Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Brewer defends order on illegal immigrants - PUSHING BACK THE MEX INVASION IN ARIZONA - SHOULD JOBS GO TO AMERICANS (LEGALS) NOW?

Brewer defends order on illegal immigrants

OBAMA HAS SABOTAGED E-VERIFY NATIONWIDE TO EASE MORE ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS. SUCH BUYS THE LA RAZA “THE RACE” ILLEGALS’ VOTES AND KEEPS OBAMA’S PAYMASTERS HAPPY AND GENEROUS WITH DEPRESSED WAGES.

ROMNEY CLAIMS HE WOULD IMPOSE E-VERIFY NATIONWIDE!

"First of all, we have to secure the border," Romney said, reiterating remarks he made on the campaign trail on Friday. "We need to have an employment verification system, to make sure that those that are working here in this country are here legally

A DECADE OF UNEMPLOYMENT – AND THE JOBS AND WELFARE GO TO ILLEGALS!
The White House study assumes that the American government will take no action over the next ten years to create jobs or put the unemployed back to work.

provides a powerful weapon for driving down wages, benefits and social programs, and imposing far worse conditions on workers still on the job.

“While the declining job market in the United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as drug-smuggling “mules.”

The jobs crisis and the 2012 elections
30 July 2012
The Obama administration issued an official update on the US economy Friday that projects that unemployment will remain high for the next decade. The unemployment rate stood at 5.0 percent in April 2008, before the Wall Street crash triggered by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. Even in the best-case scenario laid out in the White House report, the unemployment will remain above that level into 2022.
In other words, for those who are now unemployed, and particularly for the new generation of young people who have come of age since the 2008 crash, the prospect is for the continuation of mass unemployment more or less indefinitely.
The Mid-Session Review issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assumes a relatively quick return to rapid economic growth in the United States, with GDP expanding by more than 4 percent a year in 2014 and 2015, and a worldwide economic recovery rather than depression.
The OMB economic projections were already disproved as unduly optimistic while the Mid-Session Review was being printed. While the OMB projects a 2.6 percent growth in GDP in 2012, the second quarter growth rate reported by the Commerce Department fell to only 1.5 percent, below even the 2.0 percent growth reported in the first quarter.
Even under the OMB’s unrealistic assumptions, it would require a full decade to return to the levels of unemployment that prevailed in the early stages of the current economic slump. Given the reality of global slowdown, new financial shocks from the bankruptcy of European countries and financial scandals involving the banks and hedge funds (LIBOR, JP Morgan Chase), the relatively small decline in the US unemployment rate over the past two years, from 10.1 percent to 8.2 percent, is likely to be wiped out by a surge of mass layoffs.
Recent announcements by Cisco Systems, Citigroup and, most recently, Delta Airlines suggest that a new round of corporate job-cutting is already under way.
Despite the dubious projections, the OMB document has a definite political significance. Its economic projections amount to an admission that capitalism has failed an entire generation of working class youth in the United States. Millions of young people each year are graduating from high school or leaving college to enter the work force, under conditions where job creation is so anemic that little work is available for those already jobless, let alone for new entrants to the labor market.
At the same time, the OMB document constitutes a declaration, from the office of the President of the United States, that nothing will be done to alleviate the plight of the unemployed or to provide them jobs. The White House study assumes that the American government will take no action over the next ten years to create jobs or put the unemployed back to work.
The administration has funneled huge resources to the super-rich, in the bailout of banks and then the auto companies, accompanied by a 50 percent wage cut for newly hired auto workers. While trillions were allocated to bail out Wall Street, not a penny is proposed to prevent a colossal growth of poverty and social misery among working people.
There is a definite class policy at work, to be pursued whether Obama or Mitt Romney wins the presidential elections this November. The American ruling elite, far from seeking to end mass unemployment, regards tens of millions of jobless workers as a positive good. A double-digit unemployment rate (when part-time and discouraged workers are included in the calculation) provides a powerful weapon for driving down wages, benefits and social programs, and imposing far worse conditions on workers still on the job.
Meanwhile, on the national security front, the lack of decent jobs for young people insures a steady supply of recruits for the “volunteer” military, the cannon fodder for new imperialist wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are being prepared in Syria, Iran and other international flashpoints where the US military is deployed.
For the working class, the OMB document underscores the underlying reality of the 2012 election campaign. With tens of millions of working people facing increasingly desperate conditions, neither capitalist candidate, Obama or Romney, offers any alternative. The truth is that there can be no solution to the crisis without a frontal assault on the accumulated wealth of the ruling class.
The trillions in the coffers of the banks and giant corporations are an irrefutable answer to claims by Democratic and Republican politicians and their media apologists that “there is no money” to deal with urgent social needs.
The working class must build an independent mass political movement that advocates a radical redistribution of wealth to meet social needs. The vast resources created by labor must be used to provide jobs for the unemployed and a future for what will otherwise be a lost generation of working class youth.
The Socialist Equality Party and our candidates for president and vice-president, Jerry White and Phyllis Scherrer, are the only political movement fighting for this revolutionary socialist perspective in the American working class. We urge workers and young people to support our campaign and join and build our party. For more information, visit www.socialequality.com.
Patrick Martin
*
The White House study assumes that the American government will take no action over the next ten years to create jobs or put the unemployed back to work.
*
THE ONLY JOBS PLAN OBAMA IS TO PROTECT THE JOBS OF HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS AND TO EASE AS MANY ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS AS POSSIBLE.
OBAMA HAS SABOTAGED E-VERIFY, AND PUT LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILDA SOLIS IN AS HE SEC. of ILLEGAL LABOR!


Obama administration repeats same jobs line—for the 30th month

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation's latest national employment figures Friday, the Obama administration stressed that people should not "read too much" into the data.
Mitt Romney's campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009.
See below for the roundup of articles from WhiteHouse.gov that Romney's campaign posted on its site. In many of the posts, the authors for the administration do acknowledge that they repeat themselves:
June 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/06/employment-situation-june)
May 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/01/employment-situation-may)
April 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/04/employment-situation-april)
March 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/06/employment-situation-march)
February 2012: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/09/employment-situation-february)
January 2012: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/03/employment-situation-january)
December 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/employment-situation-december)
November 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/02/employment-situation-november)
October 2011: "The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August's jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/04/employment-situation-october)
September 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/07/employment-situation-september)
August 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/02/employment-situation-august)
July 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/05/employment-situation-july)
June 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/08/employment-situation-june)
May 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/03/employment-situation-may)
April 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/06/employment-situation-april)
March 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/01/employment-situation-march)
February 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/04/employment-situation-february)
January 2011: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/04/employment-situation-january)
December 2010: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/employment-situation-december)
November 2010: "Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/03/employment-situation-november)
October 2010: "Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/05/employment-situation-october)
September 2010: "Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/08/employment-situation-september)
July 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/06/employment-situation-july)
August 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/03/employment-situation-august)
June 2010: "As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/employment-situation-june)
May 2010: "As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/04/employment-situation-may)
April 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/07/employment-situation-april)
March 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/02/employment-situation-march)
January 2010: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/05/employment-situation-january)
November 2009: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/04/employment-situation-november)
*

Obama soft on illegals enforcement


Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold.
*
MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE GENEROUS DONORS TO LA RAZA – THE MEXICAN FASCIST POLITICAL PARTY. THESE FIGURES ARE DATED. CNN CALCULATES THAT WAGES ARE DEPRESSED $300 - $400 BILLION PER YEAR!
“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
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."
FROM JUDICIAL WATCH org
Illegal Immigration
Today, between eight and fourteen million illegal aliens reside in the United States, draining our nation’s economy, while presenting a security threat to the people of the United States. Public officials have not only repeatedly failed to protect our borders from this illegal alien invasion, but they have also been complicit in the effort to undermine our nation’s immigration laws.
Judicial Watch has an active investigation into the Obama administration’s policies and actions on immigration. For instance, Judicial Watch had uncovered documents indicating collusion between the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union with respect to legal challenges of Arizona’s SB 1070. Recently, Judicial Watch obtained documents revealing that administration officials misled Congress regarding the scope of deportation dismissals in Houston, Texas. Additional documents were obtained that detail a behind-the-scenes effort by the administration to suspend deportation proceedings against “DREAM” Act aliens and other illegal immigrants. Judicial Watch also routinely obtains smuggling statistics and has revealed details of a shocking sex slave trafficking operation in Houston, Texas.

*

Guess LA RAZA his happy with OBAMA’S endless hispandering! THEY SHOULD BE!
There  are only eight states with a larger population than LOS ANGELES COUNTY, where 47% of those with a job are ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS! This same mex gang infested county puts out $600 million in welfare to illegals!
*
“The inspections have determined that hundreds of companies throughout the U.S. have significant numbers of illegal immigrants on their payroll yet none have been punished, according to a Houston newspaper that obtained internal ICE records through the Freedom of Information Act. At least 430 audit cases listed as “closed” by the agency had high percentages of workers with “questionable” documents yet they faced no consequences.”
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.”
*
 “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
*
The California Budget Project, a liberal study group in Sacramento, brought the income squeeze down to the state level in its Labor Day analysis.
Using state tax data, the project said that the average adjusted gross income of all California taxpayers - whether filing individually or jointly - fell from $82,268 in 2000 to $68,434 in 2008, after adjusting for inflation. TOM ABATE SFGATE.com
*
OBAMA’S LA RAZA SEC. of ILLEGAL LABOR:
Labor secretary: Obama doing good job on economy

Monday, September 6, 2010
(09-06) 04:36 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is defending President Barack Obama's efforts to combat the recession and unemployment, saying his focus has been on helping the jobless and underemployed.
In a Labor Day appearance on ABC News'"Good Morning America," Solis said Obama is doing a good job.
Solis says the Obama administration knows people are hurting from the weak economy. She pointed to last year's $814 billion economic recovery act and administration proposals for job training and hiring incentives for businesses.
On CBS'"Early Show," she said that over the last eight months, the U.S. economy has added some 90,000 private sector jobs each month.
Critics have cited persistent unemployment rates of nearly 10 percent and only faint signs that businesses are rehiring workers.
*
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, a former California congresswoman with close ties to the influential La Raza movement, announced the “We Can Help” project with great fanfare a few days ago.”
FROM JUDICIAL WATCH. org – get on their emails!
Labor Dept. Helps Illegal Alien Workers
Last Updated: Tue, 04/06/2010 - 11:04am
The Department of Labor has launched a special program to assist and protect illegal immigrant workers in the U.S., referred to as “vulnerable” and “underpaid” by the presidential cabinet member who heads the agency.
Hundreds of new field investigators have been deployed to reach out to Latino laborers in areas with large numbers of illegal alien employees. Their message, in Spanish, is “we can help” bring workplace protections to the nation’s most vulnerable and underpaid workers, including those who have no legal right to live in the Untied States.

(THE OBAMA PLAN TO PUT ILLEGALS INTO OUR JOBS AND VOTING  BOOTHS!)
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, a former California congresswoman with close ties to the influential La Raza movement, announced the “We Can Help” project with great fanfare a few days ago. A total of 1,000 investigators from her agency will focus on enforcing labor and wage laws in industries that typically hire lots of illegal aliens without reporting anyone to federal immigration authorities.
(WHO WORKS FOR THE RIGHTFUL JOBS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS? WHO ENFORCES THE LAWS THAT PROHIBIT THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS, EVEN IF THEY HAVE A STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER? NOT THE LA RAZA DEMS, OR HISPANDERING BARACK OBAMA!)
Solis told Latino workers that “your president, your secretary of labor and this department will not allow anyone to be denied his or her rightful pay, especially when so many in our nation are working long, hard and often dangerous hours.” She assured illegal immigrants that “if you work in this country, you are protected by our laws.”
The same day Solis publicly announced the Obama Administration’s new project, a Labor Department investigator visited a day laborer center in northern California to promote it. The federal employee actually chatted warmly with the illegal immigrants about how to find jobs without being exploited, according to a local newspaper report. “We’re the feds but the good ones,” he told the day laborers in Spanish. “We’re here to help workers.”
The agency has also launched a Spanish television advertising campaign to spread the word and created a web site. Workers in industries from construction to food service are urged to contact the Labor Department of wage and hour violations. An investigator may be deployed to the work site or the employer may be taken to court.
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
OBAMA HAS FILLED HIS ADMINSTRATION WITH PRIMARILY LA RAZA PARTY MEMBERS.
Here’s his Sec. Labor, HILDA SOLIS:
While in Congress, she opposed strengthening the border fence, supported expansion of illegal alien benefits (including driver's licenses and in-state tuition discounts), embraced sanctuary cities that refused to cooperate with federal homeland security officials to enforce immigration laws, and aggressively championed a mass amnesty. Solis was steeped in the pro-illegal alien worker organizing movement in Southern California and was buoyed by amnesty-supporting Big Labor groups led by the Service Employees International Union. She has now caused a Capitol Hill firestorm over her new taxpayer-funded advertising and outreach campaign to illegal aliens regarding fair wages:
*

Michelle Malkin
The U.S. Department of Illegal Alien Labor
President Obama's Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is supposed to represent American workers. What you need to know is that this longtime open-borders sympathizer has always had a rather radical definition of "American." At a Latino voter registration project conference in Los Angeles many years ago, Solis asserted to thunderous applause, "We are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not."
That's right. The woman in charge of enforcing our employment laws doesn't give a hoot about our immigration laws -- or about the fundamental distinction between those who followed the rules in pursuit of the American dream and those who didn't.
While in Congress, she opposed strengthening the border fence, supported expansion of illegal alien benefits (including driver's licenses and in-state tuition discounts), embraced sanctuary cities that refused to cooperate with federal homeland security officials to enforce immigration laws, and aggressively championed a mass amnesty. Solis was steeped in the pro-illegal alien worker organizing movement in Southern California and was buoyed by amnesty-supporting Big Labor groups led by the Service Employees International Union. She has now caused a Capitol Hill firestorm over her new taxpayer-funded advertising and outreach campaign to illegal aliens regarding fair wages:
"I'm here to tell you that your president, your secretary of labor and this department will not allow anyone to be denied his or her rightful pay -- especially when so many in our nation are working long, hard and often dangerous hours," Solis says in the video pitch. "We can help, and we will help. If you work in this country, you are protected by our laws. And you can count on the U.S. Department of Labor to see to it that those protections work for you."
To be sure, no one should be scammed out of "fair wages." Employers that hire and exploit illegal immigrant workers deserve full sanctions and punishment. But it's the timing, tone-deafness and underlying blanket amnesty agenda of Solis' illegal alien outreach that has so many American workers and their representatives on Capitol Hill rightly upset.
With double-digit unemployment and a growing nationwide revolt over Washington's border security failures, why has Solis chosen now to hire 250 new government field investigators to bolster her illegal alien workers' rights campaign? (Hint: Leftists unhappy with Obama's lack of progress on "comprehensive immigration reform" need appeasing. This is a quick bone to distract them.)
Unfortunately, the federal government is not alone in lavishing attention and resources on workers who shouldn't be here in the first place. As of 2008, California, Florida, Nevada, New York, Texas and Utah all expressly included illegal aliens in their state workers' compensation plans -- and more than a dozen other states implicitly cover them.
Solis' public service announcement comes on the heels of little-noticed but far more troubling comments encouraging illegal alien workers in the Gulf Coast. Earlier this month, in the aftermath of the BP oil spill, according to Spanish language publication El Diario La Prensa, Solis signaled that her department was going out of its way to shield illegal immigrant laborers involved in cleanup efforts. "My purpose is to assist the workers with respect to safety and protection," she said. "We're protecting all workers regardless of migration status because that's the federal law." She told reporters that her department was in talks with local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials who had visited coastal worksites to try to verify that workers were legal.
No word yet on whether she gave ICE her "we are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not" lecture. But it's a safe bet.
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
From the above blog, email articles to those concerned about Obama’s endless push for amnesty.
FAIRUS.org
JUDICIAL WATCH.org
ALIPAC.us
*
WE ARE MEXICO’S WELFARE and PRISON SYSTEMS!
“Mexico’s government has provided its nationals with valuable tools to help them cross the border safely but Dominguez is the first American resident, with a salary provided by U.S. taxpayers, to openly promote such a gadget. A few years ago Mexican officials published a 32-page booklet (Guia Del Migrante Mexicano) with safety tips for border crossers and distributed hand-held satellite devices to ensure the violators complete their journey safely.”
OBAMA’S AMERICA: Open & Undefended Borders!
“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”

*
Obama Administration Challenges Arizona E-Verify Law
The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to strike down a 2007 Arizona law that punishes employers who hire illegal aliens, a law enacted by then-Governor Janet Napolitano.  (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief).  Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law requires all employers in Arizona to use E-Verify and provides that the business licenses of those who hire illegal workers shall be repealed.  From the date of enactment, the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest groups have been trying to undo it, attacking it through a failed ballot initiative and also through a lawsuit. Now the Chamber is asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case (Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria), and the Obama Administration is weighing in against the law.
To date, Arizona’s E-Verify law has been upheld by all lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, viewed it as an exercise of a state’s traditional power to regulate businesses.  (San Francisco Chronicle, June 2, 2010).  Obama’s Justice Department, however, disagrees. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in his filing with the Supreme Court that the lower courts were wrong to uphold the statute because federal immigration law expressly preempts any state law imposing sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants.  Mr. Katyal argues that this is not a licensing law, but “a statute that prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens and uses suspension and revocation of all state-issued licenses as its ultimate sanction.”  (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief, p. 10).  This is the administration’s first court challenge to a state’s authority to act against illegal immigration, and could be a preview of the battle brewing over Arizona’s recent illegal immigration crackdown through SB 1070. 
Napolitano has made no comment on the Department of Justice’s decision to challenge the 2007 law, but federal officials said that she has taken an active part in the debate over whether to do so. (Politico, May 28, 2010).   As Governor of Arizona, Napolitano said she believed the state law was valid and became a defendant in the many lawsuits against it. (Id.).
*

Obama soft on illegals enforcement


Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold.
*
Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)


*
OBAMA PUT A LA RAZA SUPREMACIST IN AS SEC. OF LABOR TO ASSURE ILLEGALS GET OUR JOBS FIRST!

“Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, a former California congresswoman with close ties to the influential La Raza movement, announced the “We Can Help” project with great fanfare a few days ago.”


*
If job creation is the goal, make E-Verify mandatory

By Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) - 06/14/11 04:30 PM ET

In a speech delivered during a campaign fundraising trip to Texas last month, President Obama called for Congress to approve comprehensive immigration reform, also known as "amnesty." Meanwhile, the president and his administration claim that putting unemployed Americans back to work is their No. 1 priority.

But these two goals cannot be met simultaneously. The president cannot say on one hand that he wants to create jobs and on the other that he wants to legalize millions of illegal immigrants.

Amnesty prevents Americans from getting jobs, since millions of illegal immigrants will become eligible to work legally in the United States. The president's proposal to legalize millions of illegal immigrants means more competition for American workers who are in need of jobs.

Look at history to see how amnesty has played out in the past. In 1986, Congress legalized about 3 million illegal immigrants. It didn't fix the problem; it only made it worse. Today, there are more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., and 7 million people work here illegally. At the same time, 26 million Americans are unemployed or have given up looking for work.

It is inexcusable that Americans and legal workers have to compete with illegal immigrants for scarce jobs. Rather than reward lawbreakers, we should put American workers first.

Fortunately, there is a free, quick and easy tool available to preserve jobs for legal workers: E-Verify. But the program is currently voluntary. Congress has the opportunity to expand E-Verify so more job opportunities are made available to unemployed Americans. There is no other legislation that can be enacted that will create more jobs -- maybe millions more -- for American workers.

Created in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, E-Verify is a Web-based system that allows employers to electronically verify the work eligibility of newly hired employees.

Under E-Verify, the Social Security numbers of new hires are checked against Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security records to weed out fraudulent numbers and help ensure that new hires are legally authorized to work in the U.S.

Even though E-Verify is not mandatory, more than 250,000 businesses willingly use E-Verify and 1,300 new businesses sign up each week. Individuals eligible to work receive immediate confirmation 99.5 percent of the time.

Unlike amnesty, E-Verify has received overwhelming bipartisan support since its creation as a pilot program in 1996. It was extended in 2002, 2008 and 2010. In 2008, the House passed a standalone five-year extension of E-Verify by a vote of 407-2. And in 2009, the Senate passed a permanent E-Verify extension by voice vote.

Part of the success of E-Verify is that participating employers are happy with the results. Outside evaluations have found that the vast majority of employers using E-Verify believe it to be an effective and reliable tool for checking the legal status of their employees.

And E-Verify recently received an exceptionally high overall customer satisfaction score -- 82 out of 100 on the American Customer Satisfaction Index scale. That is well above the overall federal government satisfaction index of 69.

The American people also support E-Verify. A May 2011 Rasmussen poll found that 82 percent of likely voters think businesses should be required to use the federal government's E-Verify system to determine if a potential employee is in the country legally.

And a 2010 Zogby poll of minorities commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies found that 88 percent of likely minority voters polled support reducing the illegal immigrant population over time by enforcing existing immigration laws, such as requiring employers to verify the legal status of their workers.

With millions of citizens and legal workers looking for work, it is important that we promote policies that increase job opportunities for Americans and legal immigrants. Amnesty undermines this goal, but making E-Verify mandatory helps achieve it.

As long as opportunities for illegal employment exist, the incentive to enter the United States illegally or to overstay visas will continue.

If job creation is the president's priority, then he should push Congress to pass mandatory E-Verify legislation. We cannot sit and hope that businesses hire only legal workers; hope is not a strategy. E-Verify is our best tool for reducing the jobs magnet and creating more jobs for American workers.

Smith is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.


Source:
http://thehill.com/special-reports/immigration-june-2011/166421-if-job-creation-is-the-goal-make-e-verify-mandatory


*
*
OBAMA’S LA RAZA IN THE WHITE HOUSE, CECILIA MUNOZ:


*
CECILIA MUNOZ IS ONE OF OBAMA’S MANY LA RAZA SUPREMACIST OPERATING OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. NO ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY HAS BEEN SO INFESTED WITH A FOREIGN BASED POLITICAL PARTY AS OBAMA’S.
THE FASTEST GROWING POLITICAL PARTY IN AMERICAN IS THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA – THE PARTY of ILLEGALS AND MEXICAN SUPREMACY. THEIR GOAL IS OBAMA AMNESTY OR CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT, NO E-VERIFY, OPEN BORDERS AND DE FACTO CITIZENSHIPS WITH DRIVERS’ LICENSES!
VIVA LA RAZA! YOU ARE! OBAMA HAS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED THE FUNDING TO EXPAND MEXICAN SUPREMACY IN OUR BORDERS!

On Thursday, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Muñoz blogged that the Department of Homeland Security will review its entire deportation caseload - that's 300,000 cases - to "clear out low priority" cases and "make more room to deport people who have been convicted of crimes or pose a security risk."


*

Obama's lowest priority: some deportation cases

Tuesday, August 23, 2011
President Obama is in a pickle. Immigration enforcement actually is working - or, at least, it was working.
Under the Obama administration, the government has removed almost 400,000 illegal immigrants annually. That's 4 percent of the 10 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in America - and it sends a warning to those thinking of illegally entering the United States.
Thanks to the Secure Communities program, which requires local law enforcement to share arrestees' fingerprints with Washington, about half of those deported have criminal records. According to the administration, the vast majority of the rest either re-crossed the border after deportation or were recently caught.
So what did the White House announce last week? On Thursday, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Muñoz blogged that the Department of Homeland Security will review its entire deportation caseload - that's 300,000 cases - to "clear out low priority" cases and "make more room to deport people who have been convicted of crimes or pose a security risk."
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told the New York Times that the policy would protect youths with clean criminal records whose parents brought them into the country when they were minors. That is, he likened the Obama policy to his proposed legislation, the Dream (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act.
Actually, the Obama policy goes much further than shielding minors. Under the guise of "prosecutorial discretion," a Department of Homeland Security memo advises officials to consider a number of "positive factors" before prosecuting offenders. "Positive factors" include military service, "long-time lawful permanent" residency, "minors and elderly individuals," nursing, pregnant and disabled.
On the one hand, the policy seems smart - let the government concentrate on deporting threats to public safety.
On the other hand, the White House essentially has announced that individuals who break federal immigration law are a "low priority" and unlikely to face legal consequences. So much for deterrence.
Worse, the new policy will allow individuals who have been caught up in a Secure Communities' review to apply for work permits. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the pro-enforcement Center for Immigration Studies, said that the new policy makes getting arrested equivalent to winning the lottery: "Their fellow illegal aliens who were not arrested don't get work authorization."
Krikorian calls the new policy "administrative amnesty." Obama failed to persuade Congress to change the law. Now with the 2012 presidential election looming, he changed policies implemented in the Clinton and George W. Bush years by fiat.
Bush's Secure Communities program enabled Obama to boast that his administration delivered the greatest number of illegal immigrant removals ever - 395,165 - in Fiscal Year 2009. In 2010, the number fell. Last month, he told the National Council of La Raza, "Here's the only thing you should know. The Democrats and your president are with you."
Re-election, after all, is his highest priority.

*
FROM JUDICIAL WATCH
GET ON THEIR E-NEWS!
Obama Starts Suspending Deportations
Last Updated: Tue, 08/23/2011 - 4:14pm
Keeping its promise to suspend deportations for a broad class of illegal immigrants, the Obama Administration has officially started the process that’s expected to spare tens of thousands from removal in the coming months.
Among the first illegal aliens to benefit from the president’s backdoor amnesty plan is a Mexican man living in Florida. He got busted a few years ago after applying for a work permit and was earmarked for deportation. Earlier this month local media portrayed the man, Manuel Guerra, as a desperate undocumented worker trying to build a new life after fleeing violent street gangs in his native Mexico.   
This week the 27-year-old, who has lived in the U.S. illegally for more than a decade, became the poster child for Obama’s newly implemented amnesty program. Federal immigration authorities officially suspended his deportation, according a mainstream newspaper report that says Guerra had been caught in a “tortuous and seemingly failing five-year court fight against deportation.”
Guerra was spared after a working group from the departments of Homeland Security and Justice met to start reviewing 300,000 deportation cases pending before immigration courts nationwide. Under Obama’s new plan, authorities will have wide discretion to halt deportations and will be encouraged to do so in cases where illegal immigrants attend school, have family in the military or are primary bread winners.  
The stealth amnesty plan was first introduced last year in case Congress doesn’t pass legislation to legalize the nation’s 12 million undocumented immigrants. Earlier this year political appointees at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), actually issued a directive to enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.” The plan includes delaying deportation indefinitely (“deferred action”), granting green cards, allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. indefinitely while they seek legal status (known as “parole in place”) and expanding the definition of “extreme hardships” so any illegal alien could meet the criteria and remain in the country.
This goes hand in hand with the president’s new blueprint for immigration reform, which was recently issued by the White House. Titled “Building A 21st Century Immigration System,” the plan strives to strengthen the U.S. economy and “competitiveness” by creating a legal immigration system that reflects the nation’s “values and diverse needs.” After all, it claims that the “overwhelming majority” of people living in the U.S. with “no legal status” are “simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children.”
The president’s new plan, which has already allocated $8 million to community groups that operate immigrant “integrational programs,” also expands “anti discrimination provisions of immigration law” and provides more “comprehensive anti-retaliation protections.”
 *

 FROM JUDICIAL WATCH
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/jun/nclr-funding-skyrockets-after-obama-hires-its-vp

NCLR Funding Skyrockets After Obama Hires Its VP
06/17/2011
A Judicial Watch investigation reveals that federal funding for a Mexican La Raza group that for years has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars has skyrocketed since one of its top officials got a job in the Obama White House.
The influential and politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has long benefitted from Uncle Sam's largess but the group has made a killing since Obama hired its senior vice president (Cecilia Muñoz) in 2009 to be his director of intergovernmental affairs.
Ignored by the mainstream media, Judicial Watch covered the appointment because the president issued a special "ethics waiver" to bring Muñoz aboard since it violated his own lobbyist ban. At the pro illegal immigration NCLR, Muñoz supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels and she was heavily involved in the congressional immigration battles that took place in the George W. Bush Administration.
She also brought in a steady flow of government cash that's allowed the Washington D.C.-based group to expand nationwide and promote its leftist, open-borders agenda via a network of community organizations dedicated to serving Latinos.Among them are a variety of local groups that provide social services, housing counseling and farm worker assistance as well as publicly-funded charter schools that promote radical Chicano curriculums. Judicial Watch published a special report on this a few years ago.
This week a JW probe has uncovered details of the alarming increase in federal funding that these NCLR groups have received since Muñoz joined the Obama Administration. In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million.
Not surprisingly, a big chunk of the money (60%) came from the Department of Labor, which is headed by a former California congresswoman (Hilda Solis) with close ties to the La Raza movement. Since Obama named her Labor Secretary, Solis has launched a nationwide campaign to protect illegal immigrant workers in the U.S. Just this week Solis penned declarations with Guatemala and Nicaragua to preserve the rights of their migrants.
The NCLR also received additional taxpayer dollars from other federal agencies in 2010, the JW probe found. The Department of Housing and Urban Development doled out $2.5 million for housing counseling, the Department of Education contributed nearly $800,000 and the Centers for Disease Control a quarter of a million.
Additionally, NCLR affiliates nationwide raked in tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars last year thanks to the Muñoz factor. An offshoot called Chicanos Por La Causa (CPLC) saw its federal funding nearly double to $18.3 million following Muñoz' appointment.
A social service and legal assistance organization (Ayuda Inc.) that didn't receive any federal funding between 2005 and 2008 got $600,000 in 2009 and $548,000 in 2010 from the Department of Justice. The group provides immigration law services and guarantees confidentiality to assure illegal aliens that they won't be reported to authorities.
 *
SHOCKING FACTS ON OBAMA’S FUNDING OF THE MEXICAN SUPREMACIST MOVEMENT OF LA RAZA
*
*

*
*
OBAMA’S I.C.E. IS ONE MORE AGENCY TO EXPAND HIS  LA RAZA PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS!
ICE IS OBAMA’S AGENCY FOR NON-ENFORCEMENT.
*

*
ACTUALLY, WHAT OBAMA REALLY MEANS WE ARE A NATION OPEN TO FURTHER INVASION, OCCUPATION AND LA RAZA SUPREMACY IN ORDER TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED FOR HIS WALL ST. PAYMASTERS!
THERE IS A REASON WHY OBAMA HAS SABOTAGED E-VERIFY!

THERE IS A REASON WHY OBAMA USES TAX DOLLARS TO FUND THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA (google CECELIA MUNOZ)
THERE IS A REASON WHY OBAMA’S SEC. of (illegal) LABOR IS LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILDA SOLIS!

OBAMA’S I.C.E. IS ONE MORE AGENCY TO EXPAND HIS  LA RAZA PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS!

WILL THERE BE A WAR WITH MEXICO?
THERE ALREADY IS! THE MEX DRUG CARTELS OPERATE IN 2,500 AMERICAN CITIES AND HAUL BACK $60 BILLION. THERE ARE 38 MILLION MEXICANS IN OUR BORDERS LOOTING OUR JOBS, WELFARE, AND VOTING FOR MORE LA RAZA DEMS TO SERVICE THEM!
VIVA LA RAZA? PUSH 2 FOR ENGLISH AND TELL ME!


*
They claim all of North America for Mexico!

WHAT IS THERE TO SAY ABOUT AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT THAT HAS CONTEMPT FOR OUR BORDERS AND EVEN SABOTAGES THEM TO BUILD HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS, HAS CONTEMPT FOR OUR SOVEREIGNTY LAWS, SABOTAGES E-VERIFY TO ASSURE ILLEGALS GET OUR JOBS, FIGHTS AGAINST VOTER I.D. TO ASSURE ILLEGALS EASY ACCESS (again) TO OUR VOTING, AND SUES FOUR AMERICAN STATES ON BEHALF OF HIS LA RAZA AGENDA?????
NO ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY IS AS INFESTED WITH A FOREIGN POLITICAL PARTY AS OBAMA’S IS WITH LA RAZA SUPREMACIST PARTY!
NO PRESIDENT HAS HANDED SO MUCH  TAX PAYER FUNDING TO A FOREIGN PARTY AS OBAMA HAS IN FUNDING THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA!
The Obama administration’s campaign to suspend the deportations of most illegal aliens has been subject to intense scrutiny since 2010, when the press uncovered a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services memo that contemplated various “administrative alternatives” to bypass Congress and implement stealth amnesty for illegal aliens. A subsequent Houston Chronicle story exposed an effort by the administration to suspend the deportations of illegal aliens who supposedly have not been convicted of any “serious” crimes.
*
– including the dismissal of charges against illegal alien criminals convicted of violent crimes.
*
“The court’s ruling shows the secrecy games by the Obama DHS. Clearly the Obama administration wants to obscure the truth about its lawless illegal alien deportation policy.
*
“The court’s ruling shows the secrecy games by the Obama DHS. Clearly the Obama administration wants to obscure the truth about its lawless illegal alien deportation policy.
*
The tough and outspoken president of the National ICE Council, Chris Crane, has opposed many of the president’s strategies, arguing that Obama’s policies force ICE officials to disregard the law.
In separate statements, officials from the border patrol agents union have also criticized Obama's immigration and border security policies.
On one occasion, while testifying before the House Judiciary subcommittee, Crane accused Obama of pandering to Latino groups for political gain.
“Law enforcement and public safety have taken a back seat to attempts to satisfy immigrant advocacy groups,” Crane told the panel of congressmen.

*
COURT CRITICIZES OBAMA DHS ON STEALTH AMNESTY DOCUMENT

By NWV News Writer Jim Kouri
February 6, 2012
© 2012 NewsWithViews.com
A watchdog group that investigates, exposes and prosecutes government corruption announced Thursday that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling criticizing President Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to abide by Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law.
According to Jill Farrell, Director of Public Affairs for Judicial Watch, JW officials filed their original FOIA request with DHS on August 30, 2010, and then followed up with a lawsuit on March 23, 2011, after the DHS stonewalled the release of records.
The Obama administration filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit on August 4, 2011, asking the court to terminate the watchdog group’s lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted DHS’s motion regarding some select records, but also denied the motion in part and chastised the agency for its inadequate explanations as to why it was withholding certain documents:
Regarding assertions of attorney-client privilege, the court listed a series of “egregious” examples demonstrating DHS’s unwillingness to specify reasons for exempting documents from disclosure and concluded, “In the end, DHS’s generalized and non-specific showing fails to satisfy the court that the attorney-client privilege has been properly invoked in connection with the information withheld from Judicial Watch.”
The court drew a similar conclusion regarding memoranda and communications that DHS was withholding pursuant to the attorney work product privilege, which protects materials “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative.” The court ruled: “Absent a more particularized showing from DHS, the Court cannot conclude that DHS has applied the appropriate standard in this case…”
Regarding the deliberative process privilege, which protects “documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising a part of the process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote, “The Court agrees with Judicial Watch that DHS has failed to provide sufficient factual context for much of the information withheld under the deliberative process privilege to allow the Court to conclude that the privilege has been properly invoked.”

Although the court had the ability to force disclosure under these circumstances, Judge Kollar-Kotelly allowed DHS one “final” opportunity to establish the applicability of these privileges to the information withheld from Judicial Watch.
The Obama administration’s campaign to suspend the deportations of most illegal aliens has been subject to intense scrutiny since 2010, when the press uncovered a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services memo that contemplated various “administrative alternatives” to bypass Congress and implement stealth amnesty for illegal aliens. A subsequent Houston Chronicle story exposed an effort by the administration to suspend the deportations of illegal aliens who supposedly have not been convicted of any “serious” crimes.
Documents previously uncovered by Judicial Watch show that DHS officials misled Congress and the public about the scope of the immigration enforcement policy change, which gave wide latitude to local immigration officials to dismiss illegal alien deportation cases – including the dismissal of charges against illegal alien criminals convicted of violent crimes. The Obama administration announced recently that it would effectively halt any enforcement actions (on an alleged “case-by-case” basis) against any illegal alien who has not committed any other “serious” crimes.
“The court’s ruling shows the secrecy games by the Obama DHS. Clearly the Obama administration wants to obscure the truth about its lawless illegal alien deportation policy. The Obama DHS believes it should be able to withhold records from the American people without explanation or justification. We’re pleased the court would not allow DHS to continue its contempt for FOIA law. We look forward to continuing our legal pursuit of these records,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Illegal Deportation Actions by Obama Administration
Aspart of President Barack Obama's "new immigration and deportation strategy," all U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers must complete a training program that stresses removing high-risk offenders while at the same time forgo the deportation of illegal immigrants with clean records and strong ties to their communities, said the ICE officers' union officials on Friday.
According to federal law enforcement officials, a majority of ICE’s commanding officers and prosecuting attorneys have completed the training seminar, but the National ICE Council, which represents agency’s more than 6,000 immigration officers, has not allowed its members to enroll in the new training program.
The tough and outspoken president of the National ICE Council, Chris Crane, has opposed many of the president’s strategies, arguing that Obama’s policies force ICE officials to disregard the law.
In separate statements, officials from the border patrol agents union have also criticized Obama's immigration and border security policies.
On one occasion, while testifying before the House Judiciary subcommittee, Crane accused Obama of pandering to Latino groups for political gain.
“Law enforcement and public safety have taken a back seat to attempts to satisfy immigrant advocacy groups,” Crane told the panel of congressmen.
*
“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”

THE LA RAZA PRESIDENT’S SABOTAGE OF OUR COUNTRY’S BORDERS FOR ILLEGALS’ VOTES!

*
“PUNISH OUR ENEMIES”… does that mean assault the legals of Arizona that must fend off the Mexican invasion, occupation, growing criminal and welfare state, as well as Mex Drug cartels???

OBAMA TELLS ILLEGALS “PUNISH OUR ENEMIES”
Friends of ALIPAC,

Each day new reports come in from across the nation that our movement is surging and more incumbents, mostly Democrats, are about to fall on Election Day. Obama's approval ratings are falling to new lows as he makes highly inappropriate statements to Spanish language audiences asking illegal alien supporters to help him "punish our enemies."


*
“While the declining job market in the United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as drug-smuggling “mules.”

*
As the liberal news media, far-left Democrats, and labor unions push for the “Hispanicazation” of U.S. culture, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says the U.S. border has never been more secure.

*
HISPANDERING LA RAZA ENDORSED HILLARY BLAMES AMERICAN AGAIN FOR MEX INVASION SHE AND BILLARY HELPED CREATE!

In Mexico City, she announced that the U.S. appetite for illegal drugs and the easy acquisition of guns from the United States by Mexicans are the root causes of the Mexican crime wave. “Blame America” has become the global agenda of the Democratic Party.


*
Newsmax
Obama's 'Hispanicazation' of America

Monday, January 10, 2011 08:28 AM
By: James Walsh
Casting a shadow on economic recovery efforts in the United States is the cost of illegal immigration that consumes U.S. taxpayer dollars for education, healthcare, social welfare benefits, and criminal justice. Illegal aliens (or more politically correct, “undocumented immigrants”) with ties to Mexican drug cartels are contributing to death and destruction on U.S. lands along the southern border.

While the declining job market in the United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as drug-smuggling “mules.”

Increasingly vicious foot soldiers of the Mexican drug cartels are taking control of U.S. lands along the border, especially since U.S. Border Patrol units have been reassigned, some to offices 60 to 80 miles inland.

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) early last year posted signs warning citizens to avoid Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, Ariz., because of criminal activity in the area, an area that includes protected natural areas precious to the nation.

In reaction to public outrage over the signs, the BLM removed the offensive wording in October 2010, replacing it with the following: Visitor Information Update—Active Federal Law Enforcement Patrol Area.

As the liberal news media, far-left Democrats, and labor unions push for the “Hispanicazation” of U.S. culture, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says the U.S. border has never been more secure.

Perhaps she is basing this on the reduced number of apprehensions, which result, of course, from reassigning Border Patrol agents inland.

In a recent New York Times article, Nicholas Kristof criticized U.S. citizens for not speaking a foreign language and suggested that “Every child in the United States should learn Spanish.” He concluded that as the United States increasingly integrates economically with Latin America, Spanish will be crucial for the United States.

For decades, the liberal left has argued that Latin America is essential for U.S. business and trade. Kristof states that Latin America “is finally getting its act together” but fails to mention the Obama administration’s $2 billion loan of U.S. taxpayer money in 2009 to Brazil’s Petrobras oil company for deep off-shore oil drilling. Obama confidant George Soros, through the Soros Fund Management LLC, until recently owned millions of dollars of Petrobras stock.

Kristof suggests that one day Spanish-speaking Americans will be part of daily life in the United States and that workmen such as mechanics will be able to communicate easily with Spanish-speaking customers.

He fails to explain why these customers will not be speaking English. After all, the ability to speak, read, and write English remains a requirement for U.S. citizenship.

President Barack Obama gives lip service to increasing border control resources with limited funding and personnel. Many officials, including the governors of Texas and Arizona, are skeptical regarding the Obama administration’s resolve. They resent that the United States is being blamed for the killing fields on both sides of the Mexico-U.S. Border.

For instance, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March 2009, during her first official visit to Mexico, placed the blame for the Mexican drug cartels’ vicious murders on the United States.

In Mexico City, she announced that the U.S. appetite for illegal drugs and the easy acquisition of guns from the United States by Mexicans are the root causes of the Mexican crime wave. “Blame America” has become the global agenda of the Democratic Party.

The Obama administration’s plan to resolve the immigration chaos is to offer amnesty to all comers. President Obama re-affirms his support of a “pathway to citizenship” (amnesty) for illegal aliens in 2011.

The administration, however, has announced no plans to control the influx of future waves of illegal aliens or their skyrocketing costs to the nation. The administration, which condones U.S. sanctuary cities and states, has no plans to file charges against them for violations of federal immigration law. Nor does the administration seem concerned about the environmental impact that illegal aliens have on the ecology of the United States.

Many national forests, parks, monuments, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges — once the pride of the nation — are serving today as marijuana fields for illegal alien gangs.

Former Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi reportedly said to a gathering of illegal aliens in California in 2009 that U.S. immigration laws were “un-American,” suggesting that they need not be obeyed. Concerned citizens can only trust that the new speaker of the House, John Boehner, as part of congressional oversight of federal agencies, will demand enforcement of existing immigration laws.

When will President Obama recognize that illegal immigration is slowing economic recovery? Can he resolve the chaos while still appeasing his Hispanic base?

To maintain his populist aura, the president is in the habit of saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another.

One Obama apologist explained, “Campaign rhetoric is one thing,” suggesting that governing is another. The deliberate Hispanicazation of the United States to secure a block of votes is quite another.

*

THE ARTICLE BELOW WAS PUBLISHED IN 2006. SINCE THAT DATE MILLIONS MORE ILLEGALS HAVE CLIMBED OVER OUR BORDERS AND INTO OUR JOBS. THEN THEY HAND US THE TAX BILLS FOR THEIR WELFARE AND “FREE” ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING!
CA ALONE PAYS OUT $20 BILLION A YEAR IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS!

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com


City Journal
How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy

A handful of industries get low-cost labor, and the taxpayers foot the bill.
Steven Malanga
Summer 2006
The day after Librado Velasquez arrived on Staten Island after a long, surreptitious journey from his Chiapas, Mexico, home, he headed out to a street corner to wait with other illegal immigrants looking for work. Velasquez, who had supported his wife, seven kids, and his in-laws as a campesino, or peasant farmer, until a 1998 hurricane devastated his farm, eventually got work, off the books, loading trucks at a small New Jersey factory, which hired illegals for jobs that required few special skills. The arrangement suited both, until a work injury sent Velasquez to the local emergency room, where federal law required that he be treated, though he could not afford to pay for his care. After five operations, he is now permanently disabled and has remained in the United States to pursue compensation claims.
“I do not have the use of my leg without walking with a cane, and I do not have strength in my arm in order to lift things,” Velasquez said through an interpreter at New York City Council hearings. “I have no other way to live except if I receive some other type of compensation. I need help, and I thought maybe my son could come and work here and support me here in the United States.”
Velasquez’s story illustrates some of the fault lines in the nation’s current, highly charged, debate on immigration. Since the mid-1960s, America has welcomed nearly 30 million legal immigrants and received perhaps another 15 million illegals, numbers unprecedented in our history. These immigrants have picked our fruit, cleaned our homes, cut our grass, worked in our factories, and washed our cars. But they have also crowded into our hospital emergency rooms, schools, and government-subsidized aid programs, sparking a fierce debate about their contributions to our society and the costs they impose on it.
Advocates of open immigration argue that welcoming the Librado Velasquezes of the world is essential for our American economy: our businesses need workers like him, because we have a shortage of people willing to do low-wage work. Moreover, the free movement of labor in a global economy pays off for the United States, because immigrants bring skills and capital that expand our economy and offset immigration’s costs. Like tax cuts, supporters argue, immigration pays for itself.
But the tale of Librado Velasquez helps show why supporters are wrong about today’s immigration, as many Americans sense and so much research has demonstrated. America does not have a vast labor shortage that requires waves of low-wage immigrants to alleviate; in fact, unemployment among unskilled workers is high—about 30 percent. Moreover, many of the unskilled, uneducated workers now journeying here labor, like Velasquez, in shrinking industries, where they force out native workers, and many others work in industries where the availability of cheap workers has led businesses to suspend investment in new technologies that would make them less labor-intensive.
Yet while these workers add little to our economy, they come at great cost, because they are not economic abstractions but human beings, with their own culture and ideas—often at odds with our own. Increasing numbers of them arrive with little education and none of the skills necessary to succeed in a modern economy. Many may wind up stuck on our lowest economic rungs, where they will rely on something that immigrants of other generations didn’t have: a vast U.S. welfare and social-services apparatus that has enormously amplified the cost of immigration. Just as welfare reform and other policies are helping to shrink America’s underclass by weaning people off such social programs, we are importing a new, foreign-born underclass. As famed free-market economist Milton Friedman puts it: “It’s just obvious that you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.”
Immigration can only pay off again for America if we reshape our policy, organizing it around what’s good for the economy by welcoming workers we truly need and excluding those who, because they have so little to offer, are likely to cost us more than they contribute, and who will struggle for years to find their place here.
Hampering today’s immigration debate are our misconceptions about the so-called first great migration some 100 years ago, with which today’s immigration is often compared. We envision that first great migration as a time when multitudes of Emma Lazarus’s “tired,” “poor,” and “wretched refuse” of Europe’s shores made their way from destitution to American opportunity. Subsequent studies of American immigration with titles like The Uprooted convey the same impression of the dispossessed and displaced swarming here to find a new life. If America could assimilate 24 million mostly desperate immigrants from that great migration—people one unsympathetic economist at the turn of the twentieth century described as “the unlucky, the thriftless, the worthless”—surely, so the story goes, today’s much bigger and richer country can absorb the millions of Librado Velasquezes now venturing here.
But that argument distorts the realities of the first great migration. Though fleeing persecution or economic stagnation in their homelands, that era’s immigrants—Jewish tailors and seamstresses who helped create New York’s garment industry, Italian stonemasons and bricklayers who helped build some of our greatest buildings, German merchants, shopkeepers, and artisans—all brought important skills with them that fit easily into the American economy. Those waves of immigrants—many of them urban dwellers who crossed a continent and an ocean to get here—helped supercharge the workforce at a time when the country was going through a transformative economic expansion that craved new workers, especially in its cities. A 1998 National Research Council report noted “that the newly arriving immigrant nonagricultural work force . . . was (slightly) more skilled than the resident American labor force”: 27 percent of them were skilled laborers, compared with only 17 percent of that era’s native-born workforce.
Many of these immigrants quickly found a place in our economy, participating in the workforce at a higher rate even than the native population. Their success at finding work sent many of them quickly up the economic ladder: those who stayed in America for at least 15 years, for instance, were just as likely to own their own business as native-born workers of the same age, one study found. Another study found that their American-born children were just as likely to be accountants, engineers, or lawyers as Americans whose families had been here for generations.
What the newcomers of the great migration did not find here was a vast social-services and welfare state. They had to rely on their own resources or those of friends, relatives, or private, often ethnic, charities if things did not go well. That’s why about 70 percent of those who came were men in their prime. It’s also why many of them left when the economy sputtered several times during the period. For though one often hears that restrictive anti-immigration legislation starting with the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 ended the first great migration, what really killed it was the crash of the American economy. Even with the 1920s quotas, America welcomed some 4.1 million immigrants, but in the Depression of the 1930s, the number of foreign immigrants tumbled far below quota levels, to 500,000. With America’s streets no longer paved with gold, and without access to the New Deal programs for native-born Americans, immigrants not only stopped coming, but some 60 percent of those already here left in a great remigration home.
Today’s immigration has turned out so differently in part because it emerged out of the 1960s civil rights and Great Society mentality. In 1965, a new immigration act eliminated the old system of national quotas, which critics saw as racist because it greatly favored European nations. Lawmakers created a set of broader immigration quotas for each hemisphere, and they added a new visa preference category for family members to join their relatives here. Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy reassured the country that, “contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants,” and “it will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
But, in fact, the law had an immediate, dramatic effect, increasing immigration by 60 percent in its first ten years. Sojourners from poorer countries around the rest of the world arrived in ever-greater numbers, so that whereas half of immigrants in the 1950s had originated from Europe, 75 percent by the 1970s were from Asia and Latin America. And as the influx of immigrants grew, the special-preferences rule for family unification intensified it further, as the pool of eligible family members around the world also increased. Legal immigration to the U.S. soared from 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s.
As the floodgates of legal immigration opened, the widening economic gap between the United States and many of its neighbors also pushed illegal immigration to levels that America had never seen. In particular, when Mexico’s move to a more centralized, state-run economy in the 1970s produced hyperinflation, the disparity between its stagnant economy and U.S. prosperity yawned wide. Mexico’s per-capita gross domestic product, 37 percent of the United States’ in the early 1980s, was only 27 percent of it by the end of the decade—and is now just 25 percent of it. With Mexican farmworkers able to earn seven to ten times as much in the United States as at home, by the 1980s illegals were pouring across our border at the rate of about 225,000 a year, and U.S. sentiment rose for slowing the flow.
But an unusual coalition of business groups, unions, civil rights activists, and church leaders thwarted the call for restrictions with passage of the inaptly named 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized some 2.7 million unauthorized aliens already here, supposedly in exchange for tougher penalties and controls against employers who hired illegals. The law proved no deterrent, however, because supporters, in subsequent legislation and court cases argued on civil rights grounds, weakened the employer sanctions. Meanwhile, more illegals flooded here in the hope of future amnesties from Congress, while the newly legalized sneaked their wives and children into the country rather than have them wait for family-preference visas. The flow of illegals into the country rose to between 300,000 and 500,000 per year in the 1990s, so that a decade after the legislation that had supposedly solved the undocumented alien problem by reclassifying them as legal, the number of illegals living in the United States was back up to about 5 million, while today it’s estimated at between 9 million and 13 million.
The flood of immigrants, both legal and illegal, from countries with poor, ill-educated populations, has yielded a mismatch between today’s immigrants and the American economy and has left many workers poorly positioned to succeed for the long term. Unlike the immigrants of 100 years ago, whose skills reflected or surpassed those of the native workforce at the time, many of today’s arrivals, particularly the more than half who now come from Central and South America, are farmworkers in their home countries who come here with little education or even basic training in blue-collar occupations like carpentry or machinery. (A century ago, farmworkers made up 35 percent of the U.S. labor force, compared with the under 2 percent who produce a surplus of food today.) Nearly two-thirds of Mexican immigrants, for instance, are high school dropouts, and most wind up doing either unskilled factory work or small-scale construction projects, or they work in service industries, where they compete for entry-level jobs against one another, against the adult children of other immigrants, and against native-born high school dropouts. Of the 15 industries employing the greatest percentage of foreign-born workers, half are low-wage service industries, including gardening, domestic household work, car washes, shoe repair, and janitorial work. To take one stark example: whereas 100 years ago, immigrants were half as likely as native-born workers to be employed in household service, today immigrants account for 27 percent of all domestic workers in the United States.
Although open-borders advocates say that these workers are simply taking jobs Americans don’t want, studies show that the immigrants drive down wages of native-born workers and squeeze them out of certain industries. Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz, for instance, estimate that low-wage immigration cuts the wages for the average native-born high school dropout by some 8 percent, or more than $1,200 a year. Other economists find that the new workers also push down wages significantly for immigrants already here and native-born Hispanics.
Consequently, as the waves of immigration continue, the sheer number of those competing for low-skilled service jobs makes economic progress difficult. A study of the impact of immigration on New York City’s restaurant business, for instance, found that 60 percent of immigrant workers do not receive regular raises, while 70 percent had never been promoted. One Mexican dishwasher aptly captured the downward pressure that all these arriving workers put on wages by telling the study’s authors about his frustrating search for a 50-cent raise after working for $6.50 an hour: “I visited a few restaurants asking for $7 an hour, but they only offered me $5.50 or $6,” he said. “I had to beg [for a job].”
Similarly, immigration is also pushing some native-born workers out of jobs, as Kenyon College economists showed in the California nail-salon workforce. Over a 16-year period starting in the late 1980s, some 35,600 mostly Vietnamese immigrant women flooded into the industry, a mass migration that equaled the total number of jobs in the industry before the immigrants arrived. Though the new workers created a labor surplus that led to lower prices, new services, and somewhat more demand, the economists estimate that as a result, 10,000 native-born workers either left the industry or never bothered entering it.
In many American industries, waves of low-wage workers have also retarded investments that might lead to modernization and efficiency. Farming, which employs a million immigrant laborers in California alone, is the prime case in point. Faced with a labor shortage in the early 1960s, when President Kennedy ended a 22-year-old guest-worker program that allowed 45,000 Mexican farmhands to cross over the border and harvest 2.2 million tons of California tomatoes for processed foods, farmers complained but swiftly automated, adopting a mechanical tomato-picking technology created more than a decade earlier. Today, just 5,000 better-paid workers—one-ninth the original workforce—harvest 12 million tons of tomatoes using the machines.
The savings prompted by low-wage migrants may even be minimal in crops not easily mechanized. Agricultural economists Wallace Huffman and Alan McCunn of Iowa State University have estimated that without illegal workers, the retail cost of fresh produce would increase only about 3 percent in the summer-fall season and less than 2 percent in the winter-spring season, because labor represents only a tiny percent of the retail price of produce and because without migrant workers, America would probably import more foreign fruits and vegetables. “The question is whether we want to import more produce from abroad, or more workers from abroad to pick our produce,” Huffman remarks.
For American farmers, the answer has been to keep importing workers—which has now made the farmers more vulnerable to foreign competition, since even minimum-wage immigrant workers can’t compete with produce picked on farms in China, Chile, or Turkey and shipped here cheaply. A flood of low-priced Turkish raisins several years ago produced a glut in the United States that sharply drove down prices and knocked some farms out of business, shrinking total acreage in California devoted to the crop by one-fifth, or some 50,000 acres. The farms that survived are now moving to mechanize swiftly, realizing that no amount of cheap immigrant labor will make them competitive.
As foreign competition and mechanization shrink manufacturing and farmworker jobs, low-skilled immigrants are likely to wind up farther on the margins of our economy, where many already operate. For example, although only about 12 percent of construction workers are foreign-born, 100,000 to 300,000 illegal immigrants have carved a place for themselves as temporary workers on the fringes of the industry. In urban areas like New York and Los Angeles, these mostly male illegal immigrants gather on street corners, in empty lots, or in Home Depot parking lots to sell their labor by the hour or the day, for $7 to $11 an hour.
That’s far below what full-time construction workers earn, and for good reason. Unlike the previous generations of immigrants who built America’s railroads or great infrastructure projects like New York’s bridges and tunnels, these day laborers mostly do home-improvement projects. A New York study, for instance, found that four in ten employers who hire day laborers are private homeowners or renters wanting help with cleanup chores, moving, or landscaping. Another 56 percent were contractors, mostly small, nonunion shops, some owned by immigrants themselves, doing short-term, mostly residential work. The day laborer’s market, in other words, has turned out to be a boon for homeowners and small contractors offering their residential clients a rock-bottom price, but a big chunk of the savings comes because low-wage immigration has produced such a labor surplus that many of these workers are willing to take jobs without benefits and with salaries far below industry norms.
Because so much of our legal and illegal immigrant labor is concentrated in such fringe, low-wage employment, its overall impact on our economy is extremely small. A 1997 National Academy of Sciences study estimated that immigration’s net benefit to the American economy raises the average income of the native-born by only some $10 billion a year—about $120 per household. And that meager contribution is not the result of immigrants helping to build our essential industries or making us more competitive globally but instead merely delivering our pizzas and cutting our grass. Estimates by pro-immigration forces that foreign workers contribute much more to the economy, boosting annual gross domestic product by hundreds of billions of dollars, generally just tally what immigrants earn here, while ignoring the offsetting effect they have on the wages of native-born workers.
If the benefits of the current generation of migrants are small, the costs are large and growing because of America’s vast range of social programs and the wide advocacy network that strives to hook low-earning legal and illegal immigrants into these programs. A 1998 National Academy of Sciences study found that more than 30 percent of California’s foreign-born were on Medicaid—including 37 percent of all Hispanic households—compared with 14 percent of native-born households. The foreign-born were more than twice as likely as the native-born to be on welfare, and their children were nearly five times as likely to be in means-tested government lunch programs. Native-born households pay for much of this, the study found, because they earn more and pay higher taxes—and are more likely to comply with tax laws. Recent immigrants, by contrast, have much lower levels of income and tax compliance (another study estimated that only 56 percent of illegals in California have taxes deducted from their earnings, for instance). The study’s conclusion: immigrant families cost each native-born household in California an additional $1,200 a year in taxes.
Immigration’s bottom line has shifted so sharply that in a high-immigration state like California, native-born residents are paying up to ten times more in state and local taxes than immigrants generate in economic benefits. Moreover, the cost is only likely to grow as the foreign-born population—which has already mushroomed from about 9 percent of the U.S. population when the NAS studies were done in the late 1990s to about 12 percent today—keeps growing. And citizens in more and more places will feel the bite, as immigrants move beyond their traditional settling places. From 1990 to 2005, the number of states in which immigrants make up at least 5 percent of the population nearly doubled from 17 to 29, with states like Arkansas, South Dakota, South Carolina, and Georgia seeing the most growth. This sharp turnaround since the 1970s, when immigrants were less likely to be using the social programs of the Great Society than the native-born population, says Harvard economist Borjas, suggests that welfare and other social programs are a magnet drawing certain types of immigrants—nonworking women, children, and the elderly—and keeping them here when they run into difficulty.
Not only have the formal and informal networks helping immigrants tap into our social spending grown, but they also get plenty of assistance from advocacy groups financed by tax dollars, working to ensure that immigrants get their share of social spending. Thus, the Newark-based New Jersey Immigration Policy Network receives several hundred thousand government dollars annually to help doctors and hospitals increase immigrant enrollment in Jersey’s subsidized health-care programs. Casa Maryland, operating in the greater Washington area, gets funding from nearly 20 federal, state, and local government agencies to run programs that “empower” immigrants to demand benefits and care from government and to “refer clients to government and private social service programs for which they and their families may be eligible.”
Pols around the country, intent on currying favor with ethnic voting blocs by appearing immigrant-friendly, have jumped on the benefits-for-immigrants bandwagon, endorsing “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies toward immigrants who register for benefits, giving tax dollars to centers that find immigrants work and aid illegals, and enacting legislation prohibiting local authorities from cooperating with federal immigration officials. In New York, for instance, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has ordered city agencies to ignore an immigrant’s status in providing services. “This policy’s critical to encourage immigrant day laborers to access . . . children’s health insurance, a full range of preventive primary and acute medical care, domestic violence counseling, emergency shelters, police protection, consumer fraud protections, and protection against discrimination through the Human Rights Commission,” the city’s Immigrant Affairs Commissioner, Guillermo Linares, explains.
Almost certainly, immigrants’ participation in our social welfare programs will increase over time, because so many are destined to struggle in our workforce. Despite our cherished view of immigrants as rapidly climbing the economic ladder, more and more of the new arrivals and their children face a lifetime of economic disadvantage, because they arrive here with low levels of education and with few work skills—shortcomings not easily overcome. Mexican immigrants, who are up to six times more likely to be high school dropouts than native-born Americans, not only earn substantially less than the native-born median, but the wage gap persists for decades after they’ve arrived. A study of the 2000 census data, for instance, shows that the cohort of Mexican immigrants between 25 and 34 who entered the United States in the late 1970s were earning 40 to 50 percent less than similarly aged native-born Americans in 1980, but 20 years later they had fallen even further behind their native-born counterparts. Today’s Mexican immigrants between 25 and 34 have an even larger wage gap relative to the native-born population. Adjusting for other socioeconomic factors, Harvard’s Borjas and Katz estimate that virtually this entire wage gap is attributable to low levels of education.
Meanwhile, because their parents start off so far behind, the American-born children of Mexican immigrants also make slow progress. First-generation adult Americans of Mexican descent studied in the 2000 census, for instance, earned 14 percent less than native-born Americans. By contrast, first-generation Portuguese Americans earned slightly more than the average native-born worker—a reminder of how quickly immigrants once succeeded in America and how some still do. But Mexico increasingly dominates our immigration flows, accounting for 43 percent of the growth of our foreign-born population in the 1990s.
One reason some ethnic groups make up so little ground concerns the transmission of what economists call “ethnic capital,” or what we might call the influence of culture. More than previous generations, immigrants today tend to live concentrated in ethnic enclaves, and their children find their role models among their own group. Thus the children of today’s Mexican immigrants are likely to live in a neighborhood where about 60 percent of men dropped out of high school and now do low-wage work, and where less than half of the population speak English fluently, which might explain why high school dropout rates among Americans of Mexican ancestry are two and a half times higher than dropout rates for all other native-born Americans, and why first-generation Mexican Americans do not move up the economic ladder nearly as quickly as the children of other immigrant groups.
In sharp contrast is the cultural capital transmitted by Asian immigrants to children growing up in predominantly Asian-American neighborhoods. More than 75 percent of Chinese immigrants and 98 percent of South Asian immigrants to the U.S. speak English fluently, while a mid-1990s study of immigrant households in California found that 37 percent of Asian immigrants were college graduates, compared with only 3.4 percent of Mexican immigrants. Thus, even an Asian-American child whose parents are high school dropouts is more likely to grow up in an environment that encourages him to stay in school and learn to speak English well, attributes that will serve him well in the job market. Not surprisingly, several studies have shown that Asian immigrants and their children earn substantially more than Mexican immigrants and their children.
Given these realities, several of the major immigration reforms now under consideration simply don’t make economic sense—especially the guest-worker program favored by President Bush and the U.S. Senate. Careful economic research tells us that there is no significant shortfall of workers in essential American industries, desperately needing supplement from a massive guest-worker program. Those few industries now relying on cheap labor must focus more quickly on mechanization where possible. Meanwhile, the cost of paying legal workers already here a bit more to entice them to do such low-wage work as is needed will have a minimal impact on our economy.
The potential woes of a guest-worker program, moreover, far overshadow any economic benefit, given what we know about the long, troubled history of temporary-worker programs in developed countries. They have never stemmed illegal immigration, and the guest workers inevitably become permanent residents, competing with the native-born and forcing down wages. Our last guest-worker program with Mexico, begun during World War II to boost wartime manpower, grew larger in the postwar era, because employers who liked the cheap labor lobbied hard to keep it. By the mid-1950s, the number of guest workers reached seven times the annual limit during the war itself, while illegal immigration doubled, as the availability of cheap labor prompted employers to search for ever more of it rather than invest in mechanization or other productivity gains.
The economic and cultural consequences of guest-worker programs have been devastating in Europe, and we risk similar problems. When post–World War II Germany permitted its manufacturers to import workers from Turkey to man the assembly lines, industry’s investment in productivity declined relative to such countries as Japan, which lacked ready access to cheap labor. When Germany finally ended the guest-worker program once it became economically unviable, most of the guest workers stayed on, having attained permanent-resident status. Since then, the descendants of these workers have been chronically underemployed and now have a crime rate double that of German youth.
France has suffered similar consequences. In the post–World War II boom, when French unemployment was under 2 percent, the country imported an industrial labor force from its colonies; by the time France’s industrial jobs began evaporating in the 1980s, these guest workers and their children numbered in the millions, and most had made little economic progress. They now inhabit the vast housing projects, or cités, that ring Paris—and that have recently been the scene of chronic rioting. Like Germany, France thought it was importing a labor force, but it wound up introducing a new underclass.
“Importing labor is far more complicated than importing other factors of production, such as commodities,” write University of California at Davis prof Philip Martin, an expert on guest-worker programs, and Michael Teitelbaum, a former member of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. “Migration involves human beings, with their own beliefs, politics, cultures, languages, loves, hates, histories, and families.”
If low-wage immigration doesn’t pay off for the United States, legalizing illegals already here makes as little sense as importing new rounds of guest workers. The Senate and President Bush, however, aim to start two-thirds of the 11 million undocumented aliens already in the country on a path to legalization, on the grounds that only thus can America assimilate them, and only through assimilation can they hope for economic success in the United States. But such arguments ignore the already poor economic performance of increasingly large segments of the legal immigrant population in the United States. Merely granting illegal aliens legal status won’t suddenly catapult them up our mobility ladder, because it won’t give them the skills and education to compete.
At the same time, legalization will only spur new problems, as our experience with the 1986 immigration act should remind us. At the time, then-congressman Charles Schumer, who worked on the legislation, acknowledged that it was “a riverboat gamble,” with no certainty that it would slow down the waves of illegals. Now, of course, we know that the legislation had the opposite effect, creating the bigger problem we now have (which hasn’t stopped Senator Schumer from supporting the current legalization proposals). The legislation also swamped the Immigration and Naturalization Service with masses of fraudulent, black-market documents, so that it eventually rubber-stamped tens of thousands of dubious applications.
If we do not legalize them, what can we do with 11 million illegals? Ship them back home? Their presence here is a fait accompli, the argument goes, and only legalization can bring them above ground, where they can assimilate. But that argument assumes that we have only two choices: to decriminalize or deport. But what happened after the first great migration suggests a third way: to end the economic incentives that keep them here. We could prompt a great remigration home if, first off, state and local governments in jurisdictions like New York and California would stop using their vast resources to aid illegal immigrants. Second, the federal government can take the tougher approach that it failed to take after the 1986 act. It can require employers to verify Social Security numbers and immigration status before hiring, so that we bar illegals from many jobs. It can deport those caught here. And it can refuse to give those who remain the same benefits as U.S. citizens. Such tough measures do work: as a recent Center for Immigration Studies report points out, when the federal government began deporting illegal Muslims after 9/11, many more illegals who knew they were likely to face more scrutiny voluntarily returned home.
If America is ever to make immigration work for our economy again, it must reject policies shaped by advocacy groups trying to turn immigration into the next civil rights cause or by a tiny minority of businesses seeking cheap labor subsidized by the taxpayers. Instead, we must look to other developed nations that have focused on luring workers who have skills that are in demand and who have the best chance of assimilating. Australia, for instance, gives preferences to workers grouped into four skilled categories: managers, professionals, associates of professionals, and skilled laborers. Using a straightforward “points calculator” to determine who gets in, Australia favors immigrants between the ages of 18 and 45 who speak English, have a post–high school degree or training in a trade, and have at least six months’ work experience as everything from laboratory technicians to architects and surveyors to information-technology workers. Such an immigration policy goes far beyond America’s employment-based immigration categories, like the H1-B visas, which account for about 10 percent of our legal immigration and essentially serve the needs of a few Silicon Valley industries.
Immigration reform must also tackle our family-preference visa program, which today accounts for two-thirds of all legal immigration and has helped create a 40-year waiting list. Lawmakers should narrow the family-preference visa program down to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and should exclude adult siblings and parents.
America benefits even today from many of its immigrants, from the Asian entrepreneurs who have helped revive inner-city Los Angeles business districts to Haitians and Jamaicans who have stabilized neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn to Indian programmers who have spurred so much innovation in places like Silicon Valley and Boston’s Route 128. But increasingly over the last 25 years, such immigration has become the exception. It needs once again to become the rule.
*







No comments: