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.
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.
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:
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.
E-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
*
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
*
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:
Post a Comment