CONCENTRATIO CAMPS for ILLEGALS? END OF MEXICAN INVASION?

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
SECRET PRISONS FOR ILLEGALS?
ISN’T IT TIME WE STOPPED BEING MEXICO’S PRISON SYSTEM, AND WELFARE SYSTEM???
MEXICO’S LARGEST EXPORT ARE THEIR PEOPLE. THEIR POOR, ILLITERATE, CRIMINAL AND FREQUENTLY PREGNANT. FOR THE MEXICAN DICTATORS IT’S ALL ABOUT MAINTAINING THE MEXICAN ECONOMY IN THE HANDS OF A FEW GREEDY FAMILIES, LIKE CAROLOS SLIM. OUR CARLOS HAS ABOUT $80 BILLION, MOST OF WHICH COMES FROM HIS ,MONOPOLY OF THE MEXICAN PHONE SYSTEM. MEXICANS PAY THE HIGHEST RATES FOR THEIR PHONE MONOPOLY IN THE HEMISPHERE. SLIM OWNS NEARLY 10% OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, WHICH IS WHY IT IS A LA RAZA MOUTHPIECE FOR THE EVER EXPANDING MEXICAN WELFARE STATE IN GRINGOLAND.
ALL THIS STAGGERINGLY EXPENSIVE “CHEAP” MEXICAN LABOR NEEDS TO STOP!
OUR BORDERS MUST BE FINALLY, AND FOR REAL, DEFENDED AGAINST THE MEXICAN INVASION AND OCCUPATION! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SICK OF MEXICAN RACISM, CRIME, LOATHING FOR THE GRINGO’S LANGUAGE, GRAFFITI, BIRTHING LIKE BUNNIES, AND THEN SENDING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE BILLS FOR IT ALL!
THE LA RAZA “THE (MEXICAN) RACE” DEMS ARE THIS VERY MINUTE HISPANDERING FOR THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES. OBAMA KNOWS HE WON’T BE ABLE TO CON US AGAIN WITH ANY MORE PERFORMANCES OF HIS STAGED PRODUCTION OF “CHANGE”, OR ACT II, “THE POPULIST”, SO WITH POCKET FULLS OF DIRTY BANKSTERS MONEY, ALL HE NEEDS NOW IS AMNESTY AND THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES!
*
WSWS.ORG NOTHING IN THE ARTICLE BELOW SUGGEST THAT MEXICO SHOULD START DOING SOMETHING FOR THEIR PEOPLE, OTHER THAN EXPORTING THEM TO PILLAGE AMERICA!
*
“We can make him disappear”
America’s secret prisons for undocumented immigrants
By Andrew Joad
1 February 2010
There are at least 186 secret detention centers maintained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) within the borders of the US, according to an article published in the Nation magazine in December. Drawing on a report by Amnesty International (AI) entitled “Jailed without Justice,” it estimates that 415,000 people have been held at these facilities, which are operated under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security as so-called “sub-field offices” of the ICE. Their purpose is to deny undocumented immigrants due process and any means by which they can effectively lobby for their rights.
“If you don’t have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but you think he’s illegal, we can make him disappear,” explained ICE Executive Director for the Office of State and Local Coordination James Pendergraph at an August 2008 police and sheriffs’ conference, according to the AI report.
In October 2009 an assistant to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano first revealed the existence of the secret prisons to the secretary, without making the locations public. The author of the December 16 article in the Nation, Jacqueline Stevens, obtained “a partial list” of the secret facilities from an ICE officer.
These prisons include unmarked rooms without beds, showers, toilets, or windows in office parks and commercial building spaces. Stevens reports that some 84 percent of persons arrested by ICE are at first “housed” in such sub-field offices.
For example, according to her article and Ahilan Arulanantham, director of Immigrants’ Rights and National Security at the ACLU of Southern California, an underground parking ramp at a federal building in Los Angeles is called B18 and houses up to 100 immigrants a day without any hygiene, medical, or legal services.
Legal professionals struggling to assist these people found captives chained together. They are continuously rotated between the below-ground parking ramp detention pen and locals jails, to which they are transported in unlabeled and windowless vans. This makes it extremely difficult to establish the identity or whereabouts of those being held. Relatives and attorneys have searched for family members for weeks and months to no avail.
In her article, Stevens reviews the case of Mark Lyttle, who has bipolar disorder and a learning disability. He was 31 years old when he was held at a Cary, North Carolina in an unmarked “sub-field” office in “an office park adjacent to gated communities, large artificial ponds and an Oxford University Press production plant.” He had been snatched out of “the medical misdemeanor section of a nearby prison” by ICE agents and spent his time in detention begging officials not to ship him to Mexico.
The ICE file from the FBI reportedly identified Lyttle as a US citizen. He was initially denied a hearing before an immigration judge, until he landed in Lumpkin, Georgia, where agents arranged for him to appear before the court. He had no legal representation and the judge, a former ICE prosecutor, “ignored Lyttle’s pleas … and signed his removal orders.” His panicked mother and two brothers searched the Cary area obituary columns before they discovered that he was spending Christmas in “a shelter for los deportados (the deported)” in Mexico.
Conditions in the secret jails described in the AI report bear similarity to many of the illegal detention facilities maintained by the US overseas. Indeed, an attorney working for a detained immigrant compared the jails and the treatment of his client to Washington’s program of extraordinary rendition. “Jailed without Justice” identifies at least 90 people who have died in these facilities either due to abuse suffered while in captivity or medical conditions that were left unattended.
The following incident, which had initially been reported in May 2008 by the Washington Post, was recounted in the AI report.
“Geovanny Garcia-Mejia, 27, from Honduras, died on March 18, 2006. He was detained at the Newton County Correctional Center in Texas. He had been placed in a medical unit, where he was found writing on the floor with his blood, internal records show. But he was returned to the jail’s general population after a psychologist wrote in his chart, ‘No idea why he is in suicide cell.’ He hanged himself 12 days later, on his 27th birthday. The local sheriff concluded that guards who should have been checking him every 15 minutes ‘made no rounds through the night...’”
Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, the Philippines and China are the top five countries of origin for immigrants trapped in the ICE’s detention pens. Officials take advantage of individuals’ lack of English-language skills in order to deny them due process and/or terrorize them into accepting deportation. The mental anguish created by the conditions of detention drives many to despair.
“Jailed without Justice” told the story of a 34-year-old Mexican woman arrested in front of her home and in the presence of her autistic three-year old, US-born son on a petty theft charge by local police. She was jailed for 24 days. She spoke no English, and while being interviewed by an ICE official, was urged to promptly accept deportation. In the course of her detention, fearing permanent separation from her family and loss of her child, she attempted to hang herself.
For family members, efforts to secure the release of their loved ones and fight deportation often entail huge expenditures. For example, AI reported the story of an Indian man who fled to the US in 1999 after being imprisoned and tortured several times for “political activities.” In 2006 the ICE detained him and demanded a $15,000 bond for his release. His wife arranged the payment with a bondsman while her husband applied for asylum. Upon his release, he appeared, as required, at all his immigration hearings for over two years. After his final hearing, at which he testified as to the details of his torture, the ICE re-arrested the man and hauled him before a second immigration judge, who demanded another bond payment of $80,000. The man’s family and friends tapped their credit cards and mortgaged their homes in order to fork over this sum.
Immigrant incarceration in the US has risen dramatically in the last ten years, from a “daily detention capacity” of 10,000 in 1996 to over 30,000 presently. The Obama administration has continued the policy of its predecessors in this regard. The rise in immigrant incarceration over the past 15 years has been so dramatic that authorities have had to contract out the process to some 350 county and state jails.
AI estimates that about 67 percent of incarcerated detainees are jailed in these facilities, with the remainder put in the secret immigration pens and facilities run by for-profit contractors, whose reimbursement is said to be between $60-$90 per person a day.
The running of these facilities is increasingly becoming a source of revenue for cash-strapped local governments. As noted in an article in the Denver Post last April, “El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa has tapped a new source of revenue: illegal immigrants.” The sheriff is leasing jail space to ICE for an average of 150 immigrants a night. He has sent some 17 of his deputies to Pendergraph’s departmental training school to learn how to “initiate deportations without waiting for federal agents.” ICE is reportedly paying $62.40 per night per immigrant, plus transport mileage, netting the jail 10 percent of its annual budget and El Paso County $3.6 million.
The conditions in immigrant detention centers are leading to mounting anger and desperate actions inside the facilities. On January 19, ICE detainees at the Varick Federal Detention Center in Lower Manhattan went on a hunger strike. According to the New York Times, a Jamaican detainee in one dorm at Varick reported that “all hell broke loose” at the facility, with inmates refusing to follow scheduling protocols and passing out fliers protesting detention policies and practices. An ICE SWAT team arrived and used pepper spray and beatings to put an end to the protest, which apparently was inspired by inmates finding out about similar protests occurring at other facilities. Some people were put in isolation, while others were moved to detention centers in other states. The Department of Homeland Security issued its customary denial of detainee abuse.
*
MEXICAN EXPORTS THEIR POOR.................................... Your $18 BILLION IN WELFARE for California alone. You still wonder why there’s no money for your own kid’s education, or roads?
Los Angeles, the MEXICAN GANG CAPITAL of AMERICA, PAYS OUT $40 MILLION PER MONTH IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, AND IS PROUD OF THE FACT THAT47% OF THOSE EMPLOYED ARE ILLEGALS WITH STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.

The Mexican Invasion
WHAT THIS CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR ARTICLE FAILS TO MENTION IS THAT THE NARCO-MEXICAN STATE ALSO EXPORTS THEIR CRIMINAL CLASS TO BE HOUSED IN OUR PRISONS AND JAILS. As well as 11 billion dollar drug trade with all the criminal elements still attached. ILLEGALS NOW MAKE UP ALMOST HALF THE COST OF THE US PRISON SYSTEM. ONE-THIRD OF ALL FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT CASES ARE WITH ILLEGALS.
from the March 30, 2006 edition –
MEXICO PREFERS TO EXPORT ITS POOR, NOT UPLIFT THEM
*
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p09s02-coop.html
*
Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them At this week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US actions.

By George W. Grayson

WILLIAMSBURG, VA. - At the parleys this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún, Mexican President Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his countrymen north of the Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional visas for Mexicans to enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of guest-worker schemes, and the "regularization" of illegal immigrants who reside throughout the continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the Mexican chief executive excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of a wall on the US-Mexico border and called for the "orderly, safe, and legal" northbound flow of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state of Guanajuato. Mexican legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández Enriquez, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America, recently emphasized that the solution to the "structural phenomenon" of unlawful migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but with "understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility." Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty. To his credit, Fox's "Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly the plight of the poorest of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers have advanced measures that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of the workforce, curb unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad. Indeed, Mexico's leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact science as they shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying efforts by the US senators and representatives to crack down on illegal immigration at the border and the workplace. Insufficient revenues mean that Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of social mobility: Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare only 6.10 percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study. Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian concerns require North America's neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not the least of which is immigration. However, Mexico's power brokers have failed to make the difficult decisions necessary to use their nation's bountiful wealth to benefit the masses. Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist that Mexico's pampered elite act responsibly, rather than expecting US and Canadian taxpayers to shoulder burdens Mexico should assume.
*
HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Unfettered Immigration =POVERTY FOR AMERICANS
By Robert Rector Heritage.org | May 16, 2006
This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty. An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years. Immigration and Crime Historically, immigrant populations have had lower crime rates than native-born populations. For example, in 1991, the overall crime and incarceration rate for non-citizens was slightly lower than for citizens.[40] On the other hand, the crime rate among Hispanics in the U.S. is high. Age-specific incarceration rates (prisoners per 100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) among Hispanics in federal and state prisons are two to two-and-a-half times higher than among non-Hispanic whites.[41] Relatively little of this difference appears to be due to immigration violations.[42] Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly Hispanic. It is possible that, over time, Hispanic immigrants and their children may assimilate the higher crime rates that characterize the low-income Hispanic population in the U.S. as a whole.[43] If this were to occur, then policies that would give illegal immigrants permanent residence through amnesty, as well as policies which would permit a continuing influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, would increase crime in the long term. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration One important question is the fiscal impact of immigration (both legal and illegal). Policymakers must ensure that the interaction of welfare and immigration policy does not expand the welfare-dependent popula_?tion, which would hinder rather than help immi_?grants and impose large costs on American society. This means that immigrants should be net contributors to government: the taxes they pay should exceed the cost of the benefits they receive. In calculating the fiscal impact of an individual or family, it is necessary to distinguish between public goods and private goods. Public goods do not require additional spending to accommodate new residents.[44] The clearest examples of government public goods are national defense and medical and scientific research. The entry of millions of immigrants will not raise costs or diminish the value of these public goods to the general population. Other government services are private goods; use of these by one person precludes or limits use by another. Government private goods include direct personal benefits such as welfare, Social Security benefits, Medicare, and education. Other government private goods are “congestible” goods.[45] These are services that must be expanded in proportion to the population. Government congestible goods include police and fire protection, roads and sewers, parks, libraries, and courts. If these services do not expand as the population expands, there will be a decrease in the quality of service. An individual makes a positive fiscal contribution when his total taxes paid exceed the direct benefits and congestible goods received by himself and his family.[46] The Cost of Amnesty Federal and state governments currently spend over $500 billion per year on means-tested welfare benefits.[57] Illegal aliens are ineligible for most federal welfare benefits but can receive some assistance through programs such as Medicaid, In addition, native-born children of illegal immigrant parents are citizens and are eligible for all relevant federal welfare benefits. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens would have two opposing fiscal effects. On the one hand, it may raise wages and taxes paid by broadening the labor market individuals compete in; it would also increase tax compliance and tax receipts as more work would be performed “on the books,”[58] On the other hand, amnesty would greatly increase the receipt of welfare, government benefits, and social services. Because illegal immigrant households tend to be low-skill and low-wage, the cost to government could be considerable. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty.[59] This study found that illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and currently pay little in taxes. Illegal immigrant households also receive lower levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that, on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes.[60] Granting amnesty would render illegal immigrants eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payment among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic backgrounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around $5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per year.[61] Granting Amnesty is Likely to Further Increase Illegal Immigration The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens. The primary purpose of the act was to decrease the number of illegal immigrants by limiting their inflow and by legalizing the status of illegal immigrants already here.[63] In fact, the act did nothing to stem the tide of illegal entry. The number of illegal aliens entering the country increased five fold from around 140,000 per year in the 1980s to 700,000 per year today. Illegal entries increased dramatically shortly after IRCA went into effect. It seems plausible that the prospect of future amnesty and citizenship served as a magnet to draw even more illegal immigrants into the country. After all, if the nation granted amnesty once why wouldn’t it do so again? The Hagel/Martinez legislation would repeat IRCA on a much larger scale. This time, nine to ten million illegal immigrants would be granted amnesty. As with IRCA, the bill promises to reduce future illegal entry but contains little policy that would actually accomplish this. The granting of amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants is likely to serve as a magnet pulling even greater numbers of aliens into the country in the future. If enacted, the legislation would spur further increases in the future flow of low-skill migrants. This in turn would increase poverty in America, enlarge the welfare state, and increase social and political tensions. Is your elected special interests pimp getting rich off elected office? CALIFORNIA’S SURE ARE!