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.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2012/03/dream-acts-for-illegals-california.html
THE
SITUATION OF LA RAZA SUPREMACY IS MUCH WORSE THAN THIS AUTHOR COVERS IN HIS
ARTICLE ON DREAM ACTS.
THERE
ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) STATES 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? WHO VOTED FOR IT? ONLY ILLEGALS!
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
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.
Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film
Industry in the 1930s and 1940s and the former editorial
director of the Pacific Research Institute.
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
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
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/20/truth-about-dream-act/#ixzz1pwy31dOU
WIKILEAKS EXPOSES OBAMA'S OPEN BORDER AGENDA:
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."
MEXICO PROCLAIMS A
VICTORY OVER ILLEGALS IN MEX-OCCUPIED MEXIFORNIA!
NO MORE E-VERIFY!!!
ILLEGALS USING STOLEN
AMERICAN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS GET THE JOBS FIRST! AN ILLEGAL WORKING IN
OCCUPIED MEXIFORNIA WILL MAKE APPROXIMATELY 8XS TIMES MORE THAN HE/SHE WOULD IN
MEXICO, AND CAN GET 18 YEARS FOR EACH “FREE” ANCHOR BABY THEY BREED, AS WELL AS
UNLIMITED “FREE” MEDICAL AT HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOMS, AND A LOOOOOOOG MENU OF
EVER EXPANDING DREAM ACTS!
VIVA LA RAZA! THE
INVASION AND OCCUPATION IS NOW EXPANDING TO ALL OTHER 49 STATES!
HERE’S HOW NO
E-VERIFY BREAKS DOWN:
Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal
CA MAKES E-VERIFY ILLEGAL! COURTESY THE
MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA!
Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal
Here is an example of why hiring illegal aliens is not economically productive for the State of California...
Here is an example of why hiring illegal aliens is not economically productive for the State of California...
You have 2 families..."Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have 2 parents, 2 children and live in California.
"Joe Legal" works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted...."Jose Illegal" also works in construction, has "NO" Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Joe Legal...$25.00 per hour x 40 hours $1000.00 per week, $52,000 per year
Now take 30% away for state and federal tax
Joe Legal now has $31,231.00
Jose Illegal...$15.00 per hour x 40 hours $600.00 per week, $31,200.00 per year
Jose Illegal pays no taxes...
Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00
Joe Legal pays Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage
$1000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal now has $19,231.00
Jose Illegal has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00
Joe Legal makes too much money is not eligible for Food Stamps or welfare
Joe Legal pays for food
$1,000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal now has $ 7,231.00
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and Welfare
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00
Joe Legal pays rent of
$1,000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal is now in the hole... minus (-) $4,769.00
Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy
Jose Illegal pays rent
$500.00 per month
$6,000.00 per year
Jose Illegal still has $25,200.00
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.
Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Don't vote/support any politician that supports illegal aliens...
Its WAY PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!
LA RAZA, THE
RACIST MEXICAN SUPREMACIST FASCIST PART
FOR “THE RACE” DEMANDS EVEN MORE GRINGO WELFARE.
FAIR
Legislative Update - June 22, 2009
La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens
On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.
La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."
SINCE WHEN HAVE THE MEXICAN FLAG WAVERS EVER “ACCEPTED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY” FOR ANYTHING? THEY’RE HERE TO PILLAGE ONLY.
La Raza
President and CEO Janet MurguÃa used the statement to emphasize that
"everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and
that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a
new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health
coverage they need." While the statement does not reference illegal
immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it
does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation
procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care
coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009). La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens
On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.
La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."
SINCE WHEN HAVE THE MEXICAN FLAG WAVERS EVER “ACCEPTED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY” FOR ANYTHING? THEY’RE HERE TO PILLAGE ONLY.
Specific research has shown that many illegal aliens lack health insurance and represent a disproportionate share of the United States' uninsured population. The Pew Hispanic Center's recent report, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, found that 59% of illegal aliens in the United States had no form of health insurance in 2007, and that 45% of illegal alien children were also without health coverage in 2007. It also found that even the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens were insured at the low rate of 25%, and that there was a significant disparity between the volume of uninsured illegal aliens and the volume of uninsured U.S. citizens and other legal residents. (Pew Hispanic Center Report, April 14, 2009).
Pew's information has support in federal statistics: data collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Census Bureau for the same time frame show that approximately 33.2% of the foreign-born population in the United States (a category which does not differentiate between newly naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and illegal aliens) were uninsured in 2007, and that almost 10 million foreign-born non-citizens lacked health insurance in 2007. (DHS Fact Sheet, February 2009).
(For more information on how illegal immigration is financially impacting the U.S. health care system, see FAIR's Legislative Updates for April 13, 2009, and April 20, 2009).
Democrats on House Approps Committee Kill Another E-Verify Amendment
Last week, during a House Appropriations Committee mark-up for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations spending bill, Committee Democrats rejected an amendment to require federal contractors to use E-Verify if they received federal contracts funded by the bill. (Appropriations Summary).
The week before, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) had offered a similar amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations spending bill. His amendment was subsequently rejected by the Appropriations Committee. (FAIR's Legislative Update, June 15, 2009). This week, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) offered the amendment to the Agriculture Spending bill. Calvert's amendment was rejected entirely on a party-line basis with 23 Republicans supporting and 34 Democrats rejecting the amendment.
The Agriculture spending bill spends almost $23 billion in taxpayer dollars. Over $4 billion dollars alone will be allocated to the Food and Drug Administration and Food Safety and Inspection Service, two important organizations in protecting America's food and drug supply. In addition, the bill provides billions more for programs like the Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and International Food Aid. The bill will also provide funding for rural development, conservation projects, and oversight and enforcement.
With so many American jobs and tax dollars at stake, many Americans are frustrated that Congress refuses to demand that federal contractors use E-Verify. (To learn more about E-Verify, see FAIR's Fact Sheet.). This vote marks the third time in two weeks that Democratic Leadership has rejected amendments requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify.
Pressure Mounting on Obama to Extend TPS Status to All Haitians, Including Illegal Aliens
The Haitian community and other open borders advocates are engaging in a full-court press to have the Obama Administration extend Temporary Protected Status to all Haitians in the United States, including extending legal status to nearly 30,000 illegal aliens, under the premise that environmental and economic conditions in Haiti mandate such a policy.
Under § 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) may extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to individuals — including illegal aliens — from specific nations if that nation is experiencing conditions that create serious risks to health or safety, including armed conflicts, disasters, or other extraordinary but temporary circumstances. TPS, by its nature, was never intended to create a permanent immigration status change, but rather only a temporary one, with DHS making the final decision about when TPS ends. (USCIS Fact Sheet, April 30, 2009).
The Bush Administration rejected appeals by the Haitian government to extend TPS to Haiti as recently as January 2009. Since then, several members of Congress have continued to seek a reversal of that decision including Reps. Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY). Engel and Meeks have been working with international organizations to lobby for TPS status for Haitians. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) has introduced legislation during the 111th Congress that would formalize TPS for Haitians. Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have also expressed support for the idea. (Washington Times, March 18, 2009; Dominica News Online, May 26, 2009; South Florida Caribbean News, June 19, 2009).
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano had initially rejected the idea of extending TPS to Haitians, but Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently commented that the Administration is contemplating the idea. (Associated Press, May 28, 2009). Lobbying groups have seized upon the Obama Administration's indecision, and have made themselves seen and heard in Washington in an effort to force the change in policy. (Id.). These groups include the Haitian Coalition for TPS, the Haitian Citizen United Task Force, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. These groups have reached out to the White House and federal officials to press for the policy shift, arguing that the United States has a humanitarian obligation to do so. (Dominica News Online, May 26, 2009; South Florida Caribbean News, June 19, 2009).
Advocates for extension of TPS to Haitians point to recent economic and weather-related devastation in the small Caribbean nation as justification for the change in policy. (Palm Beach Post, May 21, 2009; Miami Herald, May 26, 2009). AFSC recently declared in a statement that "TPS is the most immediate form of humanitarian assistance the United States government can provide" in light of the current "devastating and overwhelming conditions in Haiti." This same AFSC statement stated that it was not unusual for the United States to extend TPS to foreign nationals of countries experiencing "significant hardship and suffering." (Id.).
Critics of TPS say that the U.S. government has a poor track record of terminating the temporary status, even long after the original justification for TPS existed and despite conditions having improved in the TPS country. For instance, TPS was first extended to Salvadoran nationals in March 2001, but since then TPS status has been extended seven times and still remains in effect. Likewise, Honduras was originally designated for TPS status in January 1999 but has since been extended 13 times with TPS still in effect. Somalia and Sudan were both designated for TPS in the mid-1990s and are still under TPS. (U.S. House Judiciary Committee Hearing, March 4, 1999; DOJ Virtual Law Library).
The idea of extending Temporary Protected Status to Haiti raises the concern that such a move would create an unmanageable wave of refugees coming from Haiti to the United States. In an effort to discourage this possibility, a DHS spokesman said in March: "let me be clear: No one living in Haiti right now should be attempting to come to the United States in hopes that they will be granted TPS." (Washington Times, March 18, 2009). Daniel Erikson, of the Washington think tank Inter-American Dialogue has said TPS "what Haiti needs most is a long-term nation-building effort, not short-term stop-gap measures [like TPS]." (Id.). Erikson also said that: "Granting TPS to Haiti is merely a Band-Aid that cannot heal a deeply wounded country and may raise the risks of a new wave of migration." (Id.).
Senators introduce Legislation to Weaken Secure Driver's License Standards
Last week, Senator Daniel Akaka introduced legislation entitled PASS ID (S. 1261), a bill that would gut the REAL ID Act. Congress passed the REAL ID Act in the wake of the September 11th Terrorist Attacks in order to improve the security of U.S. issued driver's licenses. (Bill Text).
After the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 Commission found that lax security standards had enabled the hijackers to obtain "13 driver's licenses (two of which were duplicates) and 21 USA or state-issued identification cards (usually used for showing residence in the U.S. or a state)." (9/11 Fact Sheet).
With these findings, the Commission recommended that Congress enact requirements for secure identification, stating: "Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.... At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists." (Commission Report, p. 390). Congress responded to the Commission's recommendation by passing the REAL ID Act, a law that takes steps towards a secure form of identification in the United States.
REAL ID's provisions include the following: (1) a requirement that individuals present proof of lawful presence when applying for a driver's license or ID card; (2) a requirement that states "verify" the documents presented by an applicant to prove his or her identity; and (3) a requirement that driver's licenses expire on the same date as an alien's immigration status expires.
Since the enactment of REAL ID, however, illegal alien advocates have sought to undo the law in order to allow illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses. Akaka's bill scales back the purposes for which a secure ID will be needed in the U.S., thereby undermining security. The PASS ID Act also strips the requirement that states "verify" the identification presented, thereby making it easier for illegal aliens, identity thieves and criminals to fraudulently obtain driver's licenses. Finally, PASS ID also dramatically expands eligibility for persons who may obtain a secure ID. For example, under the bill, an illegal alien need only file an application for asylum and receive temporary work authorization in order to be eligible for a secure ID. (Section 242(c)(2)).
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has endorsed the Akaka bill, stating: "Today's introduction of Pass ID… in the U.S. Senate brings us closer to greater compliance with federal standards for secure driver's licenses…. I am committed to supporting this important bill and it is my hope that Congress will pass it into law as quickly as possible." (DHS Press Release).
Newsmax
Obama's 'Hispanicazation' of America
Monday,
January 10, 2011 08:28 AM
*
Immigrating America Into a Colony of
Mexico
Article
by Frosty Wooldridge
2004
America faces a
greater and more dangerous threat from within than from without. While our
armed forces secure Afghanistan and Iraq, our own borders stand unguarded 24
hours a day. Al-Qaeda insurgents plan their next attacks somewhere inside our
country. They advocate a violent overthrow of America.
We’ve got an even
more ominous enemy within our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or
the reconquest of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the country of
Mexico. With 9.2 million Mexicans now living in America, their goal of
colonizing our country back into Mexico moves forward. A more sobering reality
stems from the evidence that it’s Mexican-American citizens in the forefront of
this disintegration of our country.
What is the evidence?
Because of massive immigration from south of the border, more Mexican flags
brazenly fly in Los Angeles and surrounding cities than Old Glory. More Spanish
speaking radio stations broadcast than English speaking. More people speak
foreign languages than English in the City of Angels. More school kids can’t
speak our national language in California. It’s so bad in the Golden Bear
State, last year 800,000 Americans fled abrasive conditions growing like a
cancer in southern California. Worse, the “18th Street Gang” in Los Angeles
features 20,000 members with 60 percent of them being illegal aliens. They
coordinate drug traffic, robberies and extortion. Finally, the corruption is so
great, ‘Special Order 40,’ augmented by the Los Angeles Police Department, makes
it impossible to arrest, detain or deport illegal aliens. Little wonder more
than three million operate in California.
But as their numbers
grow and their allegiance remains with Mexico, this country is at risk of an
internal coup. But the worst danger comes from our own citizens of Mexican
heritage. They want our southwestern United States back. Will they take it by
violence? Use an army? No! They are colonizing us by sheer numbers. They are
the fastest growing ethnic group in America, but they have no allegiance to our
country.
They are organized,
too. The following are two speeches from a dozen others: Augustin Cebada,
Information Minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan
shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles:
"Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets, we're here today to show LA, show the
minority people here, the Anglo-Saxons, that we are here, the majority. We do
the work in this city, we take care of the spoiled brat children, we clean
their offices, we pick the food, we do the manufacturing in the factories of
LA, we are the majority here. We're here in Westwood, this is the fourth time
we've been here in the last two months, to show white Anglo-Saxon Protestant
LA, the few of you who remain, that we are the majority, and we claim this land
as ours, it's always been ours, and we're still here, and none of the talk
about deporting. If anyone's going to be deported it's going to be you! Go back
to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Boston! To back to the Plymouth Rock,
Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You're old and tired. Go on. We have
beaten you, leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to
die. Right now we're already controlling those elections by violence or
nonviolence. Through love of having children we're going to take over."
Other demonstrators: "Raza fuerza (brown race power), this is Aztlan, this
is Mexico. They're the pilgrims on our land. Go back to the Nina, the Pinta,
the Santa Maria."
If you don’t think
he’s serious about taking over our border states, try this guy on for size:
Jose Angel Gutierrez, Professor, University of Texas at Arlington, founder La
Raza Party at UC Riverside: "The border remains a military zone. We remain
a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that
historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we're a new Mestizo
nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made
by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our
homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another
country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas
because we belong here. We are millions. We have an aging white America. They
are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is
in our population."
For a sleepy American
public and a politically correct Congress, the colonization of America by a
foreign country proceeds quietly, pervasively, methodically and perversely.
Forty-six Mexican consulates operate and dictate in major cities across our
country. Mexico’s President Fox visits and makes demands. They’re pouring over
our borders like water over a broken dam.
Our resources are
being drained at $56 billion annually. Immigrants send $15 billion back to
Mexico. They send $25 billion back to South America and $16 billion back to
Asia. Our annual trade deficit exceeds $400 billion. Over $100 billion in cash
flows out of our borders for drugs. We pay billions for illegals in our medical
systems, schools and ESL classes. According to Professor Borgas of Harvard,
American workers lose $133 billion in wages to illegal aliens taking over
American jobs.
“Immigrant advocacy
groups no longer promote legal immigration, citizenship, learning English or
any other assimilation into this country. Hispanic-rights groups talk of
reoccupation and repatriation of the southwestern United States,” wrote Linda
Bentley in “Paving the Way to Aztlan: With Propaganda, Politics, Racism.”
Do you want America
to be split up? Do you want Texas to become a state of Mexico? Do you want
America to become as corrupt as Mexico? Do you want the filth, squalor and
diseases of Mexico to become a part of America’s reality? Do you want to give
up California to Aztlan? Do you want America to become a part of the Third
World?
Keep doing nothing
about this immigration invasion and you’ll get your wish.
No comments:
Post a Comment