THE ONLY THING THAT MEXICO DOES FOR THEIR POOR, ILLITERATE, CRIMINAL AND PREGNANT IS TEACH THEM LA RAZA SUPREMACY, HOW TO WAVE MEXICAN FLAGS ON AMERICAN SOIL, AND DEMAND PUSH UNO FOR SPANISH!
*
“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR … and yet, Obama has sabotaged e-verify, opened our borders, promoted CATCH & RELEASE of Mexican criminals, hispandered endlessly, filled his administration with LA RAZA PARTY MEMBERS, like Hilda Solis, sued the American people of Arizona on behalf of LA RAZA, and opened our borders to Mexican truck drivers!
*
http://justcommonsense-lostinamerica.blogspot.com/2011/01/give-me-your-tired-your-pooryour-crack.html
*
Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor..Your Crack Merchant? MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS ARE NOW IN 2,500 AMERICAN CITIES. ASK THEM ABOUT OBAMA’S “HOMELAND SECURITY”!
Etched in the base of the Statue of Liberty are the magnificent words of Emma Lazarus; Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, your teaming masses yearning to be free......
With respect to American immigration are these words no longer relevant? Has the current invasion of illegal immigration relegated Emma's words to that of empty slogan? Is the idea that America wants and needs a replenishing supply of immigrants to refresh the American ideal of freedom no longer valid.? Don't we need the immigrant to remind us how very special America is, so that we may not take her for granted?
I believe we do need the immigrant..but he must be of the same heart and soul of those who came before; he must truly believe that America is the land of opportunity and only asks that he be given a chance to work hard and succeed. Sadly, in the wake of massive illegal immigration, we must now ask how to best achieve that vital influx of new Americans.
Far too many of our neighbors to the south see America as a haven for receiving social welfare, free medical care, free public education and a means to pursue tax-free working salaries. That is true for the "best" of the illegal immigrant. The "worst" are those who head north with bales of pot, truck beds teeming with meth and cocaine and heroin and integrate with big city latino gangs to market their destructive wares.
Contrast that Mexican immigrant profile with those immigrants of fifty years ago. I grew up in the rich agricultural region of the San Joaquin Valley of California. I worked along side Mexican families in the grape and peach fields. The Mexican visitors from that time worked hard for what they earned. At the end of the summer they were content to return to their homes in Mexico and live on their earnings over the winter.
Then President Johnson began a series of legislation called "The Great Society". This legislation created generous welfare programs which the CBO approximates reflect several trillion dollars in government giveaways. Free public housing, free medical care, free food stamps, nutritional aid programs for infants, preferential quota for employment hiring and education grants, all on the public dime. Many of these programs are worthwhile and served a valuable purpose. But the unintended consequences of these programs was to create a "victim" mentality for at least three generations of us. Imagine, three generations of folks who believe it is not necessary to work, or be productive, to draw a check.
Unfortunately, many of these programs were not well administered and these costly benefits were dispensed to millions who were not eligible to receive them. Enter the illegal immigrant, lured by a national plethora of government freebies under programs poorly monitored.
Even by conservative estimates at least 50,000,000 illegals have entered the U.S. over the last three decades. Millions have created false or stolen ID and signed up for the free goodies! Aided by a misguided Supreme Court that mandated no state may deny free education to illegal children, hundreds of billions of federal and state money is expended each year to build thousands of new schools to house the millions of illegal children. Illegal parents, occupied with gaming the emergency rooms, food banks and welfare offices, show little interest in learning English or even seeing that their children do. The benefits got even more "choice" when the U.S. Supreme court ruled that no illegal can be turned away from a hospital emergency room so the ER has now become the "routine care" clinic for illegal families. Facing bankruptcy, many hospitals have closed their emergency rooms completely as a consequence.
Now, the Democrats and some 20,000,000 new illegals currently residing here are demanding "immigration reform" which is the tired old term for "amnesty". How many of you remember how the last "amnesty" went? We legalized millions of illegals and the federal government vowed "no mas", no more and would seal the border. The problem is now compounded by a bastardized interpretation of the 14th amendment which was meant to provide full citizenship to former slaves but is now used as justification for the legalization of any child born in the U.S., whether the parents are legal or not. How's that been working out? And how can we hope to get a handle on spiraling social spending costs when illegals can carry a copy of a U.S. birth certificate to any social welfare agency and apply and receive all applicable welfare programs based on that bogus birth certificate?
Perhaps, the worst consequence of the illegal invasion has been the failure of the illegal immigrant to assimilate to our core national beliefs, to develop a deep love of country, or even to learn our language. Again aided by the liberal courts, the U.S. mandated that ballots and official government documents be printed in the illegal's native language.
The key difference between the "Emma Lazarus" immigrant on Lady Liberty and the "immigrant" of today is that they choose to invade rather than ask permission to enter. The character of this affront is that they hold neither respect, admiration or love for a nation with a proud heritage of lifting up the downtrodden and protecting those who can't protect themselves. They vilify the notion that hard work and fair and open opportunities are to be honored.
*
EXPORTING POVERTY... we take MEXICO'S 38 million poor, illiterate, criminal and frequently pregnant
........ where can we send AMERICA'S poor?
The Mexican Invasion................................................
Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them
March 30, 2006 edition
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. What are some examples of this failure of responsibility? • When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes - a figure roughly equivalent to that of Haiti and far below the level of major Latin American nations. Not only is Mexico's collection rate ridiculously low, its fiscal regime is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to widespread evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to reform the system. 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. • A venal, "come-back-tomorrow" bureaucracy explains the 58 days it takes to open a business in Mexico compared with three days in Canada, five days in the US, nine days in Jamaica, and 27 days in Chile. Mexico's private sector estimates that 34 percent of the firms in the country made "extra official" payments to functionaries and legislators in 2004. These bribes totaled $11.2 billion and equaled 12 percent of GDP. • Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. • Economic competition is constrained by the presence of inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a small number of private corporations - closely linked to government big shots - that control telecommunications, television, food processing, transportation, construction, and cement. Politicians who talk about, much less propose, trust-busting measures are as rare as a snowfall in the Sonoran Desert. 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.
*
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
By John Dillin
WASHINGTON – George W. Bush isn't the first Republican president to face a full-blown immigration crisis on the US-Mexican border.
Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.
President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.
Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike's official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.
General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said "Amen" to Senator Fulbright's proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."
Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower's first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.
America "was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale," Mr. Brownell said. "When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint."
Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.
According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were "approximately half" the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.
Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers.
Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: "When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now."
Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals.
During the 1950s, however, this "Good Old Boy" system changed under Eisenhower - if only for about 10 years.
In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.
Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.
One of Swing's first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.
Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.
By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.
Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.
The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.
Mr. Coppock says he "cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today's] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox."
There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.
*
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Immigration bill sticker shock $127 BILLION (dated)
A government study puts the cost of the Senate's version of reform at $127 billion over 10 years.
By Gail Russell Chaddock - Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON
The price tag for comprehensive immigration reform was not a key issue when the Senate passed its bill last May. But it is now.
One reason: It took the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) - the gold standard for determining what a bill will cost - until last week to estimate that federal spending for this vast and complex bill would hit $127 billion over the next 10 years.
At the same time, federal revenues would drop by about $79 billion, according to the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation. If lawmakers fix a tax glitch, that loss would be cut in half, they add.
In field hearings across the nation this month, House GOP leaders are zeroing in on the costs of the Senate bill. It's a bid to define the issue heading into fall elections and muster support for the House bill, which focuses on border security. They say that the more people know about the Senate version, including a path to citizenship for some 11 million people now in the country illegally, the less they will be inclined to support it.
“WE ARE NOW JUST BEGINNING TO SEE A GLIMPSE OF THE STAGGERING BURDEN ON AMERICAN TAXPAYERS” OF THE MEXICAN INVASION.......
"We are now just beginning to see a glimpse of the staggering burden on American taxpayers the Reid-Kennedy immigration legislation contains," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who convened a field hearing at the State House in Concord, N.H., Thursday on the costs of the Senate bill.
But business groups and others backing the Senate bill say that the cost to the US economy of not resolving the status of illegal immigrants and expanding guest-worker programs is higher still. "In my opinion, the fairer question is: How will illegal immigrants impact the costs of healthcare, local education, and social services without passage of comprehensive immigration reform?" said John Young, co-chairman of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, at Thursday's hearing.
"Had we solved this problem in a truly comprehensive way in 1986 ... we would not have the daily news reporting outright shortages of farm labor threatening the very existence of agricultural industries coast to coast," he adds.
*
“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
WHY THE NEW JOBS GO TO IMMIGRANTS
By David R. Francis
Wall Street cheered and stock prices rose when the US Labor Department announced last Friday that employers had expanded their payrolls by 262,000 positions in February.
But it wasn't entirely good news. The statisticians also indicated that the share of the adult population holding jobs had slipped slightly from January to 62.3 percent. That's now two full percentage points below the level in the brief recession that began in March 2001.
Why the apparent contradiction? Reasons abound: population growth, rising retirements. But one factor that gets little attention is immigration. In the past four years, the number of immigrants into the US, legal and illegal, has closely matched the number of new jobs. That suggests newcomers have, in effect, snapped up all of the new jobs. "There has been no net job gain for natives," says Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University.
Experts are poring over the new CBO data - and coming up with radically different assessments of the social costs of reform, ranging from tens of billions of dollars higher to a net wash.
On the issue of border security - a feature in both bills - there is little disagreement. The CBO estimates that the cost of hardening US borders in the Senate bill is $78.3 billion over 10 years, or about 62 percent of the bill's total cost.
The fireworks involve new entitlement spending in the Senate version. The CBO sets the price tag for services for some 16 million new citizens and guest workers at $48.4 billion through fiscal year 2016. That includes $24.5 billion for earned income and child tax credits, $11.7 billion for Medicaid, $5.2 billion for Social Security, $3.7 billion for Medicare, and $2.4 billion for food stamps.
But it's easier to estimate the cost of a mile of fence than to assess the prospects for millions of workers, once they can work legally and claim benefits.
“THE AMNESTY ALONE WILL BE THE LARGEST EXPANSION OF THE WELFARE SYSTEM IN THE LAST 25 YEARS” Heritage Foundation
"The amnesty alone will be the largest expansion of the welfare system in the last 25 years," says Robert Rector, a senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation, and a witness at a House Judiciary Committee field hearing in San Diego Aug. 2. "Welfare costs will begin to hit their peak around 2021, because there are delays in citizenship. The very narrow time horizon [the CBO is] using is misleading," he adds. "If even a small fraction of those who come into the country stay and get on Medicaid, you're looking at costs of $20 billion or $30 billion per year."
No comments:
Post a Comment