PLEASE CONNECT WITH JUDICIAL WATCH.org AND GET ON THEIR
E-NEWS… AND SUPPORT THEIR EFFORTS
JUDICIAL WATCH CONTINUES TO PUSH BACK LA RAZA SUPREMACY!
But not in MEXIFORNIA. CA PUTS OUT $20 BILLION IN SOCIAL
SERVICES TO ILLEGALS, HAS THE WORST EDUCATION IN THE UNION, AND YET LA RAZA
DEM, JERRY BROWN REPAID HIS ILLEGAL VOTERS BY VOTING FOR LA RAZA TUITION
DISCOUNTS.
*
*
From the
Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
Judicial
Watch Forces New Jersey School to Abandon Discounted Tuition for Illegal Aliens
In a dramatic and clear-cut victory for
the rule of law, Judicial Watch forced the County College of Morris (CCM) in
New Jersey to reverse an unlawful policy which allowed illegal aliens
discounted tuition at the school! As expected, the decision came down last
Thursday. The headline of a New Jersey Daily Record article the
following day tells the whole story: “Lawsuit Worries Prompted Reversal on
College Tuition for Illegal Immigrants.”
One County College of Morris trustee
mentioned the prospect of being sued and paying hundreds of thousands of
dollars in legal bills. Others said legal considerations played a part in their
deliberations over tuition rates for illegal immigrants.
In the weeks leading up to their
vote…CCM's trustees had received letters from freeholders and a national
conservative group called Judicial Watch saying they were violating federal
laws. Concerns about those laws, and the possibility of lawsuits, seemed to
spur a 9-2 vote to charge higher, out-of-state rates to undocumented students
even if they live in the county.
Indeed, as I mentioned a couple of
weeks ago, Judicial Watch sent a letter to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for CCM
challenging the school’s policy of providing discounted tuition for
“undocumented” aliens. CCM immediately informed Judicial Watch that it had
commenced a review of its tuition policy. And one week later, the school’s
trustees voted to overturn a policy they had established just two months prior.
The chair of the Board of Trustees
suggested Judicial Watch had “bullied” the poor Board into reversing itself. My
colleague, attorney Paul Orfanedes, answered this charge directly in the media:
‘If you think encouraging people to
follow the law is bullying, then we are bullying,’ he said after being told
Johnson had used the term ‘bullying’ to describe some of the reaction to CCM's
February policy change.
As you can see, sometimes even the
threat of a lawsuit can work wonders! This is a tremendous victory for Judicial
Watch and its supporters. And we are thrilled CCM’s Board of Trustees made the
right decision to bring its tuition policy in line with federal law, even if
some trustees may have been reluctant (to say the least).
You may recall Judicial Watch was tipped off
to CCM’s illegal policy by the February 18, 2011, edition of The New Jersey
Star-Ledger:
For the first time in nearly a decade,
illegal immigrants will be allowed to take classes at the County College of
Morris in a policy change that is drawing praise from some education officials
and sharp criticism from immigration policy activists.
The trustees at the Randolph-based
college voted 7-1 earlier this week to reverse a rule barring undocumented
students, school officials said. Starting this summer, the public two-year
college will be one of the first schools in New Jersey to openly acknowledge it
is enrolling illegal immigrants and allowing them to pay the same tuition rate
as other county residents.
(Prior to the policy change CCM had
barred illegal aliens from admission to the school, so this was quite a
switch.)
The article piqued the interest of JW’s
lawyers and investigators, who obtained a copy of the CCM admissions policy.
And sure enough, it clearly stated that any illegal alien who graduated from an
American high school (or possesses a GED equivalent), was under the age of 35,
and had lived in the U.S. for five consecutive years, would be eligible for
admission. And the policy further stipulated that illegal alien students could
pay a discounted in-county tuition rate!
As Judicial Watch noted in its letter,
illegal aliens are ineligible for state and local public benefits, such as
discounted tuition, under federal law:
There is no way to reconcile CCM’s
policy with federal law. The policy provides a public benefit to individuals
who are clearly ineligible for benefits [under federal law], and New Jersey has
not authorized the provision of such benefits…CCM may not ignore federal laws
when those laws are not consistent with its own policy preferences. We hope
that CCM will reevaluate its new policy and conform it to the requirements of
federal law.
And that’s exactly what happened.
This is not our first attempt to stop
institutions of higher education from giving preferential treatment to illegal
aliens.
We filed a taxpayer lawsuit in January
against the Board of Trustees of Maryland’s Montgomery College for unlawfully
allowing discounted “in-county” tuition rates for students graduating from
Montgomery County public high schools, regardless of their place of residency
or immigration status. (Click here for more
information.) In response to our lawsuit, the Maryland Legislature bailed the
school out by passing legislation authorizing the illegal alien tuition policy.
The good news, however, is that this decision may now be subjected to a voter referendum.
As you can see, Judicial Watch has
taken on a leadership role in the debate over taxpayer-financed in-state
tuition for illegal aliens. And we will not slow down. We are currently
considering action and legal challenges in other states. So stay
*
WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT THAT STANDS UP FOR LA RAZA TO
HISPANDER FOR THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES. WHO STANDS UP FOR THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS
THAT STRUGGLES TO EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN, EVEN AS THIRD-WORLDERS AND ILLEGALS ARE BEING IMPORTED TO TAKE ALL THE
JOBS?
*
“At the hearing, Dr. Rakesh Kochar, Associate Director for
Research at the Pew Hispanic Center, testified that in the year following the
official end of the recession (June 2009), foreign-born workers gained 656,000
jobs while native-born workers lost an additional 1.2 million jobs.”
*
“Cowardly” To Reverse Illegal Immigrant Tuition Break
Last Updated: Mon, 04/25/2011 - 3:10pm
New
Jersey’s largest newspaper is accusing officials at a public college in
Randolph of being “cowardly” and “gutless” for reversing a controversial policy offering illegal
immigrants discounted tuition after Judicial Watch challenged it.
Amid strong opposition, trustees
at the County College of Morris, a two-year school with an enrollment of about
9,000, voted earlier this year to give illegal aliens cheaper in-state tuition
even though New Jersey’s legislature had rejected a measure that would have
granted undocumented students the perk at all public institutions of higher
learning.
The County College of Morris
passed its own policy to help an “increasing number of
students” who could not be educated at
the school, according to its president. The move could not have come at a worst
time, in the midst of a dire financial crisis that has negatively impacted
public education at every level in the Garden State.
Judicial Watch quickly challenged
the measure, pointing out to college trustees in a letter that illegal immigrants are ineligible for state and
local public benefits such as discounted tuition under federal law. Under
intense pressure, the County College of Morris responded by saying that it
would “reevaluate” its new illegal alien tuition policy by this month. Last
week trustees reversed the contentious measure, angering immigration advocates
and New Jersey’s biggest newspaper.
In a scathing editorial published
this week, the Star-Ledger calls the reversal a victory for the “pitch-fork and torch
brigade” that will shape immigration
policy if Congress doesn’t pass amnesty legislation. The piece accuses those
who oppose illegal immigration of making life as “difficult and miserable as
possible” for “each and every” illegal immigrant in the United States “no
matter the cost to immigrant families or the communities where they live and
work.”
It further points out that, by
charging illegal aliens the much higher out-of-state tuition, colleges “close
the door on many undocumented teenagers who aspire to better things.” After
all, they were brought to this country without any say in the matter, the
editorial says. “But it seems there’s not enough punishment to go around for
families and their children already forced to live in the shadows.”
Judicial Watch has been a
frontrunner in efforts to stop the use of public funds to promote illegal
immigration. Earlier this year Judicial Watch filed a taxpayer lawsuit against Maryland’s Montgomery College for unlawfully
offering discounted tuition rates to illegal aliens who graduate from local
high schools. The policy violates both Maryland and federal law and places a
substantial financial burden on Montgomery County taxpayers, who subsidize the
cost of students attending the community college.
*
Lawsuit worries prompted reversal on college tuition
for illegal immigrants
Trustees'
chairwoman says board had been bullied
4:49
PM, Apr. 21, 2011 |
One County College of Morris trustee mentioned
the prospect of being sued and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal
bills. Others said legal considerations played a part in their deliberations
over tuition rates for illegal immigrants.
In the weeks leading up to their vote on
Wednesday night, CCM's trustees had received letters from freeholders and a
national conservative group called Judicial Watch saying they were violating
federal laws. Concerns about those laws, and the possibility of lawsuits,
seemed to spur a 9-2 vote to charge higher, out-of-state rates to undocumented
students even if they live in the county.
The vote came at the end of a meeting in front
of more than 200 people that lasted almost four hours and included emotional
testimony from dozens of people on both sides of the issue.
After the vote, some undocumented students who
said they could not afford out of state tuition rates had tears in their eyes.
The vote reversed part of a policy that the same board approved, 7-1, just two
months ago.
"I'm not in favor of defending in court a
vote of ours that might cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of
dollars in legal fees," trustee Alan Gordon said during the meeting.
Elaine Johnson, chairwoman of the trustees,
voted with the minority and said she believed the trustees had been bullied,
although she did not specify who was doing the bullying. She said the February
vote to charge in-county tuition to undocumented students, many of whom have
lived in the U.S. most of their lives, seemed simple at the time.
"Then the bigotry, hatred, threats and
lies came," she said. "I realize bullying is so wrong. . . . There is
no law that currently exists that makes the act we took (in February)
illegal."
The CCM trustees voted on Feb. 26 to allow
some undocumented students into the school — as long as they lived in the U.S.
at least five years and were here before they were 16. They had been barred
following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The trustees also voted to charge
in-county tuition to students who live in Morris County.
That gave CCM a written policy similar to what
many other county colleges are doing across the state without writing it down.
A recent New Jersey Press Media survey found most county colleges, without
adopting policies, check only whether students reside in their counties and not
whether they are documented.
Morris County freeholders, saying they didn't
want to support tuition breaks for illegal immigrants with taxpayer money,
asked the CCM trustees to reconsider the lower tuition rates.
"I was pleased with the (Wednesday night)
vote, and I also was pleased with the process," said Margaret Nordstom, a
freeholder liaison to CCM.
Edward Yaw, president of CCM, said college
attorneys in recent weeks had taken a closer look at relevant laws and court
cases related to them, and that "the legal aspect" had been a driving
factor for many of the trustees' apparent change of heart. Yaw had been in
favor of the February policy but didn't take a position on Wednesday's
amendment, other than to say it allows undocumented students to get an
education. He did say laws related to tuition breaks for undocumented students
are ambiguous.
"I still believe there's no law that
prohibits the actions (that the board) previously took," Yaw said.
"We felt all along the potential was there to be sued by one side or the
other."
About one week before the vote, Judicial Watch
sent a letter to Johnson saying CCM's policy adopted in February violated a
1996 federal law barring illegal immigrants from receiving "local public
benefits" unless they are provided by state law. Judicial Watch has sued a
Maryland school over in-county rates for undocumented students.
Paul Orfanedes, director of litigation for
Judicial Watch, said his group is considering whether to continue the lawsuit
now that Maryland has passed a law that, once signed, would make it the 11th
state to offer in-state tuition to undocumented students. He said the letter to
CCM was meant to clarify the law.
"If you think encouraging people to
follow the law is bullying, then we are bullying," he said after being
told Johnson had used the term "bullying" to describe some of the
reaction to CCM's February policy change.
Alina Das, a professor with the New York
University Law School Immigrant Rights Clinic, said the federal law does not
"specifically prohibit" lower tuition rates. The NYU clinic has been
giving legal direction to Wind of the Spirit, a local immigrant rights group.
Yaw said CCM might revisit the issue if
additional court cases clarify related federal laws.
A related federal statute prohibits providing
postsecondary benefits to illegal immigrants based on state residency if the
same benefit isn’t available to legal residents. County freeholders have argued
that means CCM would have been required to charge in-county rates to students
from other states.
However, the California State Supreme Court
recently ruled that the federal law didn’t preempt a state law allowing
in-state tuition for undocumented students who graduate from California high
schools. Judges said in their ruling that the state law is based on where students
go to school and not on “residence,” as specified in the federal law. The case
is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
CCM’s admissions policy allows admitting
undocumented students only if they have graduated from New Jersey high schools.
Yaw said a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the California case might offer some
guidance and be “a trigger” for additional discussions about offering in-county
rates for some illegal immigrants who live in the county.
http://www.JUDICIALWATCH.org
*
INVESTORS.com
Dream Act Makes Children Pawns
Posted 12/07/2010 06:59 PM ET
Immigration: Congress is expected to vote on the Dream Act on Wednesday,
providing a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrant youth. It's a
bad precedent that uses kids, costs taxpayers and invites new amnesties.
After years of failing to sell mass amnesty to voters, the open-borders lobby
has turned to tugging at Americans' heartstrings, presenting treacly stories of
illegal immigrants brought here as children who then bettered themselves here.
Somehow legalizing this group ahead of all the other people awaiting
immigration visas legally is supposed to specially benefit all of us, even
though the most obvious beneficiaries are the individuals themselves. But out
of guilt, or because we "owe" them "justice," the case is
being made for passing the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors
Act.
That act provides a path to citizenship for some 2.1 million illegals who have
lived here continuously for five years, avoided felony convictions, came to the
U.S. before they turned 16 and completed two years of college or U.S. military
service within six years.
Now, in the lame-duck session of Congress, the open-borders lobby has lawmakers
right where it wants them. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has filed Senate
cloture to bring the Dream Act to a vote as soon as Wednesday, and the House
may vote even sooner.
It's a scam, using children unethically to achieve an open-borders political
agenda that opens the door to perverse incentives.
The Dream Act is an effort to mimic the benefits illegals derive from having
anchor babies in the U.S., a tactic used by millions as an "insurance
policy" to avoid deportation and achieve legal status.
The awfulness of that incentive can be seen in the case of Edgar Jimenez Lugo,
the 14-year-old U.S. "citizen" who was arrested in Mexico after a
rather spectacular career beheading rivals and innocent people for $2,500 each
on behalf of a Mexican cartel enforcer.
Cronica, a Mexican newspaper, reported that the throwaway kid was born in San
Diego and then spent his life with Mexican parents who took him back to
Morelos, Mexico, and "wandered around." Apparently the child's birth
in San Diego was the same gambit millions of other immigrants use to game the
system for U.S. entry. And he's only facing three years in jail in Mexico, so
he'll soon become our problem — not Mexico's.
The Dream Act makes every baby an anchor baby, commodifying
children, as young Jimenez seems to have been. It extends the incentive for
parents to use their kids to beat immigration laws.
Under the Dream Act it may take 10 years for an illegal to achieve full U.S.
citizenship, but there's little doubt he will. And as soon as he does achieve
citizenship, he will sponsor the parents who brought him into the country
illegally — thus achieving the original intention of the law-breaking parents.
This bill is really an amnesty bill. The 1986 amnesty signed by President
Reagan provided amnesty to 2.7 million illegals. Now, 24 years on, we have 12
million illegals to amnesty.
Columnist Michelle Malkin points to six successive amnesties since the 1986
act. Each has raised anticipation of new ones for illegals. For them, no need
to hurry for the amnesty train — the next one will be along in just a moment.
Worse, the Dream Act will cost a lot. By some estimates it's a $6.2 billion
bill for taxpayers, but it may be even more. Judges over the years have already
ruled that children of illegals are entitled to "free" U.S. public
education through the 12th grade, plus "free" medical care,
bankrupting hospital emergency rooms.
The Dream Act will give them even more.
With a treasured U.S. green card as motivation, all they have to do is clog up
community college enrollments with no minimum performance standards, crowding
out legitimate students who are interested in learning, or else sign up for
diploma-mill trade schools with government loans they aren't under any
obligation to repay.
For every Harvard valedictorian the illegal immigration lobby presents as a poster
boy, there will be thousands of gang members who will qualify because the cops
haven't caught them yet.
Worst of all is the entitlement mentality this bill creates.
Suddenly the U.S. taxpayer "owes" all this, as the brazen illegal
students parading around in graduation robes for cameras without fear of
apprehension make clear. This entitlement mentality is no success ethic. And it
won't stop at the Dream Act.
It just underscores the disgusting ethic of special interests playing grievance
and identity politics by using children as pawns.
The only good answer to this is no.
*
Here’s one teacher’s report on the illegals in our schools.
TEACHER’S POSTING ON CRAIGSLIST:
Subject: Cheap Labor This should
make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent From a California school teacher.
"As you listen to the news
about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that
you should be aware of: I am in charge
of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California
high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students
average lower socioeconomic and income levels.
Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens,
Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1
schools. Title 1 schools are on the free
breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a
glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and
juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental,
with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. (OUR TAX DOLLARS
AT WORK) I estimate that well over 50%
of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or
more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the
unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class
without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family
watch their kids. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)
I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding
for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget
was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning
center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the
appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free
education in America. (OUR TAX DOLLARS A T WORK) I have had to intervene several times for
young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant
students here in the country less then 3 months who raised so much hell with
the female teachers, calling them "Putas" whores and throwing things
that the teachers were in tears. Free
medical, free education, free food, day care etc., etc., etc. Is it any wonder
they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights,
privileges and entitlements? To those who want to point out how much these
illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener
and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the
real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.
Morning Bell: You Have To Pass This Amnesty To Find Out What
Is In It
Neither of these
bills has gone through their respective committees, and only one has been
scored by the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, they are chock full of
loopholes designed by open border advocates to make an even wider amnesty
possible.
One bill would even
grant Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano the power to waive the
college and military requirements if the illegal immigrant can
demonstrate “compelling circumstances” and the immigrant’s removal would cause
a hardship to the them, their spouse, their parents, or their
children. When exactly would removal from this country not cause a hardship?
What other loopholes are in these bills? As Speaker Pelosi might say: “You have
to pass this amnesty so that you can find out what is in it.”
The DREAM Acts are
also an invitation for fraud. All of the bills would make it illegal for any
information in an amnesty application to be used to initiate removal
proceedings against an applicant. Law enforcement agencies would be forced to
prove that any information they used to find, detain, and try to remove an
illegal immigrant was already in their files before an application was
received or was not derived from the application. If an illegal immigrant lies
about his age to qualify for the program, and the lie is never detected, he
gets amnesty. And if the lie is found out, no worries—law enforcement is
forbidden from using that lie against him.
The real goal of the
DREAM Act is to make it even harder for our nation’s law enforcement agencies
to enforce any immigration laws. And Congress is not the only forum where
amnesty advocates are working to undermine the rule of law today. Right across
the street from the Capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over an Arizona immigration
enforcement law. This is not a hearing on the controversial SB 1070 law that
passed earlier this year. This case, supported by the usual amnesty suspects
(La Raza, the SEIU, the Chamber of Commerce, etc.), challenges Arizona’s 2007 E-Verify law, which penalizes employers who do
not verify the legal status of their employees. This challenge by amnesty
advocates to even common-sense immigration enforcement measures should send a
clear measure to anyone wavering on the DREAM Act: Any enforcement mechanisms
that DREAM Act supporters agree to today will be immediately challenged in
court tomorrow. Enforcement is fickle; amnesty is forever.
*
Is Illegal
Immigration Moral?
By
Victor Davis Hanson
11/25/2010
We
know illegal immigration is no longer really unlawful, but is it moral?
Usually
Americans debate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. Supporters of open
borders rightly remind us that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes. Often their
payroll-tax contributions are not later tapped by Social Security payouts.
Opponents
counter that illegal immigrants are more likely to end up on state assistance,
are less likely to report cash income, and cost the state more through the
duplicate issuing of services and documents in both English and Spanish. Such
to-and-fro talking points are endless.
So is the debate over beneficiaries
of illegal immigration. Are profit-minded employers villains who want cheap
labor in lieu of hiring more expensive Americans? Or is the culprit a cynical
Mexican government that counts on billions of dollars in remittances from its
expatriate poor that it otherwise ignored?
Or
is the engine that drives illegal immigration the American middle class? Why
should millions of suburbanites assume that, like 18th-century French
aristocrats, they should have imported labor to clean their homes, manicure
their lawns and watch over their kids?
Or
is the catalyst the self-interested professional Latino lobby in politics and
academia that sees a steady stream of impoverished Latin American nationals as
a permanent victimized constituency, empowering and showcasing elite
self-appointed spokesmen such as themselves?
Or
is the real advocate the Democratic Party that wishes to remake the electoral
map of the American Southwest by ensuring larger future pools of natural
supporters? Again, the debate over who benefits and why is never-ending.
But
what is often left out of the equation is the moral dimension of illegal
immigration. We see the issue too often reduced to caricature, involving a
noble, impoverished victim without much free will and subject to cosmic forces
of sinister oppression. But everyone makes free choices that affect others. So
ponder the ethics of a guest arriving in a host country knowingly against its
sovereign protocols and laws.
First,
there is the larger effect on the sanctity of a legal system. If a guest
ignores the law -- and thereby often must keep breaking more laws -- should
citizens also have the right to similarly pick and choose which statutes they
find worthy of honoring and which are too bothersome? Once it is deemed moral
for the impoverished to cross a border without a passport, could not the same
arguments of social justice be used for the poor of any status not to report
earned income or even file a 1040 form?
Second,
what is the effect of mass illegal immigration on impoverished U.S. citizens?
Does anyone care? When 10 million to 15 million aliens are here illegally,
where is the leverage for the American working poor to bargain with employers?
If it is deemed ethical to grant in-state tuition discounts to
illegal-immigrant students, is it equally ethical to charge three times as much
for out-of-state, financially needy American students -- whose federal
government usually offers billions to subsidize state colleges and
universities? If foreign nationals are afforded more entitlements, are there
fewer for U.S. citizens?
Third,
consider the moral ramifications on legal immigration -- the traditional great
strength of the American nation. What are we to tell the legal immigrant from
Oaxaca who got a green card at some cost and trouble, or who, once legally in
the United States, went through the lengthy and expensive process of acquiring
citizenship? Was he a dupe to dutifully follow our laws?
And
given the current precedent, if a million soon-to-be-impoverished Greeks, 2
million fleeing North Koreans, or 5 million starving Somalis were to enter the
United States illegally and en masse, could anyone object to their unlawful
entry and residence? If so, on what legal, practical or moral grounds?
Fourth,
examine the morality of remittances. It is deemed noble to send billions of
dollars back to families and friends struggling in Latin America. But how is
such a considerable loss of income made up? Are American taxpayers supposed to
step in to subsidize increased social services so that illegal immigrants can
afford to send billions of dollars back across the border? What is the morality
of that equation in times of recession? Shouldn't illegal immigrants at least
try to buy health insurance before sending cash back to Mexico?
The
debate over illegal immigration is too often confined to costs and benefits.
But ultimately it is a complicated moral issue -- and one often ignored by all
too many moralists.
Victor
Davis Hanson
Victor
Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford
University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.
THE
SITUATION OF LA RAZA SUPREMACY IS MUCH WORSE THAN THIS AUTHOR COVERS IN HIS
ARTICLE ON DREAM ACTS.
THERE
ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) COUNTIES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
WHERE HALF OF ALL JOBS GO TO ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.
LEAD BY LA RAZA SUPREMACIST LIKE GIL CEDILLO, THE STATE PASSED A LAW QUICKLY
SIGNED BY LA RAZA DEM JERRY BROWN (ELECTED BY ILLEGALS) THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL
FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY.
LOS
ANGELES COUNTY PAYS OUT $600 MILLION TO ILLEGALS ON WELFARE (source: JUDICIAL
WATCH). NOT A SINGLE LEGAL VOTED TO BE MEXICO’S ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING CENTER, OR
WELFARE LOOTING STATE!
ONE-THIRD
OF THE DRIVERS IN MEXIFORNIA ARE ILLEGALS DRIVING ILLEGALLY WITHOUT LICENSES,
INSURANCE AND FREQUENTLY IN CARS REGISTERED IN NOMINEE’S NAMES TO AVOID BEING
IMPOUNDED WHEN CAUGHT. LA RAZA SUPREMACIST GIL CEDILLO AND THE LA RAZA FACTION
IN SACRAMENTO ARE PUSHING TO END THAT. HEY. THEY’RE ILLEGALS, INVITED HERE TO
KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED FOR THE PAYMASTERS OF THE LA RAZA DEMS, LIKE CONGRESSWOMAN
ZOE LOFGREN. NEARLY 95% OF THE CAMPAIGN BRIBES THIS ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS,
CHAIN MIGRATION, AMNESTY OR AT LEAST CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT, ARE FROM
EMPLOYERS THAT BENEFIT FROM SOME OF THIS STAGGERINGLY EXPENSIVE “CHEAP” MEX
LABOR.
WHO
BENEFITS?
LA
RAZA DEM, AND ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS AND NO E-VERIFY SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN
HAS LONG HIRED ILLEGALS AT HER S.F. HOTEL, JUST MILES FROM HER $16 MILLION
DOLLAR WAR PROFITEER’S MANSION!
LA
RAZA DEM, AND ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS
AND NO E-VERIFY CONGRESSWOMAN NANCY PELOSI HIRES ILLEGALS AT HER RESTAURANTS AND HER ST. HELENA, NAPA WINERY.
BARBARA
BOXER, ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN CA HISTORY, WAS REELECTED BY
ILLEGALS BASED ON HER PLATFORM OF CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT AND NO E-VERIFY!
NOT
ONCE, BUT THREE TIMES….!!! ON BEHALF OF THEIR BIG AG BIZ DONORS, BOXER AND
FEINSTEIN HAVE PUSHED FOR A “SPECIAL AMNESTY” FOR 1.5 MILLION ILLEGAL FARM
WORKERS…… DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONE-THIRD OF THESE FARM WORKERS COME TO GROW
ANCHOR BABIES AND COLLECT WELFARE!
*
SOMETHING ELSE THE OCCUPIED
LEGALS SHOULD KNOW: ACCORDING TO CA ATTORNEY GEN. KAMALA HARRIS (AN OPEN
BORDERS LA RAZA DEM), NEARLY HALF OF ALL MURDERS IN MEXIFORNIA ARE BY MEXICAN
GANGS!!!
*
THE
STATE OF CA OPERATES DEFICITS OF $28 MILLION AND STILL PAYS OUT $20 BILLION IN
SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS!
NOT
ONE LEGAL VOTED FOR ANY OF THIS!
BUT
THEN THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA IS DOES NOT INCLUDE LEGALS!
Lloyd
Billingsley
The DREAM and the Nightmare
In
California, students are better off being illegal immigrants than legal.
30 March 2012
Last
year, Governor Jerry Brown signed the California DREAM Act, which makes
students in the country illegally eligible for grants and waivers to attend one
of the state’s public colleges or universities. The students must have attended
school in the state for three years, “affirm that they are in the process of
applying to legalize their immigration status,” and show both financial need
and academic achievement. Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, the Los Angeles Democrat who
authored the DREAM Act, hails the legislation as a victory for those “in the
country through no fault of their own.” Opponents such as Republican
assemblyman Tim Donnelly—a first-term legislator not given to
understatement—called Cedillo’s legislation the “California Nightmare Act,” said it is “morally wrong,” and would create “a new entitlement that is going to cause tens of thousands of people
to come here illegally from all over the world.”
Poster
children for the DREAM Act abound. Mandeep Chahal, for example, was six years
old when her parents brought her to the United States from India. Chahal wants
to be a doctor; her fellow students at Los Altos High School near Palo Alto
voted her the person “Most Likely to Save the World.” That’s a tall order, but
to deny such a person the opportunity seems unreasonable. “Many parents of
these children pay taxes for many services they cannot get,” argues Cedillo.
Cedillo’s
point implies that illegal immigrants are the only ones subject to this
dynamic. But consider: my taxes subsidize the Medi-Cal system, which provides
medical care for low-income state residents, but I couldn’t “get” health care
that way, even in the year my income was so low that my daughter qualified for
a Pell Grant. Likewise, the taxes of, say, a California welder help pay for
top-drawer pensions and benefits for state
government employees, but he can’t enjoy those benefits himself. Neither is he
entitled to get a government job merely because his taxes help pay the salaries
and benefits of workers at the Department of Motor Vehicles, CalTrans, the
California Air Resources Board, the Franchise Tax Board, California’s
Department of Education, the State Board of Equalization, the Coastal
Commission, and on and on.
The
taxes of a fast-food worker help subsidize the University of California at
Berkeley, but nothing guarantees that taxpayer admission to Berkeley. The
state’s Master Plan for Higher Education does
guarantee everyone a place in the system, whether at a community college, a
state university, or within the UC system. But no one is promised a place at
the top, and the system grants no special favors to legal immigrants. When I
came to the United States, legally, in 1977, I had been studying at the
University of Windsor, a four-year school in my hometown of Windsor, Ontario. I
wanted to continue my studies at San Diego State University but was not allowed
to transfer because I hadn’t attended high school in California. SDSU
administrators suggested I try the state’s community college system, which
seemed a step down from what I had in mind. But eventually, I put two children
through San Diego State. They’re now working in productive careers, a tax
burden to no one. No legislation rewards parents for that achievement or for
coming to the United States with proper documents.
Cedillo’s law, by contrast,
rewards those who came to California illegally. Will the law, therefore,
encourage more people to enter the state illegally, as Donnelly and other
critics assert?
(IN FACT THERE ARE MORE THAN
11 MILLION ILLEGALS IN SOUTHERN CA ALONE! NOW NEARLY 40% OF CA ARE ILLEGALS,
33% OF NEVADA AND 24% OF COLORADO. MOST
NON LA RAZA PROPAGANDA SOURCES BUT THE NUMBER OF ILLEGALS AT 40 MILLION
AND BREEDING LIKE BUNNIES!)
Recall
how Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986, which gave amnesty to several million undocumented
immigrants. A quarter of a century later, the number of illegal immigrants
stands at 11.5 million. It seems clear
that the 1986 act didn’t discourage foreign nationals from entering the United
States without signing the guest book. One of those who obtained
citizenship under the Act was Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa, who made his way
through UC Berkeley and Harvard Medical School and is now associate professor
of neurosurgery and oncology at the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in
Baltimore. Quinones-Hinojosa and others who have spoken out in support of the
DREAM Act often give the impression that their cases are typical of illegal
aliens. Not exactly. Amnesty measures, however well-intentioned, usually bring
unintended consequences.
THE REALITY OF LA RAZA’S LOOTING OF CA:
Consider Ignacio Mesa Viera,
subject of a recent front-page story in the Sacramento Bee.
He came to the United States illegally in 1979 to work and help his family, as
he explained, but was convicted on a drug offense in 1995. He was deported but
returned to the United States, whereupon he was busted for another drug offense
in 2008. Before his recent deportation, the U.S. government was paying for Viera’s
kidney dialysis, a treatment that can cost more than $60,000 a year. “I imagine
that the reason they don’t want to let me stay in this country,” Viera told the
Bee, “is they don’t want to be paying for this.”
Cedillo
and his colleagues need to know that everybody’s taxes pay for services they
and their children “cannot get”—including kidney dialysis and other expensive
medical treatments courtesy of the federal government. Meantime, as a University of California report noted last year, tens of
thousands of middle-class, taxpaying legal residents are being squeezed out of
an affordable college education even as the legislature contrives to provide
scholarships for the children of illegal aliens. The lawmakers’ solution is to create yet another
entitlement in the form of a new $1 billion scholarship program for students
whose families earn less than $150,000 a year. Such is life in the Golden
State, even with a DREAM Act in place.
*
*
OBAMA
HAS PROMISED HIS LA RAZA “THE RACE” PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS AMNESTY, NO
E-VERIFY, NO I.D. FOR REQUIRED OF ILLEGALS VOTING… OR AT LEAST CONTINUED
NON-ENFORCEMENT!
OBAMA
HANDS MASSIVE WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, ALONG WITH OUR JOBS TO BUY THE ILLEGALS'
ILLEGAL VOTES!
The
truth about the DREAM Act
Published
March 20, 2012
|
FoxNews.com
·Text Size
The
DREAM Act has become a rallying cry for President Obama, members of his
administration, and liberal Democrats everywhere. President Obama has vowed to
“keep fighting for the DREAM Act,” which would grant amnesty to millions of
illegal immigrants.
It’s
true when listeners or those polled don’t know the facts that the DREAM Act has
some appeal. After all, we are all naturally sympathetic when children are
involved.
But
the descriptions of the DREAM Act voiced by President Obama and his cohorts are
not accurate. And the consequences are never told.
DREAM
Act supporters claim that only children would benefit from such a bill, but the
facts tell another story. Under most DREAM Act proposals, amnesty would be
given to individuals up to the age of 30—not exactly children. And some other
proposals don’t even have an age limit.
These
supporters also maintain that illegal immigrants can’t go college without the
DREAM Act. But the truth is that illegal immigrants can already go to college
in most states.
And
ultimately, most versions of the DREAM Act actually don’t even force illegal
immigrants to comply with all the requirements in the bill, such as going to
college or joining the military. The administration can waive requirements
because of “hardship”at its complete discretion.
DREAM Act proposals are
also a magnet for fraud. Many illegal immigrants will fraudulently claim they
came here as children or that they are under 30. And the federal government has
no way to check whether their claims are true or not.
Such massive fraud occurred after the 1986 amnesty for illegal
immigrants who claimed they were agricultural workers. Studies found two-thirds
of all applications for the 1986 amnesty were fraudulent.
(ANYONE THAT THINKS THERE ARE ONLY 11 MILLION ILLEGALS IN OUR
BORDERS SHOULD COME VISIT CA! LOOK AROUND AND TRY TO FIND A NON-HISPANIC
ENGLISH SPEAKING LEGAL! CA IS NOW 40% ILLEGAL. NEVADA IS NOW 33% ILLEGAL.
COLORADO IS NOW 20% ILLEGAL. AND LA RAZA IS NOW MOVING INTO THE AMERICAN SOUTH)
And
this amnesty did nothing to stop illegal immigration. In 1986, there were about
three million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. Today, there are an
estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and about seven million of
them work here, unfairly taking jobs from unemployed Americans.
While DREAM Act
supporters claim that it would only benefit children, they skip over the fact
that it actually rewards the very illegal immigrant parents who knowingly
violated our laws. Once their children become U.S. citizens, they can petition
for their illegal immigrant parents and adult siblings to be legalized, who
will then bring in others in an endless chain.
This
kind of chain migration only encourages more illegal immigration, as parents
will bring their children to the U.S. in hopes of receiving citizenship.
President Obama tried to
get the DREAM Act passed during a lame duck session about a year ago but it
faced bipartisan opposition in Congress. This hasn’t stopped the administration
from passing its agenda. The Obama administration does everything it can to let
illegal immigrants stay here, which compounds the problem.
Political
appointees at the Department of Homeland
Security recently issued new deportation guidelines that amount to
backdoor amnesty and strike another blow at millions of unemployed U.S.
workers.
Under
the administration’s new deportation policy, DHS officials review all incoming
and most pending cases before an immigration court to determine if the illegal
immigrant can remain in the U.S. Since the administration has made clear that
many illegal immigrants are not considered priorities for removal, including
potential DREAM Act beneficiaries, this could open the door to allow millions
of illegal immigrants to live and work in the U.S. without a vote of Congress.
The Obama administration
has also cut worksite enforcement efforts by 70%, allowing illegal immigrants
to continue working in jobs that rightfully belong to citizens and legal
workers. And the list goes on and on – this administration has a pattern
of ignoring the laws and intent of Congress.
The United States is based on the rule of law but the Obama
administration already has dirty hands by abusing administrative authority to
grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act doesn’t stop illegal
immigration—it only encourages more of it by rewarding lawbreakers.
Rep.
Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
The Obama administration has also cut worksite enforcement efforts
by 70%, allowing illegal immigrants to continue working in jobs that rightfully
belong to citizens and legal workers.
THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!
"We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the
jobs taken by illegal workers," said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas,
co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. "President Obama is on
the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should
support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they
need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws."