,” the report continues.

One other important and alarming fact which the report highlights is that over a third of the distressed zip codes contain so-called “brownfield” sites—areas which are polluted or contaminated in some way. Not only do these have impacts on real estate and business development, they present a whole array of health hazards to the very poorest Americans.

Distressed communities can be found all over the United States but are concentrated in the South: 43 percent of Mississippi’s zip codes are distressed, followed by Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana. According to the report, [the South] “is home to a staggering 52 percent of all Americans living in distressed zip codes—far above its 37.5 percent share of the country’s total population.”

After this, the Southwest and Great Lakes region have the largest share. In the Northeast, most distressed communities tend to be found in urban areas and in the South, primarily in rural areas.

The biggest cities with the largest numbers of distressed zip codes are Cleveland, Ohio, Newark, New Jersey, Buffalo, New York, Detroit, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio. Mid-sized cities with the highest number of distressed zip codes include Youngstown, Ohio, Trenton, New Jersey, Camden, New Jersey, Gary, Indiana, Hartford, Connecticut and Flint, Michigan.

Urban counties with the highest number of distressed zip codes include Cook County in Illinois, with Chicago at its center, Los Angeles County in California, Harris County in Texas, with Houston at its center, and Wayne County in Michigan, encompassing Detroit. Most of these urban areas were once industrial centers and home to the industrial working class.

Distressed zip codes that have a majority of minorities living in them are more than twice as likely to be distressed as zip codes that are majority white. “In total,” the report notes, “45 percent of the country’s majority-minority zip codes are distressed and only 7 percent of them are prosperous.” At the same time there are numerous distressed communities that are almost completely white. A quarter of the total distressed population is under 18.

The report found that the economic benefits of the recovery after the 2008 recessions have gone to the top quintile of zip codes, where the wealthier layers of the population live, including not only the very rich but also the upper middle class.

These areas, which the DCI terms prosperous, and make up roughly 85 million Americans or 27 percent of the US population, have for the most part the economic wherewithal to finance higher levels of education, have the lowest housing vacancy, highest percentage of working adults, and have had the lion’s share of job and business expansion.

“The job growth rate in the top quintile was 2.6 times higher than nationally from 2011 to 2015, and business establishments proliferated three times faster than they did at the national level,” the report notes. “Prosperous zip codes stand worlds apart from their distressed counterparts, seemingly insulated from many of the challenges with which other communities must grapple. The poverty rate is more than 20 points lower in the average prosperous community than it is in the average distressed one.”

The report makes much less of an analysis of the other three, middle quintiles, the at risk, mid-tier, and comfortable categories, but it does note some trends that address the overall trends nation-wide. “A remarkably small proportion of places fuel national increases in jobs and businesses in today’s economy. High growth in these local economic powerhouses buoys national numbers while obscuring stagnant or declining economic activity in other parts of the country.”

One of the more telling aspects of the report is that extreme poverty in the US is presided over by both capitalist parties: Democratic and Republic politicians have equal numbers of distressed communities in their constituencies. Democrats, in fact, “represent six of the 10 most distressed congressional districts.”

Another observation from the voting data, and one of the few that looks at conditions beyond the bottom and top quintiles, is worth quoting in full:

“President Trump accumulated a 3.5 million vote lead in counties that fell into the bottom three quintiles of well-being (equivalent to 9.4 percent of all votes cast in these counties). A vast array of factors determined voting patterns in the 2016 election, but it stands that the ‘continuity’ candidate performed better in the places benefiting most from the status quo, while the ‘change’ candidate performed better in the places one would expect to find more dissatisfaction.”

Broader figures and the historical view of wealth distribution in the US—that one percent of the population control 40 percent of the wealth or the decades-long decline in the percentage of the national income that goes to the working class—is not brought out in the report but the data add to a complete picture of social conditions across the United States, the character and geographical distribution of social and economic conditions in a country of more than 320 million.

The portrait provided by the EIG report is not simply one of increasing misery and poverty for the bottom 20 percent, and not only one in which only a minority of Americans are achieving anything like “prosperity,” but of growing and explosive dissent among tens of millions.

It exposes as a bold-faced lie the claim that President Obama made at the end of his second term, that “things have never been better” in America.

 

September 20, 2017

The Awful Future that Looms for a Majority of Today’s Americans

By Steve McCann

When it comes to the future, an overwhelming majority of Americans have adopted a mindset that is a variation of Isiah 22:12: “Let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow does not matter.”   Recently, federal debt surpassed the $20 Trillion mark (additional state and local debt amount to another $2.9 Trillion).  That milestone was greeted by the Ruling Class and a vast preponderance of the citizenry with a yawn and a shrug of the shoulder.   As the ongoing determination to promote new entitlement spending and the refusal to rein in, but instead to expand, existing programs continues unabated.   

Any attempt to seriously discuss the financial fate of the nation is ignored and dismissed with the proviso that its someone else’s problem for another day down the road.  In reality, this dilemma is not someone else’s problem.  The average life expectancy in the United States today is 79.  That means that over 225 million citizens and non-citizens in the country today will still be alive in 30 years.

And what will this nation be facing 30 years hence?  Recently, the Government Accountability Office as well as a number of experts such as Price Waterhouse have projected what that scenario will be if the country remains on its present course (with no new entitlements such as single payer health care and government mandated and paid maternity leave.)  Note: All dollar amounts are in 2017 Dollars.

A.   Federal, State and local government spending currently amounts to $7 Trillion per year or 37% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  By 2048 these entities combined will be spending in excess of $17 Trillion per year, or over 50% of GDP.   As interest costs on the overall debt will increase from $0.4 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, healthcare spending (includes Obamacare subsidies) will vault from $1.6 Trillion to $3.7 Trillion, Social Security and pension payments will grow from $1.4 Trillion to $3.5 Trillion, education spending from $1 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, and welfare programs from $0.5 Trillion to $1.3 Trillion. 

B.  The dramatic increase in spending and borrowing combined with the inevitable necessity of increased tax rates will crowd out private and public investment thereby slowing the growth of productivity, worker’s wages and the GDP.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2040 the average annual real income per person will fall by $6,000.00. Thus, by 2048 the GDP of the United States will lag significantly behind China and India, as it falls to third place among the nations of the world.  The U.S. GDP will increase only 76% by 2048 while government spending increases by 142%.

C.  Concurrent with and because of the spending, stagnant growth and reduced personal income, the overall government debt will increase significantly as tax proceeds (despite eventual higher rates) will not generate anything close to the revenue necessary to offset spending, as tax revenues to the Federal, State and local governments will not exceed 30% of the GDP, whereas spending will absorb 51% of the GDP.  By 2048 the overall government debt (Federal, State and local may well exceed $68 Trillion as compared to $23 Trillion today.  Thus, the interest costs will increase fivefold, as not only does the debt swell, but the United States will have to appeal to lenders willing to underwrite a nearly bankrupt nation.  Today this country, with 5% of the world’s population, accounts for over 32% of Global debt, but by 2048 it will account for 49% of Global debt.  In essence, America will be at the mercy of the rest of the world and a second-tier economy.

D.  Over the next 30 years there will be inevitable recessions, global financial crises and international military encounters.   The United States will, with this level of debt and spending, find itself in an increasingly precarious position, as it may not be able to successfully weather any serious economic downturn or global conflict.

E.   The above statistics do not include the current Democratic Party’s love affair with single-payer healthcare or “Medicare for all.”  If that program were included, the annual government expenditures in 2048 (over and above current healthcare spending and interest costs) would balloon from $17 Trillion to $20 Trillion (60% of annual GDP) (and the debt would grow from $68 Trillion to over $86 Trillion.

The tsunami that will inundate this nation is inevitable as there is no willingness, regardless of party, to confront these issues. 

The Democrats and their mind-numbed followers, now fully wedded to socialism, have convinced each other, and unfortunately much of the citizenry, that there is a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from the so-called rich and the golden goose that is Capitalism, the engine of the nation’s GDP, will continue in perpetuity to lay the gold eggs regardless of any abuse or restraint.  The one-time confiscation of the wealth of all the billionaires in the U.S. would amount to $2.2 Trillion (less than 31% of all government spending in 2017).  Further, Capitalism cannot thrive without capital and profit, both of which the Democrats would severely restrict and control, thus, exacerbating the scenario outlined above.

The Republicans, while cognizant of the dire future ahead, prefer to hide their heads in the sand and defer matters to another day and another Congress and another President, as they are fearful of telling the people the truth and risk losing political power.  Thus, their pre-determined inability and lack of fortitude in addressing Obamacare or any long-term spending programs.

Donald Trump continues to tout new programs (such as paid maternity leave), adamantly refuses to address the out of control entitlement spending, and is content with modified single-payer health care.  He claims that economic growth will take care of all the problems; however, unless he and his successors find a way to grow the economy at an annual 5-7% per year for the next 20 to 30 years, that platitude is meaningless (the highest ten-year period of GDP growth -- 6.7% -- in the past 100 years took place in 1939-1948, which included massive war production for World War II).  President Trump, has no plan or desire to mitigate the disaster looming on the horizon preferring to kick the can down the road while mouthing the usual banalities about reining in spending.

Thus, the populace, instead of being aware of the disaster ahead, is taking its lead from the Ruling Class.  Alternatively, the American people are blithely swimming in a sea of banalities and faux causes.  Whether it is promoting transgenderism, drowning in cults of personality, defacing and tearing down statues, feverously looking for supposed racism under every rock, asserting hypothetical compassion in the promotion of open borders and amnesty for untold millions, breathlessly endorsing the false God of climate change, cheering for their side of the political spectrum to humiliate the other, or demanding that government make their lives better.

I will not be among the 225 million Americans living today that will be alive in 2048.   I have been fortunate to live throughout the golden age of America’s power and influence, but regrettably to also see the impending end of this glorious and short-lived era.   The true tragedy is that those 225 million refuse to understand that for them there is no tomorrow to disregard.

When it comes to the future, an overwhelming majority of Americans have adopted a mindset that is a variation of Isiah 22:12: “Let us eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow does not matter.”   Recently, federal debt surpassed the $20 Trillion mark (additional state and local debt amount to another $2.9 Trillion).  That milestone was greeted by the Ruling Class and a vast preponderance of the citizenry with a yawn and a shrug of the shoulder.   As the ongoing determination to promote new entitlement spending and the refusal to rein in, but instead to expand, existing programs continues unabated.   

Any attempt to seriously discuss the financial fate of the nation is ignored and dismissed with the proviso that its someone else’s problem for another day down the road.  In reality, this dilemma is not someone else’s problem.  The average life expectancy in the United States today is 79.  That means that over 225 million citizens and non-citizens in the country today will still be alive in 30 years.

And what will this nation be facing 30 years hence?  Recently, the Government Accountability Office as well as a number of experts such as Price Waterhouse have projected what that scenario will be if the country remains on its present course (with no new entitlements such as single payer health care and government mandated and paid maternity leave.)  Note: All dollar amounts are in 2017 Dollars.

A.   Federal, State and local government spending currently amounts to $7 Trillion per year or 37% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  By 2048 these entities combined will be spending in excess of $17 Trillion per year, or over 50% of GDP.   As interest costs on the overall debt will increase from $0.4 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, healthcare spending (includes Obamacare subsidies) will vault from $1.6 Trillion to $3.7 Trillion, Social Security and pension payments will grow from $1.4 Trillion to $3.5 Trillion, education spending from $1 Trillion to $2.4 Trillion, and welfare programs from $0.5 Trillion to $1.3 Trillion. 

B.  The dramatic increase in spending and borrowing combined with the inevitable necessity of increased tax rates will crowd out private and public investment thereby slowing the growth of productivity, worker’s wages and the GDP.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2040 the average annual real income per person will fall by $6,000.00. Thus, by 2048 the GDP of the United States will lag significantly behind China and India, as it falls to third place among the nations of the world.  The U.S. GDP will increase only 76% by 2048 while government spending increases by 142%.

C.  Concurrent with and because of the spending, stagnant growth and reduced personal income, the overall government debt will increase significantly as tax proceeds (despite eventual higher rates) will not generate anything close to the revenue necessary to offset spending, as tax revenues to the Federal, State and local governments will not exceed 30% of the GDP, whereas spending will absorb 51% of the GDP.  By 2048 the overall government debt (Federal, State and local may well exceed $68 Trillion as compared to $23 Trillion today.  Thus, the interest costs will increase fivefold, as not only does the debt swell, but the United States will have to appeal to lenders willing to underwrite a nearly bankrupt nation.  Today this country, with 5% of the world’s population, accounts for over 32% of Global debt, but by 2048 it will account for 49% of Global debt.  In essence, America will be at the mercy of the rest of the world and a second-tier economy.

D.  Over the next 30 years there will be inevitable recessions, global financial crises and international military encounters.   The United States will, with this level of debt and spending, find itself in an increasingly precarious position, as it may not be able to successfully weather any serious economic downturn or global conflict.

E.   The above statistics do not include the current Democratic Party’s love affair with single-payer healthcare or “Medicare for all.”  If that program were included, the annual government expenditures in 2048 (over and above current healthcare spending and interest costs) would balloon from $17 Trillion to $20 Trillion (60% of annual GDP) (and the debt would grow from $68 Trillion to over $86 Trillion.

The tsunami that will inundate this nation is inevitable as there is no willingness, regardless of party, to confront these issues. 

The Democrats and their mind-numbed followers, now fully wedded to socialism, have convinced each other, and unfortunately much of the citizenry, that there is a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from the so-called rich and the golden goose that is Capitalism, the engine of the nation’s GDP, will continue in perpetuity to lay the gold eggs regardless of any abuse or restraint.  The one-time confiscation of the wealth of all the billionaires in the U.S. would amount to $2.2 Trillion (less than 31% of all government spending in 2017).  Further, Capitalism cannot thrive without capital and profit, both of which the Democrats would severely restrict and control, thus, exacerbating the scenario outlined above.

The Republicans, while cognizant of the dire future ahead, prefer to hide their heads in the sand and defer matters to another day and another Congress and another President, as they are fearful of telling the people the truth and risk losing political power.  Thus, their pre-determined inability and lack of fortitude in addressing Obamacare or any long-term spending programs.

Donald Trump continues to tout new programs (such as paid maternity leave), adamantly refuses to address the out of control entitlement spending, and is content with modified single-payer health care.  He claims that economic growth will take care of all the problems; however, unless he and his successors find a way to grow the economy at an annual 5-7% per year for the next 20 to 30 years, that platitude is meaningless (the highest ten-year period of GDP growth -- 6.7% -- in the past 100 years took place in 1939-1948, which included massive war production for World War II).  President Trump, has no plan or desire to mitigate the disaster looming on the horizon preferring to kick the can down the road while mouthing the usual banalities about reining in spending.

Thus, the populace, instead of being aware of the disaster ahead, is taking its lead from the Ruling Class.  Alternatively, the American people are blithely swimming in a sea of banalities and faux causes.  Whether it is promoting transgenderism, drowning in cults of personality, defacing and tearing down statues, feverously looking for supposed racism under every rock, asserting hypothetical compassion in the promotion of open borders and amnesty for untold millions, breathlessly endorsing the false God of climate change, cheering for their side of the political spectrum to humiliate the other, or demanding that government make their lives better.

I will not be among the 225 million Americans living today that will be alive in 2048.   I have been fortunate to live throughout the golden age of America’s power and influence, but regrettably to also see the impending end of this glorious and short-lived era.   The true tragedy is that those 225 million refuse to understand that for them there is no tomorrow to disregard.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/the_awful_future_that_looms_for_a_majority_of_todays_americans_.html#ixzz4tEUApC4L
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

 

Rural New York schools grapple with declining population, increasing poverty

By Jason Melanovski
20 September 2017

A recent report has highlighted the dire development of increasing poverty and declining enrollment many rural school districts are facing across New York state, forcing these districts to choose between making onerous cuts, combining with other districts, or closing schools within the district, thus forcing students to travel longer distances.

According to a report titled “Demographic Challenges Facing Rural Schools: Declining Enrollment and Growing Poverty” by the New York State Association of School Business Officials, the dual phenomena of increased poverty and lower enrollment are wreaking havoc on local school budgets, which are primarily funded by local property taxes.

Calling enrollment declines “omnipresent,” the report states that “96.7 percent of rural school districts had declining enrollment and 84.9 percent had drops of at least ten percent.”

While the rate and overall population in poverty is still higher in New York’s suburban and urban school districts, the poverty rate in rural areas is increasing at a noticeably faster pace.

From 2003 to 2015, the poverty rate for school-age children increased from 14 percent to 18 percent for children in rural school districts and from 19 percent to 21 percent for children in non-rural school districts. For both rural and non-rural school districts the greatest jump in poverty rates occurred between 2009 and 2011 following the 2008 financial crisis.

Another measure of the economic plight of school children is the percentage of children receiving free or reduced priced lunches. In rural school districts 48.3 percent of students receive free or reduced priced lunches, and that number rises to 53.2 percent of students in non-rural districts. A student is eligible for free or reduced priced lunch when his or her family makes less than 185 percent of the poverty level.

Although the report was released to shed light on the challenges facing rural school districts, it made clear that poverty among the state’s school children has no geographic limits. According the report, “The combination of poverty and Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) data show that a little more than one in every five schoolchildren in New York lives in poverty, while a little more than half of all school children face significant economic constraints at home.”

The report compiled data from the 340 rural school districts, which make up about half of those in New York State, but serve only a little more than 11 percent of the students.

The report noted that the population losses and increases in poverty cannot be separated from the financial crisis of 2008, stating “for a few years prior to the onset of the Great Recession, growth rates in urban and rural counties were closely related. Beginning in 2008, rural populations entered a period of sustained decline, while urban populations continued to grow, though their pace of growth slowed after 2011.”

According to United States Census data, the emptying of much of rural America can be directly connected to the shrinking number of jobs in non-metro areas, as the rural job market is now 4.26 percent smaller than it was in 2008.

Speaking to the Daily Star of Oneonta, NY, the rural Delaware Academy School District’s Superintendent Jason Thomson stated that the current 47 percent of students who qualify for free or reduced price meals is the “highest we’ve ever seen.”

In addition, many of the rural counties mentioned in the report have also been hit hard by the opioid epidemic, claiming the lives of young workers and reducing an already declining population. Tioga County, for instance, lost up to 10 percent of its population between 2002 and 2016 and averaged 16.7 opioid deaths from 2013 to 2015 according to New York state.

With rapidly declining enrollment, rural schools are forced to count on smaller and smaller budgets with each succeeding school year, resulting in cuts to classes, teachers, programs and extracurricular activities and an overall sense of living in a world with scant opportunities for future life.

As the report states, rural “schools may have to cut back on valuable academic and enrichment opportunities, from Advanced Placement courses to music and sports programs, when they no longer have the student numbers needed for viability. Any potential reductions in college readiness preparation are incredibly serious. Decreasing enrollment can also increase students’ sense of isolation as there are literally fewer peers for them to interact with.”

To add to an already dire state of morale in rural schools, despite the fact that poor rural schools often have significantly higher graduation rates than poor urban schools, diplomas from rural schools are often seen as “worthless” according to David Little, executive director of the New York State Rural Schools Association. Poor rural schools in New York are simply unable to afford the cost of offering advanced placement (AP) and college-level coursework that is seen as necessary by college admissions officers.

For its part, the New York state government and the Andrew Cuomo administration have failed to respond to the demographic and social declines in rural school districts and increase state aid. The state continues to use a formula created in 2008, prior to the financial crisis, which categorizes the majority of rural schools as “average need.” If current demographic and poverty data were used, the majority of rural schools would now be considered “high-need,” requiring increased state aid.

Increasing rural poverty is not unique to New York. It has been rising across the country after falling sharply over many decades to a record low rate in 2000 of 13.4 percent. 16.7 percent of rural Americans lived in poverty in 2015, compared to 13 percent in poverty within metropolitan areas, according to the United States Census Bureau.

 

 

US Census report shows increasing social inequality

By Eric London
15 September 2017

US Census data from 2016 released on Tuesday shows increasing social inequality amid a small gain in household income that is offset by a massive growth of personal debt and rising living costs.

The data tracks the ongoing redistribution of wealth from the working class to the wealthy as a result of the pro-Wall Street policies of both the Republican and Democratic parties. It substantiates the oligarchic character of the United States.

Social inequality

The Gini index, used to measure social inequality, with higher figures indicating a wider economic divide, rose slightly from 2015 (.479) to 2016 (.481). The 2016 figure, according to rankings in the CIA World Factbook, makes the US slightly more equal than Madagascar and less equal than Mexico.

In terms of aggregate income share, the shift from 2015 to 2016 is as follows:

The growth in inequality is even starker when traced from 2007, the year before the Wall Street crisis.

The data reflects income and not wealth, thereby providing an incomplete and conservative indication of the scale of inequality. Even within the highest quintile, the income share increased only for the top 10 percent, and, in particular, the top 5 percent.

Household income

The corporate media has portrayed the report as a sign of positive income growth, since it shows a slight rise in median income of 3.2 percent from 2015 to 2016.

But according to the Census data, the earnings of “full-time, year-round workers” remained stagnant. For men in this category, a total of 63.9 million people, earnings declined by 0.4 percent, from $51,859 in 2015 to $51,640 in 2016. For women in this category, 47.2 million people, there was a minor increase, 0.7 percent, from $41,257 in 2015 to $41,554 in 2016. In other words, families with 2 adults working full-time saw a paltry $78 increase in their yearly earnings from 2015 to 2016.

Claims of rising incomes mask the growth of inequality. The Census data shows that the household income of the 90th percentile (the 100th being the highest) was 12.53 times higher than the household income of the 10th percentile in 2016, up from 12.23 times higher in 2015 and 11.18 times higher in 2007. The degree to which income is concentrated in the richest 10 percent of the population is exemplified by the fact that the 5th percentile boasted a household income 3.82 times higher than the 50th percentile in 2016, up from 3.79 times in 2015 and 3.52 in 2007.

As Bloomberg News reported Wednesday, “Since 2007, average inflation-adjusted income has climbed more than 10 percent for households in the highest fifth of the earnings distribution, and it’s fallen 3.2 percent for the bottom quintile. Incomes of the top 5 percent jumped 12.8 percent over the period.”

For the working class, any income increase was transferred to the corporate elite in the form of rising debt payments and increasing living expenses, especially for health care.

According to figures from eHealth, a large private health exchange, average deductibles for families rose 5 percent from 2016 to 2017 (a year after the period covered by the Census report) and average individual premiums rose 22 percent over the same period.

The rising cost of student debt alone largely erases income increases seen by some young people. According to the Census, those aged 15 to 24 saw an income increase of 13.9 percent, from $36,564 in 2015 to $41,655 in 2016, while incomes for young people aged 25 to 34 rose 4.9 percent, from $58,091 to $60,932, nearly double the percentage increase for older age groups.

However, in 2016, student debt rose to an average of $30,000 per young person, up 4 percent from 2015, eliminating over 80 percent of the income rise for 25-34 year olds. For 15 to 24 year olds, the $4,000 increase in median income would hardly cover one sixth of the average debt payment, let alone make up for the fact that young people face a future in which they are unlikely to receive a pension, Social Security or Medicare.

Rising debt levels are not a phenomenon limited to young people. A Bloomberg report from August 10 notes that credit card defaults increased from the beginning of 2015—when roughly 2.5 percent of debt holders defaulted—to the end of 2016, when the total hit 3 percent. This figure subsequently climbed in 2017 to reach 3.49 percent.

Bloomberg notes: “After deleveraging in the aftermath of the last US recession, Americans have once again taken on record debt loads that risk holding back the world’s largest economy... Household debt outstanding--everything from mortgages to credit cards to car loans--reached $12.7 trillion in the first quarter [2017], surpassing the previous peak in 2008 before the effect of the housing market collapse took its toll, Federal Reserve Bank of New York data show.”

“For most Americans,” the report continues, “whose median household income, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was at its peak in 1999, borrowing has been the answer to maintaining their standard of living. The increase in debt helps explain why the economy’s main source of fuel is providing less of a boost than in the past. Personal spending growth has averaged 2.4 percent since the recession ended in 2009, less than the 3 percent of the previous expansion and 4.3 percent from 1982-90.”

The Bloomberg report explains that income from wages minus household debt trended downward in 2015, meaning that debt is rising faster than wages, causing a loss of roughly $500 billion across the US economy in the space of just one year.

Poverty rate

Though the Census report shows that the poverty rate declined from 13.5 percent of households in 2015 to 12.7 percent in 2016, this figure is substantially higher than the 11.3 percent level that prevailed in 2000. In reality, individuals and families must make 2.5 to 3 times the official poverty rate of $12,000 for an individual, $15,500 for a married couple and $25,000 for a family of four just to make ends meet.

What the data really shows is that the poorest half of the country--over 150 million people--is in a desperate financial position, with the next poorest 40 percent facing constant financial strain and a declining share of the national income. In regard to poverty, the Census Bureau maintains figures that go up only to 200 percent of the official poverty level. The latest report shows that 95 million people—29.8 percent of the population—fall into this category. The share of those under the age of 18 in this category is much higher--39.1 percent.

This is the context for the drive by the Trump administration and both big business parties to slash corporate taxes, impose a health care “reform” that will increase costs for millions of people, and accelerate the transfer of wealth from the working class to the financial aristocracy.

Census Bureau: Mens’ Wages Remain Below 1973 Levels

98

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/12/census-bureau-mens-wages-remain-1973-levels/

0

AP Photo/David Goldman

by NEIL MUNRO12 Sep 2017333

Americans’ median pay packets have been flat since 1973, even though the vastly expanded federal government has justified its own salaries and its many massive spending and policy programs as a sure-fire way to boost education, productivity, and wages.

The colossal 44-year failure of the federal government to help grow American men’s wages — or even to reduce poverty rates — is laid bare in the latest report from the Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016.”

The dense report includes myriad detailed tables of data around one shocking chart, which reveals no growth in men’s wages for the past 44 years, or since President Richard Nixon was beginning his second term in office.

Median earning of full-time, year-round workers, 15 years and older, 1960 to 2016.

The sudden flatline followed a 31 percent rise in all men’s median wages from 1960 to 1972.

During the 44-year period since 1973, income among women grew by roughly 30 percent as more skilled and trained women entered the market, gained experience, and were promoted to better-paying jobs. Those opportunities and contributions are good news — but they do not change the reality that men’s income has been flat for 44 years.

In fact, the report notes that “the real median earnings of full-time, year-round working men were 1.1 percent lower in 2016 than in 2007.”

There are many explanations for the flat income, such as the massive growth in the labor supply when 30 million additional American women and roughly 30 million immigrants joined in the marketplace competition for good jobs. For example, a pro-immigration panel at the prestigious National Academies of Science estimated in 2016 that the huge government-imposed inflow of immigrants since 1965 has imposed a hidden 5 percent “immigration tax” on Americans’ pay packets.

Technology has made many individuals workers more productive but also sidelined many others, such as newspaper printers and steelworkers. Peaceful international trade has allowed men to sell more products overseas but also allowed employers to hire foreign workers instead of Americans. Whatever the combinations of reasons, the mid-point for men’s income has been flat for 43 years, according to the Census Bureau.

The flat-earnings chart needs some explanation:

It shows only inflation-adjusted, pre-tax pay packets, so it excludes the impact of inflation, taxes and government benefits, such as food-stamps and tax-breaks for children, or of Obamacare’s subsidies and spending obligations.

It shows median income, which is the midpoint of the income scale. Half the people earn above the line, half the people earn below the line. Average income would be higher, but less revealing, because a higher share of income is going to the highest earners, compared to back in the 1970s.

The chart shows the income of year-round, full-time workers, excluding part-workers or seasonal workers, or those who work on-and-off under contracts. The chart does not make distinctions by race.

The chart shows individuals’ income, not the income of households, which has fluctuated as the average number of children or adults has declined.

The chart only shows income, but not the quality of goods in the stores, such as Starbucks coffee, cheap products imported from China, high-tech music players, improved autos or better health-care. That rise in product quality from competing companies — not claimed policy improvements from federal agencies — has provided the vast majority of material gains for Americans amid flat incomes.

The details are provided on Table A-4, on page 49 of this PDF.

The median earnings for all men employed year-round was $51,640 in 2016, which is still far below the $54,030 earned by full-time men in 1973. It is also below the $51,938 earned in the 2000 Internet boom, or the $52,222 earned in the 2007 property bubble when large-scale legal and illegal immigration provided employers with millions of alternative imported workers.

The post-1973 reality of flat income is a huge contrast to the rapid growth from 1960 up to the 1973 oil shock and the reopened inflow of immigrant labor after 1965.  During the twelves years 1960 to 1972, the median average wages for all males — including minorities, seasonal workers, and contract workers — rose from by 31 percent, from $31,926 to $41,013.

When the income of all men is gauged, the Bureau concluded that all men’s median income in 1973 was $41,935. It dropped after 1973 and rose back up to $43,360 in 1999 as companies competed for the few unemployed workers during the first Internet boom. Income crashed in 2008 to a depression-low of $39,636 in 2012 once the federal government’s real-estate bubble burst. Since then, income has slowly climbed back to $42,220 in 2016 amid the continuous public protest against the federal government’s cheap-labor economic strategy, which is exemplified by the bipartisan 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty legislation.

Other data in the report shows that the nation’s poverty rates have barely budged since the 1960s, although many people in the United States are wealthier than many people n Europe. For example, the percentage of American said to be in poverty was 11.1 percent in 1973 and 12.7  percent in 2016.

That national poverty rate climbed, in part, because of the population of Latinos spiked from 10.8 million in 1973 to 57.6 million in 2016. Poverty among Latinos was 19 percent in 2016, little changed from 1973.

The report also noted that:

The official poverty rate decreased by 0.8 percentage points between 2015 and 2016. At 12.7 percent, the 2016 poverty rate is not statistically different from 2007 (12.5 percent), the year before the most recent recession.

In real terms, median earnings of full-time, year-round working women in 2016 were 2.3 percent higher than their 2007 median, the year before the most recent recession. The real median earnings of full-time, year-round working men were 1.1 percent lower in 2016 than in 2007.

In 2017, the number and percentage of shared households remained higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession. In 2007, 17.0 percent of all households were shared households, totaling 19.7 million households. In 2017, 19.4 percent of all households were shared households, totaling 24.6 million households.

Read it all here.

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS to serve the filthy rich

The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/08/obama-clintonomics-their-crony.html

“This study follows reports released over the past several months documenting rising mortality rates among US workers due to drug addiction and suicide, high rates of infant mortality, an overall leveling off of life expectancy, and a growing gap between the life expectancy of the bottom rung of income earners compared to those at the top.”

A 'Read-My-Lips' Moment for Trump?

 By Patrick J. Buchanan | September 15, 2017 | 4:38 AM EDT

President Donald J. Trump participates a Hurricane Irma briefing call with FEMA Administrator William "Brock" Long, Monday, Sept. 11, 2017, joined by White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly, left; Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism Adviser Thomas Bossert, right, and Deputy Homeland Security Adviser John J. Daly, seated, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C. ( Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

"Having cut a deal with Democrats for help with the debt ceiling, will Trump seek a deal with Democrats on amnesty for the 'Dreamers' in return for funding for border security?"

The answer to that question, raised in my column a week ago, is in. Last night, President Donald Trump cut a deal with "Chuck and Nancy" for amnesty for 800,000 recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program who came here illegally as youngsters, in return for Democratic votes for more money for border security.

According to preening Minority Leader Pelosi, the agreement contains not a dime for Trump's Wall, and the "Dreamers" are to be put on a long glide "path to U.S. citizenship."

Trump denies this is amnesty, and says the Wall comes later.

Fallout? Among the most enthusiastic of 

Trump backers, disbelief, disillusionment 

and wonderment at where we go from here.

Trump's debt-ceiling deal cut the legs out from under the GOP budget hawks. But amnesty would pull the rug out from under all the folks at those rallies who cheered Trump's promise to preserve the country they grew up in from this endless Third World invasion.

For make no mistake. If amnesty is granted for the 800,000, that will be but the first wave. "There are reasons no country has a rule that if you sneak in as a minor you're a citizen," writes Mickey Kaus, author of "The End of Equality," in The Washington Post.

"We'd be inviting the world. ... (An amnesty) would have a knock-on effect. Under 'chain migration' rules established in 1965 ... new citizens can bring in their siblings and adult children, who can bring in their siblings and in-laws until whole villages have moved to the United States.

"(T)oday's 690,000 dreamers would quickly become millions of newcomers who may well be low-skilled and who would almost certainly include the parents who brought them — the ones who in theory are at fault."

Trump is risking a breach in the dam. If the populists who provided him with decisive margins in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania feel betrayed, it's hard to blame them.

Why did Trump do it? Clearly, he relished the cheers he got for the debt ceiling deal and wanted another such victory. And with the rampant accusations of a lack of "compassion" for his cancellation of the temporary Obama administration amnesty, he decided he had had enough heat.

It is not easy to stand up for long to the gale force winds of hostile commentary that blow constantly through this city.

Trump's capitulation, if that is what turns out to be, calls to mind George H. W. Bush's decision in 1990 to raise the Reagan tax rates in a deal engineered for him by a White House-Hill coalition, that made a mockery of his "Read my lips! No new taxes!" pledge of 1988.

For agreeing to feed the beast of Big Government, rather than cut its rations as Reagan sought to do, Bush was called a statesman.

By the fall of '92, the cheering had stopped.

Can Trump not know that those congratulating him for his newfound flexibility will be rejoicing, should Bob Mueller indict his family and his friends, and recommend his impeachment down the road?

What makes pre-emptive amnesty particularly disheartening is that the Trump policy of securing the border and returning illegal immigrants to their home countries appears, from a Census Bureau report this week, to be precisely the prescription America needs.

In 2016, paychecks for U.S. households reached an average of $59,039, up 3.2 percent from 2015, a year when they had surged.

U.S. median household income is now at its highest ever.

Yet there are inequalities. Where the median family income of Asian-Americans is above $81,400, and more than $65,000 for white Americans, the median family income of Hispanic families is $47,675, and that of African-American households far less, $39,490.

Consider. Though black Americans are predominantly native-born, while high percentages of Hispanics and Asians are immigrants, from the Census numbers, Hispanics earn more and Asians enjoy twice the median family income of blacks, which is below where it was in 2000.

Still, black America remains steadfastly loyal to a party that supports the endless importation of workers who compete directly for jobs with them and their families. Writes Kaus, "The median hourly wage (of DACA recipients) is only $15.34, meaning that many are competing with hard-pressed, lower-skilled Americans."

Looking closer at the Census Bureau figures, Trumpian economic nationalism would appear to have its greatest appeal to the American working class, a huge slice of which is native-born, black and Hispanic.

The elements of that policy?

Secure the border. Halt the invasion of low-wage workers, here legally and illegally, from the Third World. Tighten the labor market to force employers to raise wages in our full-employment economy. Provide tax incentives to companies who site factories in the USA. Impose border taxes on the products of companies who move plants abroad.

Put America and American workers first.

Will any amnesty of undocumented workers do that?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

Poll: Huge Support for DREAM Act-Border Security Compromise, 80 Percent Favor More Enforcement

Guy Benson

|

Posted: Sep 27, 2017 10:25 AM

  Share (6)   Tweet

When President Trump canceled his predecessor's legally-dubious 'DACA' amnesty-by-fiat, he charged Congress with the task of resolving the issue within six months.  We know that Democrats, and some hardcore activists, would prefer a "clean" bill that granted permanent deportation relief to eligible DREAMers -- with no immigration enforcement provisions attached.  But Republican leaders have made clear that any DREAM Act-style legislation mustentail upgraded security elements, with some key Democrats signaling that they might be open to a compromise.  Democrats' line in the sand is funding for "the wall," and the White House appears prepared to accommodate that demand.  In light of those facts, the proposal I've floated involves drawing from the failed, Democrat-led 2013 'Gang of Eight' bill to identify immigration enforcement proposals that have already gotten unanimous stamps of approval from Senate Democrats.  Among them are the hiring of thousands of new border agents, the construction of 700 miles of new fencing, and upgrading the e-verify system for hiring new employees.

The idea, therefore, would be pretty straightforward: Law-abiding DREAMers' non-deportable status would be formalized and stabilized, while Americans concerned about border and internal immigration enforcement would see tangible progress on the security front.  I argued that would be a fair deal, and would be broadly popular.  A new Washington Post/ABC News poll confirms the latter piece of my analysis:

View image on Twitter

 Follow

ABC News Politics 

✔@ABCPolitics

JUST IN: New @ABC News/WaPo poll: 86% of Americans support DACA; 62% oppose proposed border wall http://abcn.ws/2jWGpEe 

4:03 AM - Sep 25, 2017

·                    

  139139 Replies

     

·             

  756756 Retweets

     

·             

  834834 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Americans overwhelmingly support an equitable resolution for DREAMers, and by nearly a 40-point margin, they're willing to couple that legislative goal with "more border security."  Stepping up efforts to require employers to verify a potential hire's immigration status is roughly an 80/20 issue.  As you can see, Trump's proposals to "build the wall" and to slash legal immigration in half (easily the least popular component of the RAISE Act, other parts of which enjoy wide support) are underwater.  Trump's smartest play would be to pick the most popular bits of the 'Gang of Eight's' enforcement provisions and make those his demands.  If he gets a combination of increased border surveillance, new agents, hundreds of miles of fencing, and plus enhanced e-verify "in exchange for" treating the DREAMers "with heart," he could easily claim victory all around.  He'd notch wins on improved security, and on building a border barrier (he could even call it "the wall") -- plus, he could frame any upgrades to the uber-popular e-verify system as protecting American workers.  Those changes would reflect multiple commitments he repeatedly made on the campaign trail.  Meanwhile, two Senate conservatives have introduced their version of the DREAM Act, which would offer an extended path to citizenship for up to 2.5 million potential DACA recipients:

[U]nlike other merit-based immigration proposals that limit new immigrants from entering the country based on their job skills, this proposal would limit who can remain in the country based on their years of American education, work experience or military service…All applicants will have to pass a medical examination and be “extreme vetted.” The vetting will include three separate rounds of security and background checks to ensure they have no criminal history and pose no national security threat. The first check would happen when the immigrant enters the program followed by a second check after five years. The third check comes after 15 years, if and when the immigrant applies to become a citizen…The proposal would grant high school graduates without a serious criminal record conditional immigration status for a five-year period. During that time, if they earn a higher-education degree, serve in the military or stay employed, they could apply for permanent residency and, eventually, citizenship.

Allahpundit summarizes the proposed vetting process: "You get five years of legal status to prove that you can hold down a job, get your college degree, or enlist. Do one of the three and you’re eligible for permanent residency. Keep your nose clean and, 10 years after that, you can become a citizen. That’s the Tillis/Lankford timeframe, anyway; Democrats will insist on something more accelerated. I assume we’ll end up with an eight- to 10-year citizenship path if this were to become law,"  he writes.   One thing that's nowhere to be found in the Tillis/Lankford plan?  New border security measures, though its co-sponsors say those are essential: 

Tillis said it was clear that the Dream Act did not have enough support to pass the Senate and the House. Lankford said the Succeed Act is not a standalone bill and would require companion legislation, particularly around border security. Lankford said Trump “was very supportive of the concept” of the legislation. That’s a non-starter for some immigration activists. “We demand that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell immediately allow for a vote on a clean Dream Act, without trying to use us as bargaining chips for more money for out-of-control border control and immigration enforcement,” said Make the Road New York.

Well, "immigration activists" don't control the US Congress, do they?  Their so-called 'demands' should be ignored.  For conservatives to even consider a plan like the one put forth by Tillis and Lankford, simultaneous enforcement is a pre-requisite.  A failure to address and mitigate the problem of illegal immigration would and should be the true "non-starter" in this negotiation.

Immigration Multipliers: Trends in Chain Migration   New immigrants brought an average of 3.45 relatives

Washington, D.C. (September 27, 2017) – A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies examines the scale of chain migration across different groups of immigrants and the impact on the size of the immigrant population arising from a possible amnesty of the beneficiaries of Deferred Action for Childhood arrivals (DACA). Chain migration – the sponsoring of relatives – is a major source of U.S. immigration, allowing in parents, spouses and their children, and adult sons and daughters. Studies have found that recent new immigrants brought an average of 3.45 additional relatives to the United States, which is more than 30 percent higher than the chain migration rate of the early 1980s. The top four sending countries for immigrants overall had chain migration multipliers well above the average. Each new immigrant from Mexico eventually sponsored 6.38 relatives; China, 6.24; India, 5.11; Philippines, 5.07. Jessica Vaughan, the Center's director of policy studies, said "Lawmakers must understand that without adjustments to chain migration categories, an amnesty for DACA beneficiaries virtually guarantees perhaps twice as many additional relatives will receive green cards within 20 years in addition to the original amnesty beneficiaries. The largest number of these would be the parents of the DACA recipients. Congress should mitigate this impact by eliminating and/or scaling back the three main categories of chain migration - parents, adult sons and daughters, and siblings of naturalized immigrants, and by curbing new immigration, such as the visa lottery." View the entire report at: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Multipliers Additional findings:  ·                     Over the last 35 years, chain migration has exceeded new immigration. Out of 33 million immigrants admitted to the United States from 1981 to 2016, about 20 million were chain migration immigrants (61 percent). ·                     Approximately 1,125,000 legal immigrants were approved for admission in 2016, which is about 7 percent higher than 2015, and one of the highest numbers in the last decade. ·                     The largest categories of chain migration are spouses and parents of naturalized U.S. citizens, because admissions in these categories are unlimited by law. ·                     Chain migration is contributing to the aging of the immigration stream. In the early 1980s, only about 17 percent of family migrants were age 50 or over. In recent years, about 21 percent of family migrants were age 50 or older — a rate that is 24 percent higher. This trend has implications for the fiscal consequences of immigration. JAMES WALSH THE OBAMA HISPANICAZATION of AMERICA  How the Democrat party surrendered America to Mexico:                                                                                           http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/07/james-walsh-hispanicazation-of-america.html “The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.”  Washington Times JUDICIAL WATCH: “The greatest criminal threat to the daily lives of American citizens are the Mexican drug cartels.” http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-american-border-with-narcomex.html  “Mexican drug cartels are the “other” terrorist threat to America. Militant Islamists have the goal of destroying the United States. Mexican drug cartels are now accomplishing that mission – from within, every day, in virtually every community across this country.” JUDICIALWATCH Overall, in the 2017 Fiscal Year, officials revealed that a record-breaking 455,000 pounds plus of drugs had already been seized. In 2016, that number amounted to 443,000 pounds. The 2017 haul is worth an estimated $6.1 billion – BREITBART – JEFF SESSION’S DRUG BUST ON SAN DIEGO http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/09/20/ag-sessions-touts-record-breaking-drug-seizure-san-diego/ House Passes Bill to Expel Gang Members From US Sharpens focus on deporting transnational gang members such as MS-13 By Charlotte Cuthbertson, Epoch Times  |  September 21, 2017 AT 10:17 AM Last Updated:  September 22, 2017 1:14 pm ·                       A former fugitive MS-13 gang member, who was arrested earlier this month in Virginia, made his initial appearance in federal court for a gang-related murder in Newark, N.J., on Aug. 23. (ICE) WASHINGTON—The House recently passed a bill that would expedite the removal of alien gang members from within the United States. Gang membership would become grounds for both deportation and for denying entry at the border. Currently, most gang members are only deported after committing an independent crime. The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act passed a House vote on Sept. 14 with votes sitting mostly along party lines (233–175). A total of 174 Democrats voted against the bill, while 11 voted for it. The bill, HR 3697, amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to define a criminal gang as a group of five or more people with a primary purpose of committing crimes such as felony drug offenses, human trafficking, violent crimes, and/or fraud and racketeering. A gang can be designated as criminal by the secretary of homeland security, in consultation with the attorney general. Elaine Duke, acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), said the legislation would “greatly help” the agency’s efforts to “target and dismantle transnational gangs, like MS-13, who pose a direct threat to public safety.” The bill was introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), who said that at least eight murders are tied to MS-13 in northern Virginia since last November. Comstock said the region’s gang task force estimates there are 3,000 to 4,000 MS-13 gang members in the area. “At a town festival in Herndon earlier this year, the gang task force estimated 200 to 300 suspected gang members were milling about among families attending the community event,” she said in a statement. MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha, is a transnational criminal organization whose members are often illegal aliens from Central America, predominantly El Salvador. Their recruitment tactics involve targeting young immigrants from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. A new member of the gang must “put work” into the gang at the instruction of older members, said Madeline Singas, Nassau County district attorney. Both Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island, New York, have been ravaged by MS-13 gang violence. “And that work includes shootings and stabbings and rapes and any other acts of violence and intimidation,” Singas said on June 15. A new MS-13 member must also agree to kill someone if ordered to do so, she said. “And the rules are clear: They can never leave the gang. And if they do, those who try are often marked or greenlighted for death.” A nationwide gang operation netted 1,378 arrests in May. ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations targeted gang members and associates involved in transnational criminal activity, including drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human smuggling and sex trafficking, murder, and racketeering. (ICE) Border Control Acting Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost said Border Patrol agents are currently required to collect and record biographic information on any known gang members who admit to gang affiliation, but must still grant them admission to the United States. The new bill would give agents the authority to deny entry to gang members. “One of the greatest challenges we continue to face along the Southwest border, however, are TCOs such as the international criminal organization MS-13,” Provost said at a June 21 Senate hearing. TCO stands for “transnational criminal organization.” “Among those encountered, unaccompanied alien children with suspected TCO affiliation, such as MS-13, present unique challenges,” she said. Unaccompanied minors, even if they admit to being MS-13 members, are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Resources’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within 72 hours of being apprehended by Border Patrol. Once the minor is there, DHS gets no further information on their whereabouts, including where in the United States they are resettled. Scott Lloyd, director of ORR, said the agency conducted a review on June 9 of the unaccompanied minors in their secure facilities. ORR found that of the 138 unaccompanied minors in those facilities on June 9, one-quarter were voluntarily involved with gangs. Four individuals reported that they had been forced into gang participation. Once with ORR, most minors are then resettled with their parents or relatives, who are in the country illegally. Very few gang members are picked up at the border; most are identified in the prison system, said Matthew Albence, executive associate director of ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations. However, cities that have so-called sanctuary policies often prohibit local law enforcement from communicating and cooperating with immigration authorities, resulting in many alien gang members being released back into communities without warning. Read More ·    Trump: Working on DACA Deal, but ‘Massive’ Border Security a Requirement “In many cases, we know who these individuals are. We have biometric identifiers,” Albence said at a Senate hearing on June 21. “They’ve been arrested by the Border Patrol, or arrested by ICE previously, and removed, and re-entered the country unlawfully.” The new bill won’t persuade sanctuary cities to comply with federal immigration law, but it will assist ICE to expeditiously remove alien gang members from the country. A nationwide gang operation netted 1,378 arrests in May. ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations targeted gang members and associates involved in transnational criminal activity, including drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human smuggling and sex trafficking, murder, and racketeering. (ICE) President Donald Trump has spotlighted criminal gang activity, and MS-13 in particular. “Big progress being made in ridding our country of MS-13 gang members and gang members in general. MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!” he tweeted on July 27.  Follow Donald J. Trump  ✔@realDonaldTrump Big progress being made in ridding our country of MS-13 gang members and gang members in general. MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN! 11:37 AM - Jul 27, 2017 ·                         16,77716,777 Replies           ·                  19,36519,365 Retweets           ·                  94,26994,269 likes Twitter Ads info and privacy The White House released a statement of support for the bill on Sept. 14. “President Trump has always made the safety of Americans his highest priority, and encourages the Senate to take quick action and pass this bill,” the White House press secretary stated. If the bill is taken up by the Senate, and voting follows similar party lines, it is likely to pass. GRAPHIC: Mexican Governor Denies Cartel Violence Despite 32 Executions in Days http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/09/17/graphic-mexican-governor-denies-cartel-violence-despite-32-executions-days/ Breitbart Texas / Cartel Chronicles by CARTEL CHRONICLES17 Sep 2017242 MORELIA, Michoacan — As rival cartels murdered and dismembered more than 32 victims in a raging war for control, government officials in this state continue to paint an alternate reality — one without cartel violence.  During a recent interview, Michoacan Governor Silvano Aureoles claimed that 80 percent of the murders in this state are due to family disputes and the other 20 percent can be attributed to gang activity, Michoacan’s Contramuro reported.  “According to the information that we have until now, that’s it, only that percentage (20 percent) is linked to alleged links to organized crime as is the case of recent discoveries in Mugica,” Aureoles was quoted by Mexican media referring to the violence in the southwestern part of the state.  The statement’s come at a time when, as Breitbart Texas has been reporting, La Nueva Familia Michoacana Cartel has been waging a fierce war against Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion in the southwestern part of the state that has left more than two dozen dismembered bodies in days.  The nee violence began over the weekend when members of the Nueva Familia Michoacana murdered a regional cartel leader aligned with Cartel Jalisco New Generation. The initial attack began led to more than 19 murders — most of the bodies having been cut into pieces that were scattered through various areas.  Just days later, CJNG fired back and began to carry out their own series of executions seeking payback for the Familia Michoacana’s attack. In an effort to escalate the brutality, the CJNG delivered not only a severed human head but skinned the victim’s face as well.  Intelligence sources in Michoacan point to the two cartels fighting not only for control of drug territories but also for control of the port city of Lazaro Cardenas, one of Mexico’s main shipping ports.  Editor’s Note: Breitbart Texas traveled to the Mexican States of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, Nuevo León and other areas to recruit citizen journalists willing to risk their lives and expose the cartels silencing their communities. Breitbart Texas’ Cartel Chronicles are published in both English and in their original Spanish. This article was written by Jose Luis Lara, a former leading member who helped start the Self-Defense Movement in Michoacán. Netflix’s ‘Narcos’ Producer Murdered in Mexico http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/09/16/netflixs-narcos-producer-murdered-mexico/ Netflix "Narcos" Video Screenshot by ILDEFONSO ORTIZ16 Sep 2017104 Organized crime members are believed to be responsible for the murder in Mexico of a producer for the Netflix series, Narcos.The producer traveled to Mexico to search for shooting locations for the upcoming season. The fourth season of the show is reported to provide an inside look at the rise of Mexican drug cartels. Carlos Muñoz Portal traveled to that country to search for shooting locations in the state of Mexico which is located near the border with Hidalgo. Officials found his body was found inside his vehicle in the town of San Bartolo Actopan, Infobae reported. The film company issued a short statement acknowledging the filmmaker’s passing — claiming that the case was still under investigation. The Narcos series provides a dramatized version of the historical events dealing with the drug cartels and criminal organizations responsible for most of the violence in Central and South America,  and most recently in Mexico. The first two seasons of the show looked at the rise and fall of Pablo Escobar, the leader of the Cartel de Medellin. The third and most recent season provided a look at the fall of Cartel de Cali and the corruption at the highest levels of the Colombian government including that nation’s president; the U.S. Department of State was allegedly aware of the complicity. The fourth season is expected to provide an inside look at Mexican drug cartels. The murder comes as Mexico is undergoing one of its most violent years. As cartel-violence continues to spiral out of control, government officials continue to present a different image. The once quiet central states in Mexico have became new targets for drug cartels who have come to fight for control of those locations, Breitbart Texas reported. In the nearby state of Guanajuato, corrupt police officers became prime targets as they are caught in the middle between rival cartels. Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon.  You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. Brandon Darby is managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com. Federal Judge to Sessions: Attorney General Can't Withhold Money From Sanctuary Cities https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/09/15/federal-judge-to-sessions-attorney-general-cant-withhold-money-to-sanctuary-cities-n2382221?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad= Matt Vespa | Posted: Sep 15, 2017 5:40 PM   Share (101)   Tweet The election of Donald J. Trump meant a new sheriff was in town on immigration. It was seen with Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to withhold grant money from cities that have adopted sanctuary city status for illegal aliens. A legal fight was inevitable. In Texas, a federal judge blocked Republican Gov. Greg Abbott from cracking down on such cities. In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said he would sue the Department of Justice. Now, a federal judge has granted the city’s request for a nationwide injunction (via Associated Press):  Follow The Associated Press  ✔@AP BREAKING: Federal judge says U.S. attorney general cannot withhold grant money from cities over so-called sanctuary cities status. 1:40 PM - Sep 15, 2017 ·                            536536 Replies                 ·                     12,46512,465 Retweets                 ·                     29,56629,566 likes Twitter Ads info and privacy A federal judge has ruled Attorney General Jeff Sessions cannot follow through with his threat to withhold public safety grant money to Chicago and other so-called sanctuary cities for refusing his order to impose tough immigration policies. U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber on Friday granted Chicago’s request for a temporary “nationwide” injunction. That means the Justice Department can’t deny requests for the grant money until Chicago’s lawsuit against the agency is concluded. He wrote that Chicago has shown a “likelihood of success” in its arguments that Sessions overstepped his authority with the requirements. Sanctuary city ordinances, which are reportedly meant to offer illegals protection from deportation if they report crimes, became a focal point when Kate Steinle was killed by an illegal alien, who had been deported multiple times, in San Francisco. More family members of those who have had loved ones lost to illegal alien homicides also came forward to denounce the policy. Even America’s sheriffs noted that illegals don’t report crimes. Nightmare: DACA Amnesty DREAM Act Will Cost $115 Billion Thanks to Obamacare http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/15/nightmare-daca-amnesty-dream-act-will-cost-115-billion-thanks-to-obamacare/ AFP PHOTO/FREDERIC J. BROWN by JOHN CARNEY15 Sep 201711,405 Taxpayers in the United States will face a steep bill if the Trump administration signs legislation to extend legal status to so-called “Dreamers,” the illegal aliens who arrived as children and are now protected under the Obama-holdover unlawful executive order known as DACA. The cost of a legislation to legalize childhood arrivals is likely to be far higher than earlier attempts because of Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies. The Affordable Care Act subsidizes the costs of health insurance for millions of Americans and would likely foot the bill for many of those whose residency in the U.S. would be legalized by the DREAM Act. The numbers are striking. The DREAM Act of 2017, the most likely vehicle for extending DACA protections and making them permanent, would raise federal outlays by $115 billion dollars, according to a Breitbart News analysis. Nearly all of that would be paid for by additional deficit spending. That may come as a surprise to lawmakers. The last time the DREAM Act was seriously considered, the Congressional Budget Office said that the bill would reduce budget deficits by about $1.4 billion over the following decade. But that bill prohibited those it legalized from receiving subsidies toward health insurance until they became permanent legal residents after ten years, while the current version of the bill does not. The DREAM Act of 2017, sponsored by Democrat Senator Dick Durbin and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, would extend legal residency and a path to citizenship for at least 3.3 million people, according to the Migration Policy Institute. These include 1.8 million illegal aliens who would be immediately eligible, plus 1.5 billion who would become eligible in the near future by doing things such as enrolling in school. Unlike the Senate DREAM bill from 2010 and Obama’s DACA executive order, the current DREAM Act does not exclude those who benefit from the new immigration status from receiving health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Absent a specific exclusion, by granting so-called Dreamers status as “lawfully present” in the United States, the new DREAM  Act would make millions both subject to the individual mandate to buy health insurance and potential beneficiaries of the subsidies available to pay for insurance. This is a very expensive proposition. The individual mandate will be a powerful incentive for the newly legalized immigrants to obtain health insurance, and many will do so through the subsidized Obamacare marketplaces. The experience of California suggests that something like 79 percent of those getting the new legal status will turn to the subsidized individual market for insurance, with only 21 percent receiving health insurance from an employer. Obamacare includes a health insurance premium tax credit available to households with income from one to four times the official federal poverty level. This means that the tax credit subsidies are available to individuals earning between $12,060 and $48,240. A family of four is eligible obtain tax credits if its income is below $98,000. It’s likely that this means substantially all those legalized by the DREAM Act are eligible for subsidies. According to U.S. Berkeley’s Labor Center, 68 percent of DACA program enrollees in California were low-income and eligible for California’s state-run medical insurance subsidies. The median annual income of current DACA aliens is $32,000, according to an August 2017 survey by Tom Wong of UC San Diego (undertaken for the liberal think tank Center for American Progress and other immigration advocacy groups). The median age is estimated to be around 25- years-old. Around a quarter of DACA aliens have a child born in the U.S. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a single person living in San Jose, California with an income of $32,000 would be eligible to receive a premium tax credit of $1,048 in 2017. The numbers vary by geography because health insurance costs vary widely by geography. A single person in Brooklyn with $32,000 of income would be eligible for an annual tax credit of around $2,666. But San Jose is likely more representative due to the high concentration of DACA aliens in California. Using the San Jose figure, current DACA aliens alone would likely be immediately eligible for around $838.4 million in Obamacare subsidies this year. Of course, not all the DACA aliens turned Dreamers would wind up on in the Obamacare marketplace. Some would receive employer provided health insurance. According to a study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center, 21 percent of those granted DACA status obtained private health insurance, most likely through their employers. Subtracting those would produce $663.3 million of Obamacare subsidies. Because DACA aliens have children and some are married, that figure does not fully account for the cost of their DREAM Act Obamacare subsidies. Add in one child for every four DACA enrolled aliens and the cost rises to $1.16 billion in tax credits. Even if we add a spouse to each DACA parent earning the same $32,000 of income (a very generous assumption), the immediate cost of Obamacare subsidies to DACA aliens is still around $1.16 billion. If you assume that all those spouses were already Obamacare eligible (that is, are legal residents), the net increase is around $835.6 million. (Again, that’s a very generous assumption; a disproportionate share of spouses of DACA aliens are likely not legal residents who could sponsor their spouse’s legal residency). Over time DACA workers will see their pay rise, more will get married, and they will have more children. For purposes of forecasting the cost of amnesty, assume a fairly representative DACA household would be in San Jose, have $64,000 of income that rises a healthy three percent each year, and include two adults and two children. Nearly 80 percent will seek health insurance through the Obamacare marketplace, and Obamacare subsidies for these households would be around $7,073 per household in the first year. Each year, household income will likely rise but not as quickly as the cost of health insurance and therefore the cost of subsidies. According to the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of subsidies will rise an average of around seven percent each year over the cost of the next ten years, producing a cumulative rise of 84 percent. So after 10 years, the representative household would earn $83,500 and be eligible to receive an Obamacare subsidy of $8,230. Even if the cost of health insurance subsidies remained level, after 10 years, this same family of four would receive $4,477 of subsidies after ten years. To be conservative, let’s put the average cost of annual subsidies at the average of the two figures: $6,354. Multiplied across 800,000 DACA households less the 21 percent expected to receive employer-based health care, the annual federal budgetary cost is around $4 billion or $40 billion over 10 years. The Dream Act of 2017, however, extends legal residency to far more aliens than the current DACA program. If we include 79 percent of the 1.8 million immediately eligible, the cost would rise to $91.5 billion over a decade. Including that share of the larger 3.3 million figure would push the 10 year cost of Obamacare subsidies to the DREAM households to around $167 billion. Of course, some of that would be offset by taxes paid by the legalized workers. When the CBO looked at the 2010 Dream Act, it estimated that 1.1 million authorized residents would increase federal revenues $2.3 billion in the 2011 through 2020 period. Let’s generously double that for the increased number of workers we’re estimating and say they would add $5 billion. The CBO said refundable tax credits (not including Obamacare) would increase by $961 million, which we can double to $1.8 billion. Social Security and Medicare outlays would rise by a combined total of around $100 million over the period, the CBO forecast. Summing it all up, the new Dream Act would result in a net increase of federal revenue of around $400 million over the decade. This means we’re looking at a budgetary cost of around $165 billion over 10 years, almost all of which would be added to federal debt. Subtract roughly $50 billion for non-immigrant spouses who would have been covered by Obamacare anyway. That leaves us with $115 billion of federal debt over a decade from the DREAM Act. This analysis probably underestimates the budgetary cost of combining the DREAM Act with Obamacare. Under the likely scenario that DREAMer incomes are lower than those of DACA aliens, for instance, the costs would go higher. If the assumption of three percent income growth is overly generous, the costs will go higher. If DREAMer households have more than two children on average, the costs would go higher. If the cost of health insurance rises more quickly than assumed, the costs will be higher. And, most importantly, if far more aliens obtain legal status than the 3.1 million used in this analysis, costs would go higher. They might call it the DREAM Act, but in terms of the federal budget, it is a nightmare. JUDICIAL WATCH:     “The greatest criminal threat to the daily lives of American    citizens are the Mexican drug cartels.”   http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-american-border-with-narcomex.html      “Mexican drug cartels are the “other” terrorist threat to America. Militant Islamists have the goal of destroying the United States. Mexican drug cartels are now accomplishing that mission – from within, every day, in virtually every community across this country.” JUDICIALWATCH   AG Sessions Touts Record-Breaking Drug Seizure in San Diego http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/09/20/ag-sessions-touts-record-breaking-drug-seizure-san-diego/ Alex Wong/Getty Images by JOHN BINDER20 Sep 2017San Diego, CA75 Attorney General Jeff Sessions traveled to San Diego, California, Wednesday to tout the record-breaking amount of drugs seized in Fiscal Year 2017. During the visit, Sessions watched as Coast Guard officials unloaded more than 50,000 pounds of cocaine and heroin seized from drug traffickers at sea. The drugs are worth an estimated $680 million, according to FOX 5 San Diego. Overall, in the 2017 Fiscal Year, officials revealed that a record-breaking 455,000 pounds plus of drugs had already been seized. In 2016, that number amounted to 443,000 pounds. The 2017 haul is worth an estimated $6.1 billion. “By preventing overdoses and stopping new addictions before they start, enforcing our drug laws saves lives,” Sessions said in a statement. “I commend every service member who has helped us in our mission to keep the American people safe, and I thank them for this indispensable contribution to public safety.” Officials with the Coast Guard also revealed that more than 600 alleged drug traffickers have already been arrested in 2017. “These drugs represent the scale of the threat transnational organized crime poses to our nation and to all peaceful nations of the Western Hemisphere,” Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Paul Zukunft said in a statement. “The Coast Guard and Justice Department, along with interagency partners, are determined to commit our efforts to detect, interdict, investigate and prosecute the entirety of these criminal networks and end the drug fueled instability and violence in the region.” Sessions’ visit to San Diego to raise awareness to the drug problem crippling the U.S. comes just as New York City officials and federal agents seized a record-breaking 270 pounds of fentanyl–enough to kill 32 million people–Breitbart Texas reported. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated that in 2015, at least 52,000 Americans died from drug-overdoses, an industry that Mexican and Latin American drug cartels largely control in the U.S. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. Report: DACA Amnesty May Trigger Flood of 4-6M Foreign Nationals, Not 800K http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/14/report-daca-amnesty-trigger-flood-4-6-m-foreign-nationals-not-800k/ Ethan Miller/Getty Images by JOHN BINDER14 Sep 2017Washington, D.C.8,482 Should President Trump follow through on a deal where nearly 800,000 illegal aliens are allowed to remain in the United States and eventually obtain U.S. citizenship, research shows it would create a flood of four to six million chain migrants coming to the United States. Trump, who adamantly opposed the amnesty for illegal aliens protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, is now defending the recipients of the program, as well as leveraging a deal where the foreign nationals could seek a pathway to citizenship through legal status, as Breitbart News reported. Today, Trump signaled to his supporters that he opposed any sort of chain migration that would follow a DACA amnesty deal, though the deals the White House and Congress are reviewing would all cause such an immigration crisis:  Follow Donald J. Trump  ✔@realDonaldTrump CHAIN MIGRATION cannot be allowed to be part of any legislation on Immigration! 6:00 AM - Sep 15, 2017 ·                             10,73310,733 Replies                   ·                      16,67516,675 Retweets                   ·                      65,69165,691 likes Twitter Ads info and privacy Latest data from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shows that 618,342 illegal aliens from Mexico currently have DACA status. If they were amnestied into the U.S., it would give them the opportunity to bring adult parents and relatives to the U.S. “There will be chain migration. There always has been in amnesties,” Center for Immigration Studies Policy Director Jessica Vaughan told Breitbart News. According to Princeton University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, for every one new Mexican immigrant to the U.S., an additional 6.38 Mexican nationals come to the U.S. through family-chain migration. Based on the Princeton research, the 618, 342 illegal aliens from Mexico who are coveredby DACA would be able to bring upwards of four million additional relatives and family members to the U.S. in the years to come. If the remaining estimated 180,000 DACA recipients brought in three family members each after being amnestied, it would result in additional 540,000 immigrants. Should the remaining 180,000 DACA recipients bring four family members each to the U.S., it would result in more than 700,000 new immigrants. But if the remaining roughly 180,000 DACA recipients were to bring the same number of family members as Mexican DACA recipients are expected to bring to the U.S., it would result in nearly 1.2 million more legal family-based immigrants coming to the country. On top of the legal chain migration that could occur following a DACA amnesty by Trump, there is also the potential for a massive border surge, like the one that occurred following former President Obama’s creation of the DACA program. As the Migration Policy Institute has chronicled, previous border surges from amnesty programs have brought hundreds of thousands across the U.S.-Mexico border: While the flow of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) has been climbing steadily since 2012, a dramatic surge has taken place in the last six months, with the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas as the principal place of entry. The Border Patrol there has converted entire stations to house unaccompanied minors and families. According to the Border Patrol, apprehensions of unaccompanied children increased from 16,067 in fiscal year (FY) 2011 to 24,481 in FY 2012 and 38,833 in FY 2013. During the first eight months of FY 2014, 47,017 such children were apprehended by the Border Patrol. If the influx continues apace—and it shows no signs of slowing—the administration predicts that by the end of the fiscal year on September 30, totals could reach 90,000. Ninety-eight percent of unaccompanied minors currently arriving at the border are from Honduras (28 percent), Mexico (25 percent), Guatemala (24 percent), and El Salvador (21 percent). This breakdown represents a significant shift: prior to 2012, more than 75 percent of UACs were from Mexico. “There’s one thing for sure: it’s not going to be 800,000 illegal aliens amnestied,” Vaughan said, alluding to the fact that an amnesty would surge both legal and illegal immigration. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 9 Lies About DACA Trump Is Buying Into http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/14/9-lies-about-daca-trump-is-buying-into/ Jacquelyn Martin/AP by JOHN BINDER14 Sep 2017Washington, D.C.9,977 Since President Trump’s reversal on an Obama-created temporary amnesty program and his reported permanent amnesty deal-making with Democrats on the issue, the administration is now touting the success of those illegal aliens. Via Twitter, Trump praised the almost 800,000 illegal alien recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, saying they are “good, educated and accomplished young people,” but failing to mention some of the key points on the issue that he often brought to light during the 2016 presidential election. Now, Trump seems to be buying into a handful of untruths about DACA, amnesty for illegal aliens and his working-class, middle-class voter base. 1. All DACA recipients are innocent young people  There have been 2,139 DACA recipients, deemed “DREAMers” by the open borders lobby, who have had their temporary protected status revoked due to crimes, including: “A felony criminal conviction; a significant misdemeanor conviction; multiple misdemeanor convictions; gang affiliation; or arrest of any crime in which there is deemed to be a public safety concern,” according to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency, as Breitbart News reported. The majority of crimes by DACA recipients include: “Alien smuggling, assaultive offenses, domestic violence, drug offenses, DUI, larceny and thefts, criminal trespass and burglary, sexual offenses with minors, other sex offenses and weapons offenses,” USCIS has stated. 2. Signing the DREAM Act will make Trump more popular and expand his coalition A possible untruth being told to Trump by his pro-DACA advisers is that Hispanic illegal aliens protected by DACA will eventually become supporters of the President’s if they are given amnesty. But, as Pew Research has shown, Hispanics vote overwhelmingly with Democrats. More than 30 percent of Hispanics “identify” with the Democratic Party and another 23 percent said they “lean towards” the Democrats. Meanwhile, a tiny four percent said they identify with Republicans, and only 15 percent said they lean towards the GOP. 3. The Trump base will forget about an amnesty  There seems to be a misconception that the Trump base of supporters will simply move on from an amnesty for DACA recipients. This seems incredibly unlikely, as Pew Researchshows 79 percent of Trump supporters have said the issue is “very important” to them. Bloomberg reporter Sahil Kapur pointed out after Trump’s initial caving on DACA that there was an immediate flaw in the President’s strategy, as immigration remains a key tenant to supporters of the “America First” agenda.  Follow Sahil Kapur  ✔@sahilkapur My theory is immigration (unlike health care, taxes, spending and the debt) is something the core Trump base does have strong views on. https://twitter.com/davidmdrucker/status/908165425560682501 … 8:18 PM - Sep 13, 2017 ·                             2828 Replies                   ·                      5555 Retweets                   ·                      125125 likes Twitter Ads info and privacy Additionally, the least likely of the Trump base to forget about an amnesty deal would be the “Angel Moms'”and “Angel Dads” who have had their children killed by illegal aliens and DACA recipients. Maureen Laquerre, whose brother was murderd by an illegal alien, told Breitbart News: If Trump’s trying to make a deal he needs to sit down and talk to us about it because he more than once looked us in the eye and told us that our family members didn’t die in vain. The DACA children aren’t children anymore and they’ve had enough time to work on getting citizenship if that’s what they really wanted. I’m not into let’s make a deal, this isn’t a game show here. 4. Legalizing DACA is not amnesty In statements today, Trump suggested that allowing DACA recipients to remain in the U.S. was not amnesty, as Breitbart News reported. “We’re looking at allowing people to stay here,” Trump said. “We’re not looking at citizenship, we’re not looking at amnesty.” 5. DACA recipients are not taking U.S. jobs away from Americans As a study by the pro-immigration group FWD.us revealed, an amnesty to DACA recipients would mean the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants currently holding jobs in the U.S. would be able to remain at those jobs, rather than those opportunities potentially opening up for American workers. An ultimate end to the DACA program has the potential to open nearly 720,000 U.S. jobs for Americans, with the potential of more jobs in the future. 6. DACA recipients are highly-educated  Though DACA has been touted by Trump as being a program for highly-educated illegal aliens, research by the Migration Policy Institute shows this is not the case and that a minority of DACA recipients have college degrees: For example, one-third of the people in the study sample who are older than age 25 hold four-year college bachelors’ degrees or better. In contrast, an August 2013 report by the pro-amnesty Migration Policy Institute showed that only 7.5 percent of the 800,000 DACA-qualified illegals who were 18 or older had four-year college degrees or better. An August 2017 study by the MPI showed only 5 percent of 832,000 DACA illegals who were older than 18 had four-year college qualifications. 7. DACA recipients are not looking to take advantage of the immigration system Though Trump now appears supportive of DACA, he has yet to address the concerns regarding thousands of DACA recipients who have schemed and used an advanced parole program loophole, allowing them to obtain Green Cards and U.S. citizenship. Recent USCIS data revealed: ·                     45,447 DACA recipients have been approved for advance parole ·                     59,778 DACA recipients have applied for Lawful Permanent Resident, known as a “Green Card” ·                     39,514 DACA recipients have been approved for a Green Card ·                     Of the DACA recipients with Green Cards, 2,181 have applied for U.S. citizenship ·                     Of the DACA recipients with Green Cards, 1,056 have become U.S. citizens 8. Amnesty for DACA recipients will have no impact on illegal and legal immigration Pro-American immigration reformers have told Breitbart News that an amnesty could lead to massive surges of illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as surges in legal immigration, as DACA recipients become eligible to bring their foreign relatives to the U.S. For example, when former President Obama enacted DACA, U.S. Border Patrol saw an unprecedented surge of illegal alien children and families, as the Migration Policy Institute documented in 2014: The phenomenon of unaccompanied children arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, typically after an arduous and often dangerous journey through Central America and Mexico, has reached a crisis proportion, with a 90 percent spike in arrivals from last year and predictions of future increases ahead. While the immediate humanitarian situation has galvanized the attention of the Obama administration, policymakers, and the country at large, it is painfully clear that there are no simple solutions, whether in the short or medium term, to address the complex set of push and pull factors driving the rise in arrivals of unaccompanied alien children (UACs). 9. Amnesty will lead to pro-American immigration reforms There is the possibility that the Trump administration believes that leading with an amnesty for illegal aliens could eventually lead to successful, pro-American immigration reforms that the President promised to enact. But, as Rep. Steve King (R-IA) pointed out in a single tweet, history shows amnesty is not a winner in the long run for immigration policy in the national interest.  Follow Steve King  ✔@SteveKingIA Reagan led with Amnesty, 1986. Bush43 led with Amnesty '06, Obama led with Amnesty '13. All failed so...Trump leads with DACA Amnesty 2017. 4:26 AM - Sep 14, 2017 · Washington, DC ·                             719719 Replies                   ·                      1,1071,107 Retweets                   ·                      2,2682,268 likes Twitter Ads info and privacy In fact, the very opposite is likely to happen if Trump signs an amnesty bill for illegal aliens. The open borders lobby and corporate interests are likely to push a full-fledged amnesty for all 12 to 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. should Trump sign a DACA amnesty. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. Rising: 30,567 Aliens Apprehended or Deemed Inadmissible on SW Border Last Month By Susan Jones | September 14, 2017 | 10:31 AM EDT (Chart: U.S. Customs and Border Patrol) (CNSNews.com) - Since April, the number of illegal aliens trying to get into the United States along the Southwest border has been steadily rising, reaching a total of 30,567 in August, a 22.5 percent increase from July and almost twice the 15,771 recorded in April, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said. Of those 30,567 detained in August, 22,293 individuals were apprehended between ports of entry. That's up from 18,190 in July; 16,087 in June; 14,520 in May; and 11,125 in April. Another 8,283 individuals were deemed inadmissible at ports of entry in August, including illegal aliens who turned themselves in to Border Patrol agents. By comparison, the number of inadmissibles was 6,835 in July; 5,570 in June; 5,425 in May; and 4,646 in April. With one month to go in Fiscal Year 2017 (Oct. 1, 2016-Sept. 30 2017), a total of 281,390 individuals have been apprehended between ports of entry on the Southwest Border, and 102,692 have been deemed inadmissible at ports of entry, for a grand total of 384,082 individuals either detained or turned away. That's still well below the 559,695 apprehensions/inadmissibles identified on the Southwest border in Fiscal 2016; the 445,819 recorded in FY 2015; and the 569,972 in FY 2014. As the CBP chart shows, the total number of illegal aliens either detained or deemed inadmissible reached 66,712 in the month of October 2016, the first month of Fiscal 2017. The number further declined in November, the month Donald Trump was elected president, and it continued dropping through April, before rising again in May-August. The majority of illegal aliens apprehended between ports of entry are coming from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. President Trump campaigned on a promise to build a "big, beautiful" wall on the Southwest Border, and he also promised to send illegal aliens out of the country. At a rally in Kentucky in March, President Trump bragged, "Since the day of my election, we've already cut illegal immigration at the southern border by 61 percent. Think of that, 61 percent! And we haven't started." But it appears that times have changed. President Trump on Thursday said he is working with congressional Democrats on a "plan" to keep hundreds of thousands of dreamers in this country. Trump insisted there's no deal yet, and in exchange for an agreement on dreamers, he wants "very, very powerful border security." But that apparently does not mean a new, high, prefab concrete wall, as Trump described it on the campaign trail. Trump tweeted on Thursday: "The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built." Speaking later Thursday morning in Florida, Trump repeated that "What we want, we have to have a wall. If the wall is going to be obstructed when we need the funds at a little bit later date, when we are determining how much we need, then we're not doing anything." Sanctuary City Murder: Teen Illegal Immigrant Kills with Cop’s Stolen Gun, Police Say http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/09/15/sanctuary-city-murder-teen-illegal-immigrant-killed-cops-stolen-gun-police-say/ by JOHN BINDER15 Sep 2017San Francisco, CA1,738 An illegal immigrant being monitored by immigration officials is now accused of murder in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, California. Erick Garcia-Pineda, 18, wore an ankle monitor placed by immigration officials when he allegedly murdered 23-year-old Abel Ezquivel, according to NBC Bay Area. Four days before the murder, Pineda allegedly stole a San Francisco Police officer’s service pistol from a police vehicle. Days later, the illegal immigrant allegedly used the gun to murder Ezquivel. Following the murder, Pineda was later arrested and detained for unrelated battery charges. Police say they noticed the illegal immigrant’s monitoring bracelet and used it to link Pineda to several other crimes, including five robberies and two other shooting incidents. Pineda, according to NBC, was attempting to obtain asylum in the U.S., claiming he was under threat of the MS-13 gang. It remains unclear why Pineda was wearing an ankle monitor by immigration officials, but was not previously arrested for his illegal status. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. Report: DACA Amnesty May Trigger Flood of 4-6M Foreign Nationals, Not 800K http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/14/report-daca-amnesty-trigger-flood-4-6-m-foreign-nationals-not-800k/ Ethan Miller/Getty Images by JOHN BINDER14 Sep 2017Washington, D.C.5,557 Should President Trump follow through on a deal where nearly 800,000 illegal aliens are allowed to remain in the United States and eventually obtain U.S. citizenship, research shows it would create a flood of four to six million chain migrants coming to the United States. Trump, who adamantly opposed the amnesty for illegal aliens protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, is now defending the recipients of the program, as well as leveraging a deal where the foreign nationals could seek a pathway to citizenship through legal status, as Breitbart News reported. Today, Trump signaled to his supporters that he opposed any sort of chain migration that would follow a DACA amnesty deal, though the deals the White House and Congress are reviewing would all cause such an immigration crisis:  Follow Donald J. Trump  ✔@realDonaldTrump CHAIN MIGRATION cannot be allowed to be part of any legislation on Immigration! 6:00 AM - Sep 15, 2017 ·                              9,2789,278 Replies                     ·                       13,34213,342 Retweets                     ·                       52,53152,531 likes    Twitter Ads info and privacy Latest data from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shows that 618,342 illegal aliens from Mexico currently have DACA status. If they were amnestied into the U.S., it would give them the opportunity to bring adult parents and relatives to the U.S. “There will be chain migration. There always has been in amnesties,” Center for Immigration Studies Policy Director Jessica Vaughan told Breitbart News. According to Princeton University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, for every one new Mexican immigrant to the U.S., an additional 6.38 Mexican nationals come to the U.S. through family-chain migration. Based on the Princeton research, the 618, 342 illegal aliens from Mexico who are coveredby DACA would be able to bring upwards of four million additional relatives and family members to the U.S. in the years to come. If the remaining estimated 180,000 DACA recipients brought in three family members each after being amnestied, it would result in additional 540,000 immigrants. Should the remaining 180,000 DACA recipients bring four family members each to the U.S., it would result in more than 700,000 new immigrants. But if the remaining roughly 180,000 DACA recipients were to bring the same number of family members as Mexican DACA recipients are expected to bring to the U.S., it would result in nearly 1.2 million more legal family-based immigrants coming to the country. On top of the legal chain migration that could occur following a DACA amnesty by Trump, there is also the potential for a massive border surge, like the one that occurred following former President Obama’s creation of the DACA program. As the Migration Policy Institute has chronicled, previous border surges from amnesty programs have brought hundreds of thousands across the U.S.-Mexico border: While the flow of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) has been climbing steadily since 2012, a dramatic surge has taken place in the last six months, with the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas as the principal place of entry. The Border Patrol there has converted entire stations to house unaccompanied minors and families. According to the Border Patrol, apprehensions of unaccompanied children increased from 16,067 in fiscal year (FY) 2011 to 24,481 in FY 2012 and 38,833 in FY 2013. During the first eight months of FY 2014, 47,017 such children were apprehended by the Border Patrol. If the influx continues apace—and it shows no signs of slowing—the administration predicts that by the end of the fiscal year on September 30, totals could reach 90,000. Ninety-eight percent of unaccompanied minors currently arriving at the border are from Honduras (28 percent), Mexico (25 percent), Guatemala (24 percent), and El Salvador (21 percent). This breakdown represents a significant shift: prior to 2012, more than 75 percent of UACs were from Mexico. “There’s one thing for sure: it’s not going to be 800,000 illegal aliens amnestied,” Vaughan said, alluding to the fact that an amnesty would surge both legal and illegal immigration. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.' Immigration Hawks Licking Their Wounds After Trump's About-Face https://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2017/09/15/immigration-hawks-licking-their-wounds-after-trumps-aboutface-n2381568?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad= Jonah Goldberg    "At this point, who DOESN'T want Trump impeached?" -- Ann Coulter tweet, 7:05 a.m., September 14, 2017. "If reports true 100%. I blame R's. They caused this. They wanted him to fail and now pushed him into arms of political suicide -- IF TRUE." -- Sean Hannity tweet, 12:11 a.m., September 14, 2017. "Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You (fouled) up... you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it!" -- Eric "Otter" Stratton, "Animal House," 1978. Before I continue, let me answer Ann Coulter's question: Me. I don't want Trump impeached, at least not until he does something clearly impeachable. Impeaching him for policies you don't like or even for political malpractice would simply be a time-wasting tantrum. And I say that as a consistent critic of Donald Trump, going back to his flirtation with running on the Reform Party ticket in 2000. That said, Coulter's reaction is understandable and even a little praiseworthy. After all, she wrote a book -- a whole book! -- in 2016 called "In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!" But unlike a lot of her compatriots in the Trump Army, Coulter was driven by a policy position, not an infatuation. Or perhaps she was infatuated, but her commitment to the policy was greater than her commitment to the man. The policy in question: immigration. To wit, Coulter thinks we've had enough of it. That goes for the children brought here by illegal immigrants, commonly referred to as "Dreamers." President Obama created a program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, that unconstitutionally (according to most conservatives, including the attorney general) granted a kind of de facto amnesty to the Dreamers, giving them work permits and legal residence. On Wednesday night, Trump had dinner with the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer. These two famously partisan Democrats came out of the dinner announcing that they had struck a deal with the president to make DACA permanent without providing any funding for Trump's cherished border wall. Trump, witnessing the blowback, which included the new nickname "Amnesty Don" in a headline at Breitbart News (which until recently had been the Pravda of MAGAland), insisted in a tweet that no deal had yet been made. But then he went on to sing the praises of DACA in a series of tweets, making it clear to all that he wants the Dreamers to be legalized and the DACA program made permanent. In other words, he threw his biggest supporters under the Trump train. Now I should say, I think Trump is right on the policy. It would be stupid and cruel to deport a bunch of people who came here as little kids and have since assimilated into the only country they've ever known. A large majority of Americans, including a majority of Trump voters, agree with Trump (and Schumer and Pelosi) on the policy. A poll this week found that only 12 percent of registered voters want these people deported. Coulter and former Trump adviser (and current Breitbart publisher) Steve Bannon speak for that 12 percent. The majority of immigration hawks, however, considered DACA to be the president's most valuable negotiating chip. He could have gotten funding for the wall -- or perhaps E-Verify, or portions of Sen. Tom Cotton's immigration reform legislation, the RAISE Act -- passed in exchange for making DACA permanent. Instead, the author of "The Art of the Deal" essentially tossed his best chip into the pot as if it were the ante. This poses a crisis for two different kinds of Trump true believers. The "nationalists" honestly believed he was one of them. Meanwhile, the super-fans honestly believed Trump was the greatest negotiator and strategist the world had ever seen. Both of these notions were delusions. Oh, I'm sure Trump believes much of his America First talk, but that's talk. What really matters to him is praise. It was only a matter of time before the moth flew to glow of public opinion. The sad thing is that both delusions were obvious from the moment he descended his golden escalator at Trump Tower. It will be interesting to see how the true believers follow Otter's advice and make the best of their foul-up. FOR 8 YEARS BARACK OBAMA DID NADA FOR BLACK AMERICAN EVEN AS HE FUNDED AND OPERATED OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE THE MEX FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA. "Still, black America remains steadfastly loyal to a party that supports the endless importation of workers who compete directly for jobs with them and their families. Writes Kaus, "The median hourly wage (of DACA recipients) is only $15.34, meaning that many are competing with hard-pressed, lower-skilled Americans." A 'Read-My-Lips' Moment for Trump?  By Patrick J. Buchanan | September 15, 2017 | 4:38 AM EDT President Donald J. Trump participates a Hurricane Irma briefing call with FEMA Administrator William "Brock" Long, Monday, Sept. 11, 2017, joined by White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly, left; Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism Adviser Thomas Bossert, right, and Deputy Homeland Security Adviser John J. Daly, seated, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C. ( Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead) "Having cut a deal with Democrats for help with the debt ceiling, will Trump seek a deal with Democrats on amnesty for the 'Dreamers' in return for funding for border security?" The answer to that question, raised in my column a week ago, is in. Last night, President Donald Trump cut a deal with "Chuck and Nancy" for amnesty for 800,000 recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program who came here illegally as youngsters, in return for Democratic votes for more money for border security. According to preening Minority Leader Pelosi, the agreement contains not a dime for Trump's Wall, and the "Dreamers" are to be put on a long glide "path to U.S. citizenship." Trump denies this is amnesty, and says the Wall comes later. Fallout? Among the most enthusiastic of  Trump backers, disbelief, disillusionment  and wonderment at where we go from here. Trump's debt-ceiling deal cut the legs out from under the GOP budget hawks. But amnesty would pull the rug out from under all the folks at those rallies who cheered Trump's promise to preserve the country they grew up in from this endless Third World invasion. For make no mistake. If amnesty is granted for the 800,000, that will be but the first wave. "There are reasons no country has a rule that if you sneak in as a minor you're a citizen," writes Mickey Kaus, author of "The End of Equality," in The Washington Post. "We'd be inviting the world. ... (An amnesty) would have a knock-on effect. Under 'chain migration' rules established in 1965 ... new citizens can bring in their siblings and adult children, who can bring in their siblings and in-laws until whole villages have moved to the United States. "(T)oday's 690,000 dreamers would quickly become millions of newcomers who may well be low-skilled and who would almost certainly include the parents who brought them — the ones who in theory are at fault." Trump is risking a breach in the dam. If the populists who provided him with decisive margins in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania feel betrayed, it's hard to blame them. Why did Trump do it? Clearly, he relished the cheers he got for the debt ceiling deal and wanted another such victory. And with the rampant accusations of a lack of "compassion" for his cancellation of the temporary Obama administration amnesty, he decided he had had enough heat. It is not easy to stand up for long to the gale force winds of hostile commentary that blow constantly through this city. Trump's capitulation, if that is what turns out to be, calls to mind George H. W. Bush's decision in 1990 to raise the Reagan tax rates in a deal engineered for him by a White House-Hill coalition, that made a mockery of his "Read my lips! No new taxes!" pledge of 1988. For agreeing to feed the beast of Big Government, rather than cut its rations as Reagan sought to do, Bush was called a statesman. By the fall of '92, the cheering had stopped. Can Trump not know that those congratulating him for his newfound flexibility will be rejoicing, should Bob Mueller indict his family and his friends, and recommend his impeachment down the road? What makes pre-emptive amnesty particularly disheartening is that the Trump policy of securing the border and returning illegal immigrants to their home countries appears, from a Census Bureau report this week, to be precisely the prescription America needs. In 2016, paychecks for U.S. households reached an average of $59,039, up 3.2 percent from 2015, a year when they had surged. U.S. median household income is now at its highest ever. Yet there are inequalities. Where the median family income of Asian-Americans is above $81,400, and more than $65,000 for white Americans, the median family income of Hispanic families is $47,675, and that of African-American households far less, $39,490. Consider. Though black Americans are predominantly native-born, while high percentages of Hispanics and Asians are immigrants, from the Census numbers, Hispanics earn more and Asians enjoy twice the median family income of blacks, which is below where it was in 2000. Still, black America remains steadfastly loyal to a party that supports the endless importation of workers who compete directly for jobs with them and their families. Writes Kaus, "The median hourly wage (of DACA recipients) is only $15.34, meaning that many are competing with hard-pressed, lower-skilled Americans." Looking closer at the Census Bureau figures, Trumpian economic nationalism would appear to have its greatest appeal to the American working class, a huge slice of which is native-born, black and Hispanic. The elements of that policy? Secure the border. Halt the invasion of low-wage workers, here legally and illegally, from the Third World. Tighten the labor market to force employers to raise wages in our full-employment economy. Provide tax incentives to companies who site factories in the USA. Impose border taxes on the products of companies who move plants abroad. Put America and American workers first. Will any amnesty of undocumented workers do that? Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever." OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERISM destroyed a TRILLION DOLLARS in home equity… and they’re still plundering us!   Barack Obama created more debt for the middle class than any president in US   history, and also had the only huge QE programs: $4.2 Trillion.   http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/09/michael-bargo-jr-tragic-legacy-of.html OXFAM reported that during Obama’s    terms, 95% of the wealth created went    to the top 1% of the world’s wealthy.    SOARING POVERTY AND DRUG ADDICTION UNDER OBAMA http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/08/soaring-poverty-under-obama.html "These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty.    AMERICA UNRAVELS: Millions of children go hungry as the super- rich gorge themselves and ILLEGALS SUCK IN BILLIONS IN WELFARE! * "The top 10 percent of Americans now own roughly three-quarters of all household wealth." http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/america-unravels-millions-of-children.html "While telling workers there is “not enough money” for wage increases, or to fund social programs, both parties hailed the recent construction of the U.S.S. Gerald Ford, a massive aircraft carrier that cost $13 billion to build, stuffing the pockets of numerous contractors and war profiteers." US Census report shows increasing social inequality By Eric London 15 September 2017 US Census data from 2016 released on Tuesday shows increasing social inequality amid a small gain in household income that is offset by a massive growth of personal debt and rising living costs. The data tracks the ongoing redistribution of wealth from the working class to the wealthy as a result of the pro-Wall Street policies of both the Republican and Democratic parties. It substantiates the oligarchic character of the United States. Social inequality The Gini index, used to measure social inequality, with higher figures indicating a wider economic divide, rose slightly from 2015 (.479) to 2016 (.481). The 2016 figure, according to rankings in the CIA World Factbook, makes the US slightly more equal than Madagascar and less equal than Mexico. In terms of aggregate income share, the shift from 2015 to 2016 is as follows: The growth in inequality is even starker when traced from 2007, the year before the Wall Street crisis. The data reflects income and not wealth, thereby providing an incomplete and conservative indication of the scale of inequality. Even within the highest quintile, the income share increased only for the top 10 percent, and, in particular, the top 5 percent. Household income The corporate media has portrayed the report as a sign of positive income growth, since it shows a slight rise in median income of 3.2 percent from 2015 to 2016. But according to the Census data, the earnings of “full-time, year-round workers” remained stagnant. For men in this category, a total of 63.9 million people, earnings declined by 0.4 percent, from $51,859 in 2015 to $51,640 in 2016. For women in this category, 47.2 million people, there was a minor increase, 0.7 percent, from $41,257 in 2015 to $41,554 in 2016. In other words, families with 2 adults working full-time saw a paltry $78 increase in their yearly earnings from 2015 to 2016. Claims of rising incomes mask the growth of inequality. The Census data shows that the household income of the 90th percentile (the 100th being the highest) was 12.53 times higher than the household income of the 10th percentile in 2016, up from 12.23 times higher in 2015 and 11.18 times higher in 2007. The degree to which income is concentrated in the richest 10 percent of the population is exemplified by the fact that the 5th percentile boasted a household income 3.82 times higher than the 50th percentile in 2016, up from 3.79 times in 2015 and 3.52 in 2007. As Bloomberg News reported Wednesday, “Since 2007, average inflation-adjusted income has climbed more than 10 percent for households in the highest fifth of the earnings distribution, and it’s fallen 3.2 percent for the bottom quintile. Incomes of the top 5 percent jumped 12.8 percent over the period.” For the working class, any income increase was transferred to the corporate elite in the form of rising debt payments and increasing living expenses, especially for health care. According to figures from eHealth, a large private health exchange, average deductibles for families rose 5 percent from 2016 to 2017 (a year after the period covered by the Census report) and average individual premiums rose 22 percent over the same period. The rising cost of student debt alone largely erases income increases seen by some young people. According to the Census, those aged 15 to 24 saw an income increase of 13.9 percent, from $36,564 in 2015 to $41,655 in 2016, while incomes for young people aged 25 to 34 rose 4.9 percent, from $58,091 to $60,932, nearly double the percentage increase for older age groups. However, in 2016, student debt rose to an average of $30,000 per young person, up 4 percent from 2015, eliminating over 80 percent of the income rise for 25-34 year olds. For 15 to 24 year olds, the $4,000 increase in median income would hardly cover one sixth of the average debt payment, let alone make up for the fact that young people face a future in which they are unlikely to receive a pension, Social Security or Medicare. Rising debt levels are not a phenomenon limited to young people. A Bloomberg report from August 10 notes that credit card defaults increased from the beginning of 2015—when roughly 2.5 percent of debt holders defaulted—to the end of 2016, when the total hit 3 percent. This figure subsequently climbed in 2017 to reach 3.49 percent. Bloomberg notes: “After deleveraging in the aftermath of the last US recession, Americans have once again taken on record debt loads that risk holding back the world’s largest economy... Household debt outstanding--everything from mortgages to credit cards to car loans--reached $12.7 trillion in the first quarter [2017], surpassing the previous peak in 2008 before the effect of the housing market collapse took its toll, Federal Reserve Bank of New York data show.” “For most Americans,” the report continues, “whose median household income, adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was at its peak in 1999, borrowing has been the answer to maintaining their standard of living. The increase in debt helps explain why the economy’s main source of fuel is providing less of a boost than in the past. Personal spending growth has averaged 2.4 percent since the recession ended in 2009, less than the 3 percent of the previous expansion and 4.3 percent from 1982-90.” The Bloomberg report explains that income from wages minus household debt trended downward in 2015, meaning that debt is rising faster than wages, causing a loss of roughly $500 billion across the US economy in the space of just one year. Poverty rate Though the Census report shows that the poverty rate declined from 13.5 percent of households in 2015 to 12.7 percent in 2016, this figure is substantially higher than the 11.3 percent level that prevailed in 2000. In reality, individuals and families must make 2.5 to 3 times the official poverty rate of $12,000 for an individual, $15,500 for a married couple and $25,000 for a family of four just to make ends meet. What the data really shows is that the poorest half of the country--over 150 million people--is in a desperate financial position, with the next poorest 40 percent facing constant financial strain and a declining share of the national income. In regard to poverty, the Census Bureau maintains figures that go up only to 200 percent of the official poverty level. The latest report shows that 95 million people—29.8 percent of the population—fall into this category. The share of those under the age of 18 in this category is much higher--39.1 percent. This is the context for the drive by the Trump administration and both big business parties to slash corporate taxes, impose a health care “reform” that will increase costs for millions of people, and accelerate the transfer of wealth from the working class to the financial aristocracy. Census Bureau: Mens’ Wages Remain Below 1973 Levels 98 http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/12/census-bureau-mens-wages-remain-1973-levels/ 0 AP Photo/David Goldman by NEIL MUNRO12 Sep 2017333 Americans’ median pay packets have been flat since 1973, even though the vastly expanded federal government has justified its own salaries and its many massive spending and policy programs as a sure-fire way to boost education, productivity, and wages. The colossal 44-year failure of the federal government to help grow American men’s wages — or even to reduce poverty rates — is laid bare in the latest report from the Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016.” The dense report includes myriad detailed tables of data around one shocking chart, which reveals no growth in men’s wages for the past 44 years, or since President Richard Nixon was beginning his second term in office. Median earning of full-time, year-round workers, 15 years and older, 1960 to 2016. The sudden flatline followed a 31 percent rise in all men’s median wages from 1960 to 1972. During the 44-year period since 1973, income among women grew by roughly 30 percent as more skilled and trained women entered the market, gained experience, and were promoted to better-paying jobs. Those opportunities and contributions are good news — but they do not change the reality that men’s income has been flat for 44 years. In fact, the report notes that “the real median earnings of full-time, year-round working men were 1.1 percent lower in 2016 than in 2007.” There are many explanations for the flat income, such as the massive growth in the labor supply when 30 million additional American women and roughly 30 million immigrants joined in the marketplace competition for good jobs. For example, a pro-immigration panel at the prestigious National Academies of Science estimated in 2016 that the huge government-imposed inflow of immigrants since 1965 has imposed a hidden 5 percent “immigration tax” on Americans’ pay packets. Technology has made many individuals workers more productive but also sidelined many others, such as newspaper printers and steelworkers. Peaceful international trade has allowed men to sell more products overseas but also allowed employers to hire foreign workers instead of Americans. Whatever the combinations of reasons, the mid-point for men’s income has been flat for 43 years, according to the Census Bureau. The flat-earnings chart needs some explanation: It shows only inflation-adjusted, pre-tax pay packets, so it excludes the impact of inflation, taxes and government benefits, such as food-stamps and tax-breaks for children, or of Obamacare’s subsidies and spending obligations. It shows median income, which is the midpoint of the income scale. Half the people earn above the line, half the people earn below the line. Average income would be higher, but less revealing, because a higher share of income is going to the highest earners, compared to back in the 1970s. The chart shows the income of year-round, full-time workers, excluding part-workers or seasonal workers, or those who work on-and-off under contracts. The chart does not make distinctions by race. The chart shows individuals’ income, not the income of households, which has fluctuated as the average number of children or adults has declined. The chart only shows income, but not the quality of goods in the stores, such as Starbucks coffee, cheap products imported from China, high-tech music players, improved autos or better health-care. That rise in product quality from competing companies — not claimed policy improvements from federal agencies — has provided the vast majority of material gains for Americans amid flat incomes. The details are provided on Table A-4, on page 49 of this PDF. The median earnings for all men employed year-round was $51,640 in 2016, which is still far below the $54,030 earned by full-time men in 1973. It is also below the $51,938 earned in the 2000 Internet boom, or the $52,222 earned in the 2007 property bubble when large-scale legal and illegal immigration provided employers with millions of alternative imported workers. The post-1973 reality of flat income is a huge contrast to the rapid growth from 1960 up to the 1973 oil shock and the reopened inflow of immigrant labor after 1965.  During the twelves years 1960 to 1972, the median average wages for all males — including minorities, seasonal workers, and contract workers — rose from by 31 percent, from $31,926 to $41,013. When the income of all men is gauged, the Bureau concluded that all men’s median income in 1973 was $41,935. It dropped after 1973 and rose back up to $43,360 in 1999 as companies competed for the few unemployed workers during the first Internet boom. Income crashed in 2008 to a depression-low of $39,636 in 2012 once the federal government’s real-estate bubble burst. Since then, income has slowly climbed back to $42,220 in 2016 amid the continuous public protest against the federal government’s cheap-labor economic strategy, which is exemplified by the bipartisan 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty legislation. Other data in the report shows that the nation’s poverty rates have barely budged since the 1960s, although many people in the United States are wealthier than many people n Europe. For example, the percentage of American said to be in poverty was 11.1 percent in 1973 and 12.7  percent in 2016. That national poverty rate climbed, in part, because of the population of Latinos spiked from 10.8 million in 1973 to 57.6 million in 2016. Poverty among Latinos was 19 percent in 2016, little changed from 1973. The report also noted that: The official poverty rate decreased by 0.8 percentage points between 2015 and 2016. At 12.7 percent, the 2016 poverty rate is not statistically different from 2007 (12.5 percent), the year before the most recent recession. In real terms, median earnings of full-time, year-round working women in 2016 were 2.3 percent higher than their 2007 median, the year before the most recent recession. The real median earnings of full-time, year-round working men were 1.1 percent lower in 2016 than in 2007. In 2017, the number and percentage of shared households remained higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession. In 2007, 17.0 percent of all households were shared households, totaling 19.7 million households. In 2017, 19.4 percent of all households were shared households, totaling 24.6 million households.Read it all here. THE HOUSTON FLOOD   -   CRONY CAPITALIST LICK THEIR LIPS OVER REBUILDING.... FIRST, LIKE KATRINA, CUT WAGES AND INVITE HORDES MORE ILLEGALS IN TO WORK CHEAP! "Like Katrina, Hurricane Harvey has lifted the lid on the ugly reality of American society, exposing colossal levels of social inequality, pervasive poverty and ruling class criminality." http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/crony-capitalist-lick-their-lips-over.html "The reason why these warnings have been ignored is not hard to fathom. They have been resolutely opposed by corporate interests, including the real estate industry, Wall Street and Big Oil. Their ability, operating through bribed politicians of  both parties, to veto and block elementary measures to protect the American people, exemplifies the complete subordination of all social needs under capitalism to the selfish drive of a corporate-financial oligarchy to accumulate ever greater levels of personal wealth and profit." THEY INVADE OVER AND UNDER OUR BORDERS… and do so by invitation of the Democrat Party. http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/monica-showalter-mexicos-invasion-over.html Lawmen are worried that the cartel tunnel builders on the Mexican border are now using their engineered concoctions to smuggle illegals, not merely drugs. That's what the Daily Caller has found, describing the new anxiety as one was discovered over the weekend, catching about 30 illegals coming in from Mexico and China. MONICA SHOWALTER – AMERICAN THINKER.com SOARING POVERTY AND DRUG ADDICTION UNDER OBAMA http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/08/soaring-poverty-under-obama.html "These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty.  OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS to serve the filthy rich The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s. http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/08/obama-clintonomics-their-crony.html “This study follows reports released over the past several months documenting rising mortality rates among US workers due to drug addiction and suicide, high rates of infant mortality, an overall leveling off of life expectancy, and a growing gap between the life expectancy of the bottom rung of income earners compared to those at the top.” SOARING POVERTY AND DRUG ADDICTION UNDER OBAMA http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/08/soaring-poverty-under-obama.html "These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty.  SOARING POVERTY AND DRUG ADDICTION UNDER OBAMA http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/08/soaring-poverty-under-obama.html "These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty.  Chicago Mayor: City Is Now A 'Trump-Free Zone' After DACA Decision https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/09/07/chicago-mayor-city-is-now-a-trumpfree-zone-after-daca-decision-n2377851 Matt Vespa | Posted: Sep 07, 2017 5:45 PM   Share (1K)   Tweet Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel had a clear message to send to the city’s illegal aliens: the Windy City is your home, and that they have nothing to fear. Concerning schools and other aspects of the city infrastructure, Emanuel declared them “Trump-free zones” (via The Hill):  Follow Mayor Rahm Emanuel  ✔@ChicagosMayor To all #DREAMers: You are welcome in the City of Chicago. This is your home. Come to school and pursue your dreams. #DACA#ChicagoisOne 9:06 AM - Sep 5, 2017 ·                            1,5071,507 Replies       ·              29,091 likes Twitter Ads info and privacy Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) said Tuesday that the Windy City will continue to welcome "Dreamers" despite President Trump’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. “To all the Dreamers that are here in this room, and in the city of Chicago, you are welcomed in the city of Chicago. This is your home and you have nothing to worry about,” Emanuel said in a prepared statement. The comments come just hours after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the DACA program, which deferred deportation for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as minors and allows them to apply for work permits, would be phased out. “Chicago, our schools, our neighborhoods, our city, as it relates to what President Trump said, will be a Trump-free zone. You have nothing to worry about,” Emanuel continued. This announcement comes after the Trump White House decided to gradually phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The Obama-era program has been constitutionally questionable since then-President Obama announced it as a stopgap measure. Now, around 800,000 illegal aliens benefit from the program that shields them from deportation if they met certain requirements. DACA recipients are illegal aliens that were minors when they entered the country illegally. The decision to nix the program and place it in Congress’ hands, which should have happened in the first place, has the Left going insane.