TURNING INTO MEXICO, OR SIMPLY
MEXICO’S WELFARE, FREE BIRTHING CENTERS, JOBS AND JAILS PROGRAM?
ILLEGALS ARE REGISTERING TO VOTE ALL
OVER THE COUNTRY!
*
from the May 28, 2009 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0528/p09s01-coop.html
*
LATINO AMERICA - VIVA LA RAZA? PUSH 2 FOR ENGLISH! NO LEGAL NEED APPLY!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2012/01/latino-america-rise-of-la-raza.html
*
What
will America stand for in 2050?
The US should think
long and hard about the high number of Latino immigrants.
By Lawrence HarrisonPalo Alto, Calif.
President Obama has
encouraged Americans to start laying a new foundation for the country – on a
number of fronts. He has stressed that we'll need to have the courage to make
some hard choices. One of those hard choices is how to handle immigration. The US
must get serious about the tide of legal and illegal immigrants, above all from
Latin America.
*
FROM
2005… DO YOU THINK IT’S BETTER OR WORSE…?
Is Mexico
still a nation?
The
Monitor's View
A survey
released last week by the Pew Hispanic Center found more than four in 10
Mexicans are willing to leave their country to live in the US. One in five
would risk a dangerous, illegal border crossing. Most surprising, one in three
college graduates wants to flee. Before Washington takes up immigration reform
this fall, it needs to take a hard look at Mexico's disillusionment.
Already,
one in eight adults born in Mexico now lives in the US. And the Mexican economy
is kept afloat partially by an estimated $16 billion sent back by immigrants to
relatives.
Such
numbers reveal a people so fed up with Mexico's dysfunctional politics and
stagnant economy that their nationalism is wilting. While more than half of
Mexico's 106 million people are officially poor, the Pew survey found an
inclination to migrate "evident across a broad swath" of the
population.
This wide
push to leave is probably now as strong as the pull of higher wages, social
advancement, and family connections in the US. And yet, Mexican leaders remain
in denial about this propensity for mass exodus.
All this
spells trouble for proposals by President Bush and some in Congress to set up a
temporary worker program as a way to reduce the burden of illegal migration.
The Mexican demand for such US "guest" visas could be, by some
estimates, half a million a year. Yet the numbers in the proposals fall far
short of that. The US could hardly absorb such a large wave of humanity without
further challenges to its civic stability.
In other
words, a guest-worker plan is a false promise of ending the waves of illegal
border crossings. The challenges on America's southern flank are only getting
worse. Arizona and New Mexico this month declared emergencies along their
borders with Mexico, citing a rise in crime related to drug and people
smuggling - and an inability by Washington to stem the violence. And the US
ambassador to Mexico also criticized its leaders for not curbing border
violence; he made a point by closing the consulate in Nuevo Laredo.
Just five
years ago, Mexico had great hope of reform after the ouster of the
Revolutionary Institutional Party, or PRI, which had governed since 1929. But
President Vicente Fox's reform efforts have faltered. The nation's three main
parties remain internally divided and unable to compromise. Decades of oil
wealth have left people too willing to take handouts rather than accept the
kind of taxation that creates citizens with a stake in government. With Mr. Fox
a lame duck, Mexico is heading for a presidential election next July that could
see another weak leader.
As
dissatisfaction with politics and justice translates into Mexicans voting with
their feet, the US needs to recognize that the "border issue" is much
more of a "Mexico issue."
The US
should further beef up border security, but also help Mexico regain national
integrity. Legally hiring Mexicans is hardly a solution.
As it is
doing with Africa, the US must peg better economic relations to better
governance in Mexico, such as laws allowing referendums and run-offs for
presidential elections. Rather than view such pressure as gringo meddling, the
Mexican people might just welcome a challenge to their government. And think of
staying put.
*
The
principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent
Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard
economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion
annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market
at the low-wage end.
*
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
What will America stand for in 2050?
The US should think long and hard
about the high number of Latino immigrants.
By Lawrence Harrison
Palo Alto, Calif.
President Obama
has encouraged Americans to start laying a new foundation for the country – on
a number of fronts. He has stressed that we'll need to have the courage to make
some hard choices. One of those hard choices is how to handle immigration. The
US must get serious about the tide of legal and illegal immigrants, above all
from Latin America.
It's not just a
short-run issue of immigrants competing with citizens for jobs as unemployment
approaches 10 percent or the number of uninsured straining the quality of
healthcare. Heavy immigration from Latin America threatens our cohesiveness as
a nation.
The political
realities of the rapidly growing Latino population are such that Mr. Obama may
be the last president who can avert the permanent, vast underclass implied by
the current Census Bureau projection for 2050.
Do I sound like a
right-wing "nativist"? I'm not. I'm a lifelong Democrat; an early and
avid supporter of Obama. I'm gratified by his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to
the Supreme Court. I'm also the grandson of Eastern European Jewish immigrants;
and a member, along with several other Democrats, of the advisory boards of the
Federation for American Immigration Reform and Pro English. Similar concerns
preoccupied the distinguished Democrat Barbara Jordan when she chaired the
congressionally mandated US Commission on Immigration Reform in the 1990s.
Congresswoman
Jordan was worried about the adverse impact of high levels of legal and illegal
immigration on poor citizens, disproportionately Latinos and African-Americans.
The principal beneficiaries of our
current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at
substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates
that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by
the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.
The healthcare
cost of the illegal workforce is especially burdensome, and is subsidized by
taxpayers. To claim Medicaid, you must be legal, but as the Health and Human
Services inspector general found, 47 states allow self-declaration of status
for Medicaid. Many hospitals and clinics are going broke because of the
constant stream of uninsured, many of whom are the estimated 12 million to 15 million
illegal immigrants. This translates into reduced services, particularly for
lower-income citizens.
The US population
totaled 281 million in 2000. About 35 million, or 12.5 percent, were Latino.
The Census Bureau projects that our population will reach 439 million in 2050,
a 56 percent increase over the 2000 census. The Hispanic population in 2050 is
projected at 133 million – 30 percent of the total and almost quadruple the
2000 level. Population growth is the principal threat to the environment via
natural resource use, sprawl, and pollution. And population growth is fueled
chiefly by immigration.
Consider what
this, combined with worrisome evidence that Latinos are not melting into our
cultural mainstream, means for the US. Latinos have contributed some positive
cultural attributes, such as multigenerational family bonds, to US society. But
the same traditional values that lie behind Latin America's difficulties in
achieving democratic stability, social justice, and prosperity are being
substantially perpetuated among Hispanic-Americans.
Prominent Latin
Americans have concluded that traditional values are at the root of the
region's development problems. Among those expressing that opinion: Peruvian
writer Mario Vargas Llosa; Nobelist author Octavio Paz, a Mexican; Teodoro
Moscoso, a Puerto Rican politician and US ambassador to Venezuela; and
Ecuador's former president, Osvaldo Hurtado.
Latin America's
cultural problem is apparent in the persistent Latino high school dropout rate
– 40 percent in California, according to a recent study – and the high
incidence of teenage pregnancy, single mothers, and crime. The perpetuation of
Latino culture is facilitated by the Spanish language's growing challenge to
English as our national language. It makes it easier for Latinos to avoid the
melting pot and for education to remain a low priority, as it is in Latin
America – a problem highlighted in recent books by former New York City deputy
mayor Herman Badillo, a Puerto Rican, and Mexican-Americans Lionel Sosa and
Ernesto Caravantes.
Language is the
conduit of culture. Consider: There is no word in Spanish for
"compromise" (compromiso means "commitment") nor for
"accountability," a problem that is compounded by a verb structure
that converts "I dropped (broke, forgot) something" into "it got
dropped" ("broken," "forgotten").
As the USAID
mission director during the first two years of the Sandinista regime in
Nicaragua, I had difficulty communicating "dissent" to a government
minister at a crucial moment in our efforts to convince the US Congress to
approve a special appropriation for Nicaragua.
I was later told
by a bilingual, bicultural Nicaraguan educator that when I used
"dissent" what my Nicaraguan counterparts understood was
"heresy." "We are, after all, children of the Inquisition,"
he added.
In a letter to me
in 1991, Mexican-American columnist Richard Estrada described the essence of
the problem of immigration as one of numbers. We should really worry, he wrote,
"when the numbers begin to favor not only the maintenance and
replenishment of the immigrants' source culture, but also its overall growth,
and in particular growth so large that the numbers not only impede assimilation
but go beyond to pose a challenge to the traditional culture of the American
nation."
Obama should
confront the challenges by enforcing immigration laws on employment to help end
illegal immigration. We should calibrate legal immigration annually to (1) the
needs of the economy, as Ms. Jordan urged, and (2) past performance of
immigrant groups with respect to acculturation.
We must declare
our national language to be English and discourage the proliferation of
Spanish- language media. We should limit citizenship by birth to the offspring
of citizens. And we should provide immigrants with easy-to-access educational
services that facilitate acculturation, including English language,
citizenship, and American values.
Lawrence Harrison
directs the Cultural Change Institute at the Fletcher School, Tufts University,
in Medford, Mass. He is the author of "The Central Liberal Truth: How
Politics Can Change A Culture And Save It From Itself."
*
One tragic thing about this book is that it was
written in 2003. Since then the Mexican occupation has doubled. Welfare to
illegals is up to $20 BILLION in California. Welfare to illegals in sanctuary
city Los Angeles is past $600 million per year, while Mexican gangs murder all
over the state. Yet the lifer-politicians continue to fight for open borders,
more perks for illegals, and their illegal votes!
*
BOOK: MEXIFORNIA – THE SHATTERING OF THE
AMERICAN DREAM WITH THE MEXICAN INVASION AND OCCUPATION
*
"Victor
Davis Hanson brings a lifetime of experience in California's Central Valley to
this indictment of multiculturalism and mass immigration." -- Mark
Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies
*
"Victor Davis Hanson brings a lifetime of experience in California's Central Valley to this indictment of multiculturalism and mass immigration." -- Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies
·
Hardcover: 150 pages
·
Publisher: Encounter Books; 1 edition (July 25, 2003)
·
Language: English
·
ISBN-10: 1893554732
·
ISBN-13: 978-1893554733
*
You thought
things couldn’t get much worse in CALIFORNIA… now MEXIFORNIA…
POPULATION TO
DOUBLE... LATINO THE DOMINANT ETHNIC
GROUP.....double the deficits above! And double the crime, graffiti, anchor
babies and homes foreclosed on with bars on the windows.
Riverside will become the
second most populous county behind Los Angeles and Latinos the dominant ethnic
group, study says. By Maria L. La Ganga and Sara Lin
Times Staff Writers
July 10, 2007
Over the next half-century,
California's population will explode by nearly 75%, and Riverside will surpass
its bigger neighbors to become the second most populous county after Los
Angeles, according to state Department of Finance projections released Monday.
California will near the 60-million mark in 2050, the study found, raising
questions about how the state will look and function and where all the people
and their cars will go. Dueling visions pit the iconic California building
block of ranch house, big yard and two-car garage against more dense, high-rise
development. But whether sprawl or skyscrapers win the day, the Golden State
will probably be a far different and more complex place than it is today, as
people live longer and Latinos become the dominant ethnic group, eclipsing all
others combined. Some critics forecast disaster if gridlock and environmental
impacts are not averted. Others see a possible economic boon, particularly for
retailers and service industries with an eye on the state as a burgeoning
market."It's opportunity with baggage," said Jack Kyser, chief
economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in "a
country masquerading as a state."Other demographers argue that the huge
population increase the state predicts will occur only if officials complete
major improvements to roads and other public infrastructure. Without that
investment, they say, some Californians would flee the state.If the finance
department's calculations hold, California's population will rise from 34.1
million in 2000 to 59.5 million at the mid-century point, about the same number
of people as Italy has today. And its projected growth rate in those 50 years
will outstrip the national rate — nearly 75% compared with less than 50%
projected by the federal government. That could translate to increased
political clout in Washington, D.C. Southern California's population is
projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state
figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1
million over just seven counties. L.A. County alone will top 13 million by
2050, an increase of almost 3.5 million residents. And Riverside County — long
among the fastest-growing in the state — will triple in population to 4.7
million by mid-century. Riverside County will add 3.1 million people, according
to the new state figures, eclipsing Orange and San Diego to become the second
most populous in the state. With less expensive housing than the coast,
Riverside County has grown by more than 472,000 residents since 2000, according
to state estimates. No matter how much local governments build in the way of
public works and how many new jobs are attracted to the region — minimizing the
need for long commutes — Husing figures that growth will still overwhelm the
area's roads.USC Professor Genevieve Giuliano, an expert on land use and
transportation, would probably agree. Such massive growth, if it occurs, she
said, will require huge investment in the state's highways, schools, and energy
and sewer systems at a "very formidable cost."If those things aren't
built, Giuliano questioned whether the projected population increases will
occur. "Sooner or later, the region will not be competitive and the growth
is not going to happen," she said.If major problems like traffic
congestion and housing costs aren't addressed, Giuliano warned, the middle
class is going to exit California, leaving behind very high-income and very
low-income residents. "It's a political question," said Martin Wachs,
a transportation expert at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica. "Do we have the
will, the consensus, the willingness to pay? If we did, I think we could manage
the growth."The numbers released Monday underscore most demographers' view
that the state's population is pushing east, from both Los Angeles and the Bay
Area, to counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino as well as half a dozen
or so smaller Central Valley counties.Sutter County, for example, is expected
to be the fastest-growing on a percentage basis between 2000 and 2050, jumping
255% to a population of 282,894 , the state said. Kern County is expected to
see its population more than triple to 2.1 million by mid-century.In Southern
California, San Diego County is projected to grow by almost 1.7 million
residents and Orange County by 1.1 million. Even Ventura County — where voters
have imposed some limits on urban sprawl — will see its population jump 62% to
more than 1.2 million if the projections hold.The Department of Finance
releases long-term population projections every three years. Between the last
two reports, number crunchers have taken a more detailed look at California's
statistics and taken into account the likelihood that people will live longer,
said chief demographer Mary Heim.The result?The latest numbers figure the state
will be much more crowded than earlier estimates (by nearly 5 million) and that
it will take a bit longer than previously thought for Latinos to become the
majority of California's population: 2042, not 2038.The figures show that the
majority of California's growth will be in the Latino population, said Dowell
Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography at USC, adding that
"68% of the growth this decade will be Latino, 75% next and 80% after
that."That should be a wake-up call for voting Californians, Myers said,
pointing out a critical disparity. Though the state's growth is young and
Latino, the majority of voters will be older and white — at least for the next
decade."The future of the state is Latino growth," Myers said.
"We'd sure better invest in them and get them up to speed¼.
Older white voters don't see it that way. They don't realize that someone has
to replace them in the work force, pay for their benefits and buy their house.
*
From the Los Angeles Times
CAPITOL JOURNAL
Illegal immigrants
are a factor in California's budget math
George Skelton
Capitol Journal
February 2, 2009
From Sacramento — Based on my e-mail, a lot of folks think the solution to California's state budget deficit is to round up all the illegal immigrants and truck them down to Mexico.
Wrong. Even if it were logistically possible and the deportees didn't just climb off the truck and hitch another ride back up north, their absence from the state wouldn't come close to saving enough tax dollars to balance a budget that has a $42-billion hole projected over the next 17 months.
Painful cuts in education, healthcare and social service programs still would be needed. Sharp tax increases would be required.
That said, let's be honest: Illegal immigration does cost California taxpayers a substantial wad, undeniably into the billions.
But it hasn't been PC for officeholders to talk about this for years, ever since Gov. Pete Wilson broke his pick waging an aggressive campaign for Proposition 187. That 1994 ballot initiative sought to bar illegal immigrants from most public services, including education. Voters approved the measure overwhelmingly, but it was tossed out by the courts.
Wilson was demonized by Democrats within the Latino community. And many think the Republican Party never has recovered among this rapidly growing slice of the electorate.
So it's not a topic that comes easily to the tongues of politicians, even Republicans.
Besides, most of the policy issues are out of California's hands. The federal government has jurisdiction over the border. Federal law decrees that every child is entitled to attend public school, regardless of immigration status. And every person -- here illegally or not -- must be cared for in hospital emergency rooms.
But the state does add a few benefits that aren't required.
And as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders dig into the books trying to find billions in savings, at least a brief look at what's being spent on illegal immigrants seems in order.
First, nobody seems to know exactly. Numbers vary widely, depending which side they come from in the ongoing angry debate over whether people who entered the country illegally to work should be allowed to stay or loaded on the southbound truck.
But here are some no-agenda numbers:
* There were 2.8 million illegal immigrants living in California in 2006, the last year for which there are relatively good figures, according to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. That represented about 8% of the state's population and roughly a quarter of the nation's illegal immigrants. About 90% of California's illegal immigrants were from Latin America; 65% from Mexico.
* There are roughly 19,000 illegal immigrants in state prisons, representing 11% of all inmates. That's costing $970 million during the current fiscal year. The feds kick in a measly $111 million, leaving the state with an $859 million tab.
* Schools are the toughest to calculate. Administrators don't ask kids about citizenship status. Anyway, many children of illegal immigrants were born in this country and automatically became U.S. citizens.
If you figure that the children of illegal immigrants attending K-12 schools approximates the proportion of illegal immigrants in the population, the bill currently comes to roughly $4 billion. Most is state money; some local property taxes.
* Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to welfare, called CalWORKs. But their citizen children are. Roughly 190,000 kids are receiving welfare checks that pass through their parents. The cost: about $500 million, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.
Schwarzenegger has proposed removing these children from the welfare rolls after five years. It's part of a broader proposal to also boot off, after five years, the children of U.S. citizens who aren't meeting federal work requirements. There'd be a combined savings of $522 million.
* The state is spending $775 million on Medi-Cal healthcare for illegal immigrants, according to the legislative analyst. Of that, $642 million goes into direct benefits. Practically all the rest is paid to counties to administer the program. The feds generally match the state dollar-for-dollar on mandatory programs.
So-called emergency services are the biggest state cost: $536 million. Prenatal care is $59 million. Not counted in the overall total is the cost of baby delivery -- $108 million -- because the newborns aren't illegal immigrants.
The state also pays $47 million for programs that Washington does not require: Non-emergency care (breast and cervical cancer treatment), $25 million; long-term nursing home care, $19 million; abortions, $3 million.
Schwarzenegger has proposed requiring illegal immigrants to requalify every month for Medi-Cal benefits, except pregnancy-related emergencies.
There also are other taxpayer costs -- especially through local governments -- but those are the biggies for the state. Add them all up and the state spends well over $5 billion a year on illegal immigrants and their families.
Of course, illegal immigrants do pay state taxes. But no way do they pay enough to replenish what they're drawing in services. Their main revenue contribution would be the sales tax, but they can't afford to be big consumers, and food and prescription drugs are exempt.
My view is this: These people are here illegally and shouldn't be, regardless of whether they're just looking for a better life. Do it the legal way. And enforce the law against hiring the undocumented.
On the other hand, they are here. We can't have uneducated kids and unhealthy people living with us. We have moral obligations and practical imperatives.
The Obama administration and Congress need to finally pass an immigration reform act that allows for an agriculture work program and a route to citizenship.
Meanwhile, California should be honest about the costs. Illegal immigrants are not the sole cause of the state's deficit. But they are a drain.
Capitol Journal
February 2, 2009
From Sacramento — Based on my e-mail, a lot of folks think the solution to California's state budget deficit is to round up all the illegal immigrants and truck them down to Mexico.
Wrong. Even if it were logistically possible and the deportees didn't just climb off the truck and hitch another ride back up north, their absence from the state wouldn't come close to saving enough tax dollars to balance a budget that has a $42-billion hole projected over the next 17 months.
Painful cuts in education, healthcare and social service programs still would be needed. Sharp tax increases would be required.
That said, let's be honest: Illegal immigration does cost California taxpayers a substantial wad, undeniably into the billions.
But it hasn't been PC for officeholders to talk about this for years, ever since Gov. Pete Wilson broke his pick waging an aggressive campaign for Proposition 187. That 1994 ballot initiative sought to bar illegal immigrants from most public services, including education. Voters approved the measure overwhelmingly, but it was tossed out by the courts.
Wilson was demonized by Democrats within the Latino community. And many think the Republican Party never has recovered among this rapidly growing slice of the electorate.
So it's not a topic that comes easily to the tongues of politicians, even Republicans.
Besides, most of the policy issues are out of California's hands. The federal government has jurisdiction over the border. Federal law decrees that every child is entitled to attend public school, regardless of immigration status. And every person -- here illegally or not -- must be cared for in hospital emergency rooms.
But the state does add a few benefits that aren't required.
And as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders dig into the books trying to find billions in savings, at least a brief look at what's being spent on illegal immigrants seems in order.
First, nobody seems to know exactly. Numbers vary widely, depending which side they come from in the ongoing angry debate over whether people who entered the country illegally to work should be allowed to stay or loaded on the southbound truck.
But here are some no-agenda numbers:
* There were 2.8 million illegal immigrants living in California in 2006, the last year for which there are relatively good figures, according to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. That represented about 8% of the state's population and roughly a quarter of the nation's illegal immigrants. About 90% of California's illegal immigrants were from Latin America; 65% from Mexico.
* There are roughly 19,000 illegal immigrants in state prisons, representing 11% of all inmates. That's costing $970 million during the current fiscal year. The feds kick in a measly $111 million, leaving the state with an $859 million tab.
* Schools are the toughest to calculate. Administrators don't ask kids about citizenship status. Anyway, many children of illegal immigrants were born in this country and automatically became U.S. citizens.
If you figure that the children of illegal immigrants attending K-12 schools approximates the proportion of illegal immigrants in the population, the bill currently comes to roughly $4 billion. Most is state money; some local property taxes.
* Illegal immigrants aren't entitled to welfare, called CalWORKs. But their citizen children are. Roughly 190,000 kids are receiving welfare checks that pass through their parents. The cost: about $500 million, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.
Schwarzenegger has proposed removing these children from the welfare rolls after five years. It's part of a broader proposal to also boot off, after five years, the children of U.S. citizens who aren't meeting federal work requirements. There'd be a combined savings of $522 million.
* The state is spending $775 million on Medi-Cal healthcare for illegal immigrants, according to the legislative analyst. Of that, $642 million goes into direct benefits. Practically all the rest is paid to counties to administer the program. The feds generally match the state dollar-for-dollar on mandatory programs.
So-called emergency services are the biggest state cost: $536 million. Prenatal care is $59 million. Not counted in the overall total is the cost of baby delivery -- $108 million -- because the newborns aren't illegal immigrants.
The state also pays $47 million for programs that Washington does not require: Non-emergency care (breast and cervical cancer treatment), $25 million; long-term nursing home care, $19 million; abortions, $3 million.
Schwarzenegger has proposed requiring illegal immigrants to requalify every month for Medi-Cal benefits, except pregnancy-related emergencies.
There also are other taxpayer costs -- especially through local governments -- but those are the biggies for the state. Add them all up and the state spends well over $5 billion a year on illegal immigrants and their families.
Of course, illegal immigrants do pay state taxes. But no way do they pay enough to replenish what they're drawing in services. Their main revenue contribution would be the sales tax, but they can't afford to be big consumers, and food and prescription drugs are exempt.
My view is this: These people are here illegally and shouldn't be, regardless of whether they're just looking for a better life. Do it the legal way. And enforce the law against hiring the undocumented.
On the other hand, they are here. We can't have uneducated kids and unhealthy people living with us. We have moral obligations and practical imperatives.
The Obama administration and Congress need to finally pass an immigration reform act that allows for an agriculture work program and a route to citizenship.
Meanwhile, California should be honest about the costs. Illegal immigrants are not the sole cause of the state's deficit. But they are a drain.
No comments:
Post a Comment