Saturday, January 14, 2012

CHANGE...he calls it? CAN OBAMA PUNK US AGAIN? OR WILL ENOUGH ILLEGALS VOTE FOR HIM again?

Posted on February 24, 2011 by Ben Johnson

Obama's Economic Advisers: International Socialists, Union Thugs, NBC Execs, Soros Scholars, Subprime Lenders, Amnesty Shills, and Campaign Cronies

http://floydreports.com/obama%E2%80%99s-economic-advisers-international-socialists-union-thugs-nbc-execs-soros-scholars-subprime-lenders-amnesty-shills-and-campaign-cronies/


*

HAS OBAMA PUNKED US?

“ The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy.” NEW YORK TIMES

Well, the banksters he works for don’t think so! They caused a global depression, the life savings of millions of Americans, and Obama and his harem of LA RAZA DEMS have handed them half the economy as thanks. Now they’re staging a new show to convince they’re protecting our borders from the Mexican drug cartel, even while they’re working up an underhanded way of handing “free” healthcare for illegals so that even more hop our borders and keep wages depressed for the LA RAZA DEMS’ paymasters.

The drugsters got hardons watching Obama perform for criminal bankers, and they want theirs too, and OBAMA has promised it!

Obama’s LA RAZA dems have been promised that while Obama continues to lie about the people, he’s come up with some interesting new angles to put 38 million Mexican flag waving illegals into our jobs to depress wages even more.

Yes, we’re punked! Obama is nothing but a calculated red-carpet addicted actor bent on extending the golden age of CORPORATE RAPE AND PILLAGE under BUSH, HILLARY, BILLARY, BUSH.

Unemployment? Foreclosures? Mexican crime waves? Hey, don’t talk like a socialist commie! There’s good money in socialism for corporate criminals, war and war profiteer, like DIANNE FEINSTEIN, and they know OBAMA will protect and put out good bonuses. ARE WE PUNKED BY THE GREATEST CON JOB EVER?


August 9, 2009

Op-Ed Columnist

Is Obama Punking Us?


“AUGUST is a challenging time to be president,” said Andrew Card, the former Bush White House chief of staff, as he offered unsolicited advice to his successors in a television interview last week. “I think you have to expect the unexpected.”

He should know. Thursday was the eighth anniversary of “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” the President’s Daily Brief that his boss ignored while on vacation in Crawford. Aug. 29 marks the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s strike on the Louisiana coast, which his boss also ignored while on vacation in Crawford.

So do have a blast in Martha’s Vineyard, President Obama.

Even as we wait for some unexpected disaster to strike, Beltway omens for the current White House are grim. Obama’s poll numbers are approaching free fall, we are told. If he fails on health care, he’s toast. Indeed, many of the bloviators who spot a fatal swoon in the Obama presidency are the same doomsayers who in August 2008 were predicting his Election Day defeat because he couldn’t “close the deal” and clear the 50 percent mark in matchups with John McCain.

Here are two not very daring predictions: Obama will get some kind of health care reform done come fall. His poll numbers will not crater any time soon.

Yet there is real reason for longer-term worry in the form of a persistent, anecdotal drift toward disillusionment among some of the president’s supporters. And not merely those on the left. This concern was perhaps best articulated by an Obama voter, a real estate agent in Virginia, featured on the front page of The Washington Post last week. “Nothing’s changed for the common guy,” she said. “I feel like I’ve been punked.” She cited in particular the billions of dollars in bailouts given to banks that still “act like they’re broke.”

But this mood isn’t just about the banks, Public Enemy No. 1. What the Great Recession has crystallized is a larger syndrome that Obama tapped into during the campaign. It’s the sinking sensation that the American game is rigged — that, as the president typically put it a month after his inauguration, the system is in hock to “the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few” who have “run Washington far too long.” He promised to smite them.

No president can do that alone, let alone in six months. To make Obama’s goal more quixotic, the ailment that he diagnosed is far bigger than Washington and often beyond politics’ domain. What disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions is the fear that almost everything, not just government, is fixed or manipulated by some powerful hidden hand, from commercial transactions as trivial as the sales of prime concert tickets to cultural forces as pervasive as the news media.

As Democrats have pointed out, the angry hecklers disrupting town-hall meetings convened by members of Congress are not always ordinary citizens engaging in spontaneous grass-roots protests or even G.O.P. operatives, but proxies for corporate lobbyists. One group facilitating the screamers is FreedomWorks, which is run by the former Congressman Dick Armey, now a lobbyist at the DLA Piper law firm. Medicines Company, a global pharmaceutical business, has paid DLA Piper more than $6 million in lobbying fees in the five years Armey has worked there.

But the Democratic members of Congress those hecklers assailed can hardly claim the moral high ground. Their ties to health care interests are merely more discreet and insidious. As Congressional Quarterly reported last week, industry groups contributed almost $1.8 million in the first six months of 2009 alone to the 18 House members of both parties supervising health care reform, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer among them.

Then there are the 52 conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who have balked at the public option for health insurance. Their cash intake from insurers and drug companies outpaces their Democratic peers by an average of 25 percent, according to The Post. And let’s not forget the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which has raked in nearly $500,000 from a single doctor-owned hospital in McAllen, Tex. — the very one that Obama has cited as a symbol of runaway medical costs ever since it was profiled in The New Yorker this spring.

In this maze of powerful moneyed interests, it’s not clear who any American in either party should or could root for. The bipartisan nature of the beast can be encapsulated by the remarkable progress of Billy Tauzin, the former Louisiana congressman. Tauzin was a founding member of the Blue Dog Democrats in 1994. A year later, he bolted to the Republicans. Now he is chief of PhRMA, the biggest pharmaceutical trade group. In the 2008 campaign, Obama ran a television ad pillorying Tauzin for his role in preventing Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices. Last week The Los Angeles Times reported — and The New York Times confirmed — that Tauzin, an active player in White House health care negotiations, had secured a behind-closed-doors flip-flop, enlisting the administration to push for continued protection of drug prices. Now we know why the president has ducked his campaign pledge to broadcast such negotiations on C-Span.

The making of legislative sausage is never pretty. The White House has to give to get. But the cynicism being whipped up among voters is justified. Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose chief presidential campaign strategist unapologetically did double duty as a high-powered corporate flack, Obama promised change we could actually believe in.

His first questionable post-victory step was to assemble an old boys’ club of Robert Rubin protégés and Goldman-Citi alumni as the White House economic team, including a Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who failed in his watchdog role at the New York Fed as Wall Street’s latest bubble first inflated and then burst. The questions about Geithner’s role in adjudicating the subsequent bailouts aren’t going away, and neither is the angry public sense that the fix is still in. We just learned that nine of those bailed-out banks — which in total received $175 billion of taxpayers’ money, but as yet have repaid only $50 billion — are awarding a total of $32.6 billion in bonuses for 2009.

It’s in this context that Obama can’t afford a defeat on health care. A bill will pass in a Democrat-controlled Congress. What matters is what’s in it. The final result will be a CAT scan of those powerful Washington interests he campaigned against, revealing which have been removed from the body politic (or at least reduced) and which continue to metastasize. The Wall Street regulatory reform package Obama pushes through, or doesn’t, may render even more of a verdict on his success in changing the system he sought the White House to reform.

The best political news for the president remains the Republicans. It’s a measure of how out of touch G.O.P. leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are that they keep trying to scare voters by calling Obama a socialist. They have it backward. The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy. If anything, the most unexpected — and challenging — event that could rock the White House this August would be if the opposition actually woke up.

*

The Mexican occupation of 38 million illegals depress wages $200 - $300 billion per year for Americans. These same Americans are forced to pay the staggering welfare costs of the occupation as well. Welfare paid to illegals in Mexican occupied Los Angeles, is nearly $40 MILLION PER MONTH. In Los Angeles, 47% of those employed are ILLEGALS.


US corporations squeezing more output from workers and paying lower wages

By Patrick O’Connor
12 August 2009

US Labor Department data released yesterday showed productivity up 6.4 percent in the second quarter, the largest gain since 2003 and higher than economists’ forecasts of 5.5 percent. Over the same period, workers’ compensation fell sharply.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics explained that productivity—which measures hourly output per employee—increased “due to hours worked declining faster than output.”

In other words, big business is using the rise in unemployment to extract greater output from employed workers through speedup and other forms of intensified exploitation.

Nonfarm productivity rose 6.4 percent as a result of output declining by 1.7 percent and total hours worked plummeting 7.6 percent.

Data also showed that real hourly employee compensation fell by 1.1 percent in the second quarter, or by 2.2 percent on an annualized basis. The combined impact of declining wages and rising productivity brought unit labor costs down by a huge 5.8 percent in the three months from April to June.

In manufacturing, quarterly productivity rose 5.3 percent, a result of output falling by 9.9 percent and hours by 14.4 percent. In the durable manufacturing sub-category, the output and hours decline was even greater—16.5 percent and 19.6 percent respectively.

The recent productivity boost, unlike that seen in previous periods, has involved no developments in productive technique. Mark Vitner of Wells Fargo Bank told Dow Jones Newswire that the second quarter gain “is almost entirely the result of cost-cutting, not improved ways of producing goods and providing services.”

Several commentators frankly admitted that the productivity boost was the product of intensified pressure on the working class. In a comment for Dow Jones’ MarketWatch, Tom Bernis wrote: “Anybody lucky enough to hang onto his or her job in this recession is working flat out to keep it. That’s one take on the latest US productivity numbers...

“The severity of the recession has pushed the hours worked to levels not seen since the mid-1990s, even as units of output have risen nearly 40 percent. So, with the economy essentially in ‘idle,’ it takes far fewer workers to keep things moving than nearly a decade-and-a-half ago. That’s good news for profits, but not so good for the unemployed.”

Ian Shepherdson, chief domestic economist for High Frequency Economics, added: “These are spectacular numbers and help explain why so many recently reporting companies have beaten earnings estimates.”

Bloomberg News highlighted DuPont, the third-biggest US chemical company, which last month announced a better-than-anticipated $417 million second quarter profit. This was achieved after outlining a strategy to cut fixed costs by $1 billion, partly by laying off 2,500 permanent workers and 10,000 contractors. “Our aggressive actions to improve productivity and reduce costs across the company are paying off,” Chief Executive Officer Ellen Kullman declared.

According to Time magazine’s Justin Fox, a recent report by the Goldman Sachs portfolio strategy team compared current corporate profits with previous periods. In an extraordinary finding, the researchers concluded that if financial companies, auto producers and utilities are excluded, corporations in the S&P 500 index had higher profit margins during the worst of the current crisis than they did during any point of the mid-1980s economic boom.

This conclusion points to the class character of the Obama administration and the social interests being served by its policies.

The economic policies advanced by successive Democratic and Republican administrations over the last three decades produced significant productivity increases at the same time that average real wages stagnated or declined. This led to an unprecedented shift in national income distribution, away from wages towards corporate profits, massively increasing social inequality.

These tendencies are accelerating, with the Obama administration, on behalf of the major corporations and banks, advancing a sweeping economic restructuring agenda aimed at permanently driving down workers’ wages and conditions. Every aspect of the administration’s agenda—from the bailout of the banks, to mass layoffs and wage and benefit concessions in the auto industry, to sweeping cuts in health care for workers and retirees—is directed towards protecting the ruling elite’s wealth at the expense of the majority of the population.

Obama sent a clear signal to big business with the restructuring of the auto industry. The federally supervised bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler involved the destruction of large sections of each company’s productive capacity, the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs, and the imposition of wages and conditions equivalent to those last experienced in the industry in the 1930s. This set the stage for an economy-wide corporate offensive against jobs, wages, and conditions, the initial results of which are reflected in the latest productivity and labor cost data.
*

ARE AMAZED AT HOW UTTERLY BRAZEN THESE CORPORATE OWNED POLITICIANS ARE?

GET THIS BOOK!

Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies

by Michelle Malkin

Editorial Reviews

In her shocking new book, Malkin digs deep into the records of President Obama's staff, revealing corrupt dealings, questionable pasts, and abuses of power throughout his administration.

From the Inside Flap

The era of hope and change is dead....and it only took six months in office to kill it.

Never has an administration taken office with more inflated expectations of turning Washington around. Never have a media-anointed American Idol and his entourage fallen so fast and hard. In her latest investigative tour de force, New York Times bestselling author Michelle Malkin delivers a powerful, damning, and comprehensive indictment of the culture of corruption that surrounds Team Obama's brazen tax evaders, Wall Street cronies, petty crooks, slum lords, and business-as-usual influence peddlers. In Culture of Corruption, Malkin reveals:

* Why nepotism beneficiaries First Lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are Team Obama's biggest liberal hypocrites--bashing the corporate world and influence-peddling industries from which they and their relatives have benefited mightily

* What secrets the ethics-deficient members of Obama's cabinet--including Hillary Clinton--are trying to hide

* Why the Obama White House has more power-hungry, unaccountable "czars" than any other administration

* How Team Obama's first one hundred days of appointments became a litany of embarrassments as would-be appointee after would-be appointee was exposed as a tax cheat or had to withdraw for other reasons

* How Obama's old ACORN and union cronies have squandered millions of taxpayer dollars and dues money to enrich themselves and expand their power

* How Obama's Wall Street money men and corporate lobbyists are ruining the economy and helping their friends In Culture of Corruption, Michelle Malkin lays bare the Obama administration's seamy underside that the liberal media would rather keep hidden.
Product Details

           Hardcover: 376 pages

           Publisher: Regnery Publishing (July 27, 2009)

           Language: English

           ISBN-10: 1596981091

           ISBN-13: 978-1596981096


JUDICIAL WATCH’S TEN MOST CORRUPT............................................ 2007

Unfortunately the corruption of these politicians noted is only a drop in the bucket of what they’re guilty of.

One common ground for all of them is they will all protect and cover each other’s crimes.


1. SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

*

CLINTON IS A MAJOR LA RAZA SUPPORTER AND ADVANCED BUSH’S BIT BY BIT AMNESTY ALONG WITH HER OWN CHAIN MIGRATION WHICH IS CALCULATED TO DOUBLE THE 40 MILLION ILLEGALS ALREADY HERE.


CLINTON IS ALSO VERY MUCH IN BED WITH THE SAUDIS WHOM GAVE 10 MILLION TO BILL CLINTON’S LIBRARY. NO COMMENT ON THE FACT THE SAUDIS ARE MAJOR FINANCIERS OF TERRORISM, INCLUDING BOMBERS IN IRAQ KILLING OUR PEOPLE, OR THE SAUDI FUNDED WAHHABI SCHOOLS WHICH PROMOTE ULTRA-FASCIST MUSLIM IDEOLOGIES.

*

2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI):

*

3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID):

*

4. SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate's subcommittee on Military Construction's approval carries weight. Sen. Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process. Senator Feinstein also attempted to undermine ethics reform in 2007, arguing in favor of a perk that allows members of Congress to book multiple airline flights and then cancel them without financial penalty. Judicial Watch’s investigation into this matter is ongoing.

YOU SAW FEINSTEIN, AND HER PIMP-HUSBAND, RICHARD C BLUM,  AT OBAMA’S INAUGURAL. BLUM KEEPS DEM POLS MOUTH CLOSED TIGHT ON FEINSTEIN’S SELF-SERVING CORRUPTION, PIMPED BY BLUM, BY HANDING OUT MONEY LEFT AND RIGHT. BLUM HAS PAID LEGAL  BRIBES TO – BOXER – KERRY – KENNEDY – CLINTON – OBAMA – AND THE OTHER WAR WHORE, JOE LIEBERMAN.


DIANNE FEINSTEIN IS THE PAID ADVOCATE FOR RED CHINA IN CONGRESS.


FEINSTEIN TRADED TWO (BOXER’S) NO IMPEACHMENT PROMISES TO GEORGE W. BUSH FOR HER PIMP’S ACCESS TO THE CARLYLE BIG BUSH SAUDI OIL WAR PROFITEERING CLUB. WITH HER FIRST WAR PROFITS CHECK FEINSTEIN WENT OUT AND PURCHASED A $17 MILLION DOLLAR MANSION IN SAN FRANCISCO. FEINSTEIN RANKS AS ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN AMERICAN HISTORY WHICH MADE HER ATTRACTION TO BOTH BUSH AND OBAMA OBVIOUS.


FEINSTEIN HAS LONG BEEN ENDORSED BY THE FASCIST MEXICAN SUPREMACIST POLITICAL PARTY OF LA RAZA, AND TIRELESSLY WORKS FOR NO AMNESTY, NO WALL, NO ID FOR ILLEGALS TO VOTE, NO ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS, AND NO E-VERIFY.


FEINSTEIN HAS LONG ILLEGALLY EXPLOITED “CHEAP” LABOR ILLEGALS AT HER SAN FRANCISCO HOTEL.

*

5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY):

*

6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR

*

7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby: Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick

*

8. SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fund raiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefitted from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

FEW HAVE TAKEN MORE MONEY FROM WALL STREET BANKSTERS THAN OBAMA, AND FEW HAVE DONE MORE FOR THEM TO PROTECT THEM FROM PROSECUTION, AND CONTINUE THE TRANSFER OF THIS ONCE GREAT NATION’S ECONOMY OVER TO THE CORPORATE CLASS WHICH OWNS HIM.


OBAMA IS A MAJOR HISPANDERER AND HAS PROMISED WALL STREET AMNESTY FOR 38 MILLION ILLEGALS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED AND PROFIT MARGINS SWOLLEN. NO WORD FROM OBAMA ON MEXICAN GANGS MURDERING BLACKS IN COLD BLOOD IN LOS ANGELES. DO SEARCH LOS ANGELES TIMES.

*

9. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promised a new era of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress. The pet project involved renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi's home base of San Francisco. Pelosi just happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of Pelosi's earmark. Earlier in the year, Pelosi found herself in hot water for demanding access to a luxury Air Force jet to ferry the Speaker and her entourage back and forth from San Francisco non-stop, in unprecedented request which was wisely rejected by the Pentagon. And under Pelosi’s leadership, the House ethics process remains essentially shut down – which protects members in both parties from accountability.


PELOSI HAS LONG HIRED ILLEGALS TO WORK HER 20 MILLION DOLLAR NAPA WINERY. SHE HAS SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS IN SUNKIST WHICH HAS A POLICY AGAINST PAYING LIVING WAGES OR HIRING LEGALS.  SHE WORKS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WITH THE OTHER LA RAZA SUPPORTERS, FEINSTEIN, BOXER, ESHOO, LOFGREN, SANCHEZ, WAXMAN, KENNEDY, HARMAN, BACA, HONDA, FONG, BECERRA  AND REID TO KEEP THE BORDERS OPEN. SHE HAS WORKED TIRELESSLY TO SABOTAGE THE WALL TO PROTECT US FROM NARCO-MEX.



10. SENATOR HARRY REID (D-NV): Over the last few years, Reid has been embroiled in a series of scandals that cast serious doubt on his credibility as a self-professed champion of government ethics, and 2007 was no different. According to The Los Angeles Times, over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal. As the project advanced, the Times reported, “Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore.” Whittemore also hired one of Reid’s sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and then promptly handed the junior Reid the responsibility of negotiating the real estate deal with federal officials. Leif Reid even called his father’s office to talk about how to obtain the proper EPA permits, a clear conflict of interest.

ON BEHALF OF HIS BIG GAMBLING BRIBE-STERS, REID WORKS WITH THE CALIFORNIA LA RAZA GIRLS FOR OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY AND NO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ILLEGALS. HIS STATE IS NOW 25% ILLEGAL, AND NEXT TO CALIFORNIA, HAS THE HIGHEST RATES OF FORECLOSURES.

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER, CA. Although Boxer did not make the TOP TEN CORRUPT in 2007,  it’s probably only because there wasn’t enough room. Boxer is as corrupt as they come. She has used her elected office to collect a staggering fortune labeled “CONSULTANT FEES”, which she then siphoned off to her son, lawyer DOUGLAS BOXER. Senator Barbara Boxer voted NO to stop this form of corruption, and keeps herself on the SENATE’S NO ETHICS COMMITTEE to sabotage any investigations into FEINSTEIN’S massive corruption. Other politicians that collect special interest bribes they refer to as “CONSULTANT FEES” are Kennedy and JOE BIDEN who has collected big money from BIG BANKERS. This made the clown an obvious choice to be VICE PRESIDENT for OBAMA pandering for more BANKSTERS BRIBES.

*
WHAT DID THE BANKSTERS KNOW ABOUT OUR ACTOR OBAMA THAT WE DIDN’T KNOW?

Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).

BARACK OBAMA HAS COLLECTED NEARLY TWICE AS MUCH MONEY AS JOHN McCAIN

BY DAVID SALTONSTALL

DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

July 1st 2008

Wall Street firms have chipped in more than $9 million to Barack Obama. Zurga/Bloomberg

Wall Street is investing heavily in Barack Obama.

Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to raise capital gains and corporate taxes, financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.

"Wall Street wants change and wants a curtailment in spending. It wants someone who focuses on the domestic economy," said Jim Cramer, the boisterous host of CNBC's "Mad Money."

Cramer also does not discount nostalgia for the go-go 1990s, when Bill Clinton led the largest economic expansion in history.
"It wants a Clinton like in 1992, but not a Hillary Clinton," he said. "That's Barack Obama."

For both candidates, Wall Street's investment and banking sectors have become among their portliest cash cows, contributing $9.5 million to Obama and $5.3 million to McCain so far.

It's a haul that is already raising concerns that, as the nation's faltering economy has become issue No. 1, the two candidates may have a hard time playing tough on issues like market regulation or corporate-tax loopholes.

"No matter who wins in November, Wall Street will have a friend in the White House," said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics, which crunched the data for The News.

Wall Street's generosity toward Obama, in particular, would seem to run counter to its self-interests.

In addition to calling for corporate and capital gains tax hikes, Obama has proposed raising income taxes on those earning more than $250,000.

But Wall Street is often motivated by something more than money - winning.

"In general, these are professional prognosticators," said Ritsch. "And they may be putting their money on the person they predict will win, not the candidate they hope will win."

Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).




New studies show growth of poverty, class tensions in US

New studies show growth of poverty, class tensions in US



POVERTY IN AMERICA
SOARS AS THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE GROWS
EXPONENTIALLY.


“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration
into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.”
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*
AMERICAN
POVERTY AS LA RAZA LOOTS ALL 50 STATES!

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2012/01/poverty-in-america-as-la-raza-mexico.html

POVERTY IN AMERICA - As LA RAZA Mexico Loots All 50 States!


POVERTY IN AMERICA – AS THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE GROWS EXPONENTIALLY.


“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*
NO MONEY TO HELP AMERICANS? NO JOBS FOR LEGALS?
NOT ONE AMERICAN VOTED FOR THE LA RAZA “THE RACE” WELFARE STATE INN OUR BORDERS!

CALIFORNIA IS A STATE IN MELTDOWN AS THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA RISES IN POWER.

THIS STATE NOW PAYS OUT $2 BILLION PER YEAR IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS AGAINST DEFICITS OF $28 BILLION.

CA PAYS FOR THE LARGEST PRISON SYSTEM IN THE NATION, WHERE HALF THE INMATES ARE LA RAZA MEXICANS, MANY ACTIVELY PURSUING BUSINESS FOR THE MEX DRUG CARTELS!

LA RAZA CA ENJOYS “FREE” MEDICAL AT EMERGENCY HOSPITAL ROOMS, WHICH COST LEGALS $1.2 BILLION PER YEAR!

THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PUTS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, MOST OF WHICH TO PAY FOR MEXICO’S ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING! NEXT TO DRUGS AND CRIMINALS, MEXICO’S LARGEST EXPORT IS PREGNANT WOMEN WHO COME TO FOR “FREE” ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING AND THEN 18 YEARS OF WELFARE. THIS CHILD IS BORN IN OUR BORDERS IS STILL A CITIZEN OF MEXICO!

THE LA RAZA GOV JERRY BROWN, AND THE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED A SLEW OF LAWS AS DICTATED BY ILLEGALS, INCLUDING THAT EMPLOYEES MAY NO LONGER USE E-VERIFY. WHILE UNEMPLOYMENT IN MEXICO IS UNDER 6%, IN PARTS OF MEXIFORNIA IT IS JUST UNDER 30%! VIVA LA RAZA? THE DEMS DO!

LA RAZA FEINSTEIN, BOXER AND PELOSI HAVE ALL PUSHED FOR OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY, NO E-VERIFY, NO WALL WITH NARCOmex, AND CERTAINLY NO I.D. REQUIRED FOR ILLEGALS TO VOTE! OBAMA’S LA RAZA DEPT. of JUSTICE IS WORKING ON THAT NOW, JUST AS THEY SUE FOUR AMERICAN STATES TO EXPAND OBAMA’S LA RAZA SUPREMACY, AND AGENDA FOR OPEN BORDERS.

 *
REALLY WANT A JOB? REALLY WANT TO STOP PAYING FOR THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE IN OUR BORDERS? REALLY NEED A HAND WITH THOSE STAGGERING MEDICAL COST, BUT CAN’T PAY A HOSPITAL $80 FOR AN ASPIRIN, SO THEY CAN PAY FOR LA RAZA’S “FREE” MEDICAL, REALLY WANT TO LIVE IN A STATE WHERE MEXICAN GANGS ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF HALF THE MURDERS???

THEN DON’T VOTE FOR OBAMA!

*
New studies show growth of poverty, class tensions in US
By Kate Randall

14 January 2012

Two new studies document the growth of poverty in America and heightened awareness of the social tensions arising from the conflict between the rich and poor. Both deal with the impact of the recession and reflect rapid changes in both the economic conditions and consciousness of wide layers of the population.
“At Risk: America’s Poor During and After the Great Recession,” published by the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Bloomington, focuses on the growth of poverty as a result of the economic downturn, and the performance of the US “safety net” in response.
The Pew Research Center survey, “Rising Share of Americans See Conflict Between Rich and Poor,” reveals that “the issue of class conflict has captured a growing share of the national consciousness,” and that increasing numbers say there are “very strong conflicts” between the wealthy and those at the bottom.
The Indiana University study shows how the extended duration and severity of the economic downturn has “inflicted long-lasting damage to individuals, families, and communities.” In particular, the authors point to the growth of the “near poor” and “new poor” as a result of the recession.
The study cites long-term unemployment as one of the major factors contributing to the growth of poverty. Over 4 million Americans report that they have been unemployed for more than 12 months—the largest number since records were first kept in 1948. If the long-term jobless lose their unemployment benefits before the economy turns around, the study warns, the ranks of the so-called new poor will swell between now and 2017.
The authors note that the growing ranks of the newly poor come under conditions where large numbers of Americans are already impoverished. According to official government measures, 46.2 million Americans—about 15 percent of the population—were living in poverty in 2010. This number rises to about 16 percent when using a new “Supplemental Measure,” which accounts for shortcomings in the official measurement.
While economists designate June 2009 as the official end of the recession, the Indiana University study notes that the number of people living in poverty is still expected to rise, due to the slow pace of the recovery. Between the years 2006 and 2010 the proportion of people living in poverty has increased by a staggering 27 percent, a trend that is highly likely to continue. This recent increase in poverty has hit young people between the ages of 18 and 34 particularly hard.
The performance of the American “safety net” under these economic conditions has been inadequate and uneven. So-called entitlement programs, including food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance, which operate with mandatory (if insufficient) funding, have been more responsive as jobs are lost and incomes fall.
By contrast, programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which replaced traditional welfare beginning in 1996, and federal housing assistance have lagged behind need. The study notes that moves under way in Congress to cut the federal budget deficit are likely to result in significant cutbacks to these programs.
Initiatives such as the 2009 federal stimulus package, which somewhat cushioned the blow of poverty in the recession, are also unlikely to be renewed. Additionally, while poverty continues to deepen, many cash-strapped states are making cuts to programs such as unemployment insurance, temporary cash assistance, Medicaid, TANF and other services for low-income individuals and families.
The Pew Research Center Survey finds that the growth of poverty and the inability of federal and state programs to respond to it are having a dramatic impact on the way wide layers of American society view growing social inequality.
The study of 2,048 adults found that about two-thirds of Americans (66 percent) believe that there are either “strong” or “very strong” conflicts between the rich and the poor. This is an increase of 19 percentage points over views studied in 2009. Three in ten Americans, or 30 percent, now feel that there are “very strong conflicts” between rich and poor—double the proportion compared to 2009, and the largest percentage holding this opinion since the question was first asked in 1987.
When evaluating the divisions within US society, survey respondents ranked the conflicts between rich and poor ahead of three other potential sources of tensions: between immigrants and native born, between blacks and whites, and between young and old. In a 2009 survey, respondents cited the tensions between immigrants and native born as the greatest source of conflicts.
The perception that class conflict was the leading source of tension was held across virtually all demographic groups, with younger adults, women, Democrats and African Americans somewhat more likely to hold this view.
The Pew researchers note that this dramatic change in attitudes “may reflect the income and wealth inequality message conveyed by Occupy Wall Street protesters across the country in late 2011 that led to a spike in media attention to the topic.” The study points to growing public awareness of the shift in wealth distribution in America that was reflected in the Occupy movement and popular sympathy for the protests.
The authors cite US Census Bureau data showing that the proportion of overall wealth—a measure including home equity, stocks and bonds, and other personal possessions—held by the top 10 percent of the population increased from 49 percent in 2005 to 56 percent in 2009, a 7 percent rise in just four years.
The Pew survey, alongside the data on poverty presented in the Indiana University study, indicates how such indices of social inequality are finding expression in the sentiments of wider layers of the US population as this economic turmoil deepens and persists.
*
“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
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
In his first state of the union speech since becoming president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon criticized the U.S. government and its efforts to shut down illegal immigration. During the speech Calderon proclaimed that “Mexico does not end at its borders” and that “where there is a Mexican, there is a Mexico.” Tune in for a full report on Calderon’s vigorous fight to protect Mexican interests in the United States—even when they’re built on illegal immigration.
*
“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*
“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
*
WE ARE MEXICO’S WELFARE, JOBS, “FREE” ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING CENTER, AND JAILS PLAN! FOR THIS THE MEXICAN WAVE THEIR COUNTRY’S FLAGS IN OUR FACES, SPEAK ONLY SPANISH, AND LOOT OUR NATION!


“Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty.”

*
“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*
“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
*
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

from the March 30, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p09s02-coop.html

MEXICO PREFERS TO EXPORT ITS POOR, NOT UPLIFT THEM

At this week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US actions.

By George W. Grayson

WILLIAMSBURG, VA. - At the parleys this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún, Mexican President Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his countrymen north of the Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional visas for Mexicans to enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of guest-worker schemes, and the "regularization" of illegal immigrants who reside throughout the continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the Mexican chief executive excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of a wall on the US-Mexico border and called for the "orderly, safe, and legal" northbound flow of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state of Guanajuato. Mexican legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández Enriquez, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America, recently emphasized that the solution to the "structural phenomenon" of unlawful migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but with "understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility."

 Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty.

To his credit, Fox's "Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly the plight of the poorest of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers have advanced measures that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of the workforce, curb unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad. Indeed, Mexico's leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact science as they shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying efforts by the US senators and representatives to crack down on illegal immigration at the border and the workplace. What are some examples of this failure of responsibility? · When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes - a figure roughly equivalent to that of Haiti and far below the level of major Latin American nations. Not only is Mexico's collection rate ridiculously low, its fiscal regime is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to widespread evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to reform the system. Insufficient revenues mean that Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of social mobility: Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare only 6.10 percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study. · A venal, "come-back-tomorrow" bureaucracy explains the 58 days it takes to open a business in Mexico compared with three days in Canada, five days in the US, nine days in Jamaica, and 27 days in Chile. Mexico's private sector estimates that 34 percent of the firms in the country made "extra official" payments to functionaries and legislators in 2004. These bribes totaled $11.2 billion and equaled 12 percent of GDP. · Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. · Economic competition is constrained by the presence of inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a small number of private corporations - closely linked to government big shots - that control telecommunications, television, food processing, transportation, construction, and cement.

THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ARE IN THE HANDS OF CARLOS SLIM, A MEX WITH 70 BILLION! SLIM IS NOW THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD, AND OWNS 10% OF THE NEW YORK TIMES. IF YOU GET THE TIMES, YOU WILL NOTE THAT IT IS NOW THE MOUTHPIECE FOR LA RAZA PROPAGANDA, DAILY COMING OUT WITH EDITORIALS THAT SUPPORT LA RAZA SUPREMACY, AND NEVER, EVER, EVER AN ARTICLE OF MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVE, THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE, OR MEXICAN RACISM!
 
Politicians who talk about, much less propose, trust-busting measures are as rare as a snowfall in the Sonoran Desert. Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian concerns require North America's neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not the least of which is immigration. However, Mexico's power brokers have failed to make the difficult decisions necessary to use their nation's bountiful wealth to benefit the masses. Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist that Mexico's pampered elite act responsibly, rather than expecting US and Canadian taxpayers to shoulder burdens Mexico should assume.

*

“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

 *

“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

*

UNFETTERED IMMIGRATION = Poverty FOR AMERICANS

FIRST WE ARE FORCED TO HAND OVER OUR JOBS TO LA RAZA (OBAMA’S SEC. OF (ILLEGAL) LABOR IS A LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILDA SOLIS. HER JOB IS TO BUY THE ILLEGALS VOTES WITH OUR JOBS!), THEN WE GET THE STAGGERING BILLS FOR THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE, AND THEN WE’RE TOLD TO PUSH 2 FOR ENGLISH! VIVA LA RAZA?

*

By Robert Rector Heritage.org | May 16, 2006

 This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty. An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years. Current Trends in Immigration Over the last 40 years, immigration into the United States has surged. Our nation is now experiencing a second “great migration” similar to the great waves of immigrants that transformed America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 2004, an estimated 35.7 million foreign-born persons lived in the U.S. While in 1970 one person in twenty was foreign born, by 2004 the number had risen to one in eight. About one-third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are illegal aliens. There are between 10 and 12 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S.[1] Illegal aliens now comprise 3 to 4 percent of the total U.S. population. Each year approximately 1.3 million new immigrants enter the U.S.[2] Some 700,000 of these entrants are illegal.[3] One third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are Mexican. Overall, the number of Mexicans in the U.S. has increased from 760,000 in 1970 to 10.6 million in 2004. Nine percent of all Mexicans now reside in the U.S.[4] Over half of all Mexicans in the U.S. are illegal immigrants,[5] and in the last decade 80 to 85 percent of the inflow of Mexicans into the U.S. has been illegal.[6] The public generally perceives illegals to be unattached single men. This is, in fact, not the case. Some 44 percent of adult illegals are women. While illegal men work slightly more than native-born men; illegal women work less. Among female illegals, some 56 percent work, compared to 73 percent among native-born women of comparable age.[7] As well, Mexican women emigrating to the U.S. have a considerably higher fertility rate than women remaining in Mexico.[8] Decline in Immigrant Wages Over the last 40 years the education level of new immigrants has fallen relative to the native population. As the relative education levels of immigrants have declined, so has their earning capacity compared to the general U.S. population. Immigrants arriving in the U.S. around 1960 had wages, at the time of entry, that were just 13 percent less than natives’. In 1965, the nation’s immigration law was dramatically changed, and from 1990 on, illegal immigration surged. The result was a decline in the relative skill levels of new immigrants. By 1998, new immigrants had an average entry wage that was 34 percent less than natives.’[12] Because of their lower education levels, illegal immigrants’ wages would have been even lower. The low-wage status of recent illegal immigrants can be illustrated by the wages of recent immigrants from Mexico, a majority of whom have entered the U.S. illegally. In 2000, the median weekly wage of a first-generation Mexican immigrant was $323. This was 54 percent of the corresponding wage for non-Hispanic whites in the general population.[13] Historically, the relative wages of recent immigrants have risen after entry as immigrants gained experience in the labor market. For example, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s saw their relative wages rise by 10 percentage points compared to natives’ wages during their first 20 years in the country. But in recent years, this modest catch up effect has diminished. Immigrants who arrived in the late 1980s actually saw their relative wages shrink in the 1990s.[14] Immigration and Welfare Dependence Welfare may be defined as means-tested aid programs: these programs provide cash, non-cash, and social service assistance that is limited to low-income households. The major means-tested programs include Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public housing, the earned income credit, and Medicaid. Historically, recent immigrants were less likely to receive welfare than native-born Americans. But over the last thirty years, this historic pattern has reversed. As the relative education levels of immigrants fell, their tendency to receive welfare benefits increased. By the late 1990s immigrant households were fifty percent more likely to receive means-tested aid than native-born households.[15] Moreover, immigrants appear to assimilate into welfare use. The longer immigrants live in the U.S., the more likely they are to use welfare.[16] A large part, but not all, of immigrants’ higher welfare use is explained by their low education levels. Welfare use also varies by immigrants’ national origin. For example, in the late 1990s, 5.6 percent of immigrants from India received means-tested benefits; among Mexican immigrants the figure was 34.1 percent; and for immigrants from the Dominican Republic the figure was 54.9 percent.[17] Ethnic differences in the propensity to receive welfare that appear among first-generation immigrants persist strongly in the second generation.[18] The relatively high use of welfare among Mexicans has significant implications for current proposals to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Some 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Mexico and Latin America.[19] (See Chart 1) Historically, Hispanics in America have had very high levels of welfare use. Chart 2 shows receipt of aid from major welfare programs by different ethnic groups in 1999; the programs covered are Medicaid, Food Stamps, public housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, General Assistance, and Supplemental Security Income.[20] As the chart shows, Hispanics were almost three times more likely to receive welfare than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, among families that received aid, the cost of the aid received was 40 percent higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites.[21] Putting together the greater probability of receiving welfare with the greater cost of welfare per family means that, on average, Hispanic families received four times more welfare per family than white non-Hispanics. 1. Part, but not all, of this high level of welfare use by Hispanics can be explained by background factors such as family structure.[22] It seems likely that, if Hispanic illegal immigrants are given permanent residence and citizenship, they and their children will likely assimilate into the culture of high welfare use that characterizes Hispanics in the U.S. This would impose significant costs on taxpayers and society as a whole. Welfare use can also be measured by immigration status. In general, immigrant households are about fifty percent more likely to use welfare than native-born households.[23] Immigrants with less education are more likely to use welfare. (See Chart 3) 1. The potential welfare costs of low-skill immigration and amnesty for current illegal immigrants can be assessed by looking at the welfare utilization rates for current low-skill immigrants. As Chart 4 shows, immigrants without a high school degree (both lawful and unlawful) are two-and-a-half times more likely to use welfare than native-born individuals.[24] This underscores the high potential welfare costs of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. 1. All categories of high school dropouts have a high utilization of welfare. Immigrants who have less than a high school degree are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts. Legal immigrants who are high school dropouts are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts.[25] Illegal immigrant dropouts, however, are less likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts mainly because they are ineligible for many welfare programs. With amnesty, current illegal immigrants’ welfare use would likely rise to the level of lawful immigrants with similar education levels. Illegal Immigration and Poverty 1. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 4.7 million children of illegal immigrant parents currently live in the U.S.[26] Some 37 percent of these children are poor.[27] While children of illegal immigrant parents comprise around 6 percent of all children in the U.S., they are 11.8 percent of all poor children.[28] This high level of child poverty among illegal immigrants in the U.S. is, in part, due to low education levels and low wages. It is also linked to the decline in marriage among Hispanics in the U.S. Within this group, 45 percent of children are born out-of-wedlock.[29] (See Table 1.) Among foreign-born Hispanics the rate is 42.3 percent.[30] By contrast, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for non-Hispanic whites is 23.4 percent.[31] The birth rate for Hispanic teens is higher than for black teens.[32] While the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks has remained flat for the last decade, it has risen steadily for Hispanics.[33] These figures are important because, as noted, some 80 percent of illegal aliens come from Mexico and Latin America.[34] In general, children born and raised outside of marriage are seven times more likely to live in poverty than children born and raised by married couples. Children born out-of-wedlock are also more likely to be on welfare, to have lower educational achievement, to have emotional problems, to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to become involved in crime.[35] 5. Poverty is also more common among adult illegal immigrants, who are twice as likely to be poor as are native-born adults. Some 27 percent of all adult illegal immigrants are poor, compared to 13 percent of native-born adults.[36] Economic and Social Assimilation of Illegal Immigrant Offspring One important question is the future economic status of the children and grandchildren of current illegal immigrants, assuming those offspring remain in the U.S. While we obviously do not have data on future economic status, we may obtain a strong indication of future outcomes by examining the educational attainment of offspring of recent Mexican immigrants. Some 57 percent of current illegal immigrants come from Mexico, and about half of Mexicans currently in the U.S. are here illegally.[37] First-generation Mexican immigrants are individuals born in Mexico who have entered the U.S. In 2000, some 70 percent of first-generation Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) lacked a high school degree. Second-generation Mexicans may be defined as individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico. Second-generation Mexican immigrants (individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico) have greatly improved educational outcomes but still fall well short of the general U.S. population. Some 25 percent of second-generation Mexicans in the U.S. fail to complete high school. By contrast, the high school drop out rate is 8.6 percent among non-Hispanic whites and 17.2 percent among blacks. Critically, the educational attainment of third-generation Mexicans (those of Mexican ancestry with both parents born in the U.S.) improves little relative to the second generation. Some 21 percent of third-generation Mexicans are high school drop outs.[38] Similarly, the rate of college attendance among second-generation Mexicans is lower than for black Americans and about two-thirds of the level for non-Hispanic whites; moreover, college attendance does not improve in the third generation.[39] These data indicate that the offspring of illegal Hispanic immigrants are likely to have lower rates of educational attainment and higher rates of school failure compared to the non-Hispanic U.S. population. High rates of school failure coupled with high rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing are strong predictors of future poverty and welfare dependence. Immigration and Crime Historically, immigrant populations have had lower crime rates than native-born populations. For example, in 1991, the overall crime and incarceration rate for non-citizens was slightly lower than for citizens.[40] On the other hand, the crime rate among Hispanics in the U.S. is high. Age-specific incarceration rates (prisoners per 100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) among Hispanics in federal and state prisons are two to two-and-a-half times higher than among non-Hispanic whites.[41] Relatively little of this difference appears to be due to immigration violations.[42] Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly Hispanic. It is possible that, over time, Hispanic immigrants and their children may assimilate the higher crime rates that characterize the low-income Hispanic population in the U.S. as a whole.[43] If this were to occur, then policies that would give illegal immigrants permanent residence through amnesty, as well as policies which would permit a continuing influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, would increase crime in the long term. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration One important question is the fiscal impact of immigration (both legal and illegal). Policymakers must ensure that the interaction of welfare and immigration policy does not expand the welfare-dependent popula_?tion, which would hinder rather than help immi_?grants and impose large costs on American society. This means that immigrants should be net contributors to government: the taxes they pay should exceed the cost of the benefits they receive. In calculating the fiscal impact of an individual or family, it is necessary to distinguish between public goods and private goods. Public goods do not require additional spending to accommodate new residents.[44] The clearest examples of government public goods are national defense and medical and scientific research. The entry of millions of immigrants will not raise costs or diminish the value of these public goods to the general population. Other government services are private goods; use of these by one person precludes or limits use by another. Government private goods include direct personal benefits such as welfare, Social Security benefits, Medicare, and education. Other government private goods are “congestible” goods.[45] These are services that must be expanded in proportion to the population. Government congestible goods include police and fire protection, roads and sewers, parks, libraries, and courts. If these services do not expand as the population expands, there will be a decrease in the quality of service. An individual makes a positive fiscal contribution when his total taxes paid exceed the direct benefits and congestible goods received by himself and his family.[46] The Fiscal Impact of Low Skill Immigration The 1997 New Americans study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examined the fiscal impact of immigration.[47] It found that, within in a single year, the fiscal impact of foreign-born households was negative in the two states studied, New Jersey and California.[48] Measured over the course of a lifetime, the fiscal impact of first-generation immigrants nationwide was also slightly negative.[49] However, when the future earnings and taxes paid by the offspring of the immigrant were counted, the long-term fiscal impact was positive. One commonly cited figure from the report is that the net present value (NPV) of the fiscal impact of the average recent immigrant and his descendents is $83,000.[50] There are five important caveats about the NAS longitudinal study and its conclusion that in the long term the fiscal impact of immigration is positive. First, the study applies to all recent immigration, not just illegal immigration. Second, the finding that the long-term fiscal impact of immigration is positive applies to the population of immigrants as a whole, not to low-skill immigrants alone. Third, the $83,000 figure is based on the predicted earnings, tax payments, and benefits of an immigrant’s descendents over the next 300 years.[51] Fourth, the study does not take into account the growth in out-of-wedlock childbearing among the foreign-born population, which will increase future welfare costs and limit the upward mobility of future generations. Fifth, the assumed educational attainment of the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of immigrants who are high school dropouts or high school graduates seems unreasonably high given the actual attainment of the offspring of recent Mexican and Hispanic immigrants.[52] The NAS study’s 300-year time horizon is highly problematic. Three hundred years ago, the United States did not even exist and British colonists had barely reached the Appalachian Mountains. We cannot reasonably estimate what taxes and benefits will be even 30 years from now, let alone 300. The NAS study assumes that most people’s descendents will eventually regress to the social and economic mean, and thus may make a positive fiscal contribution, if the time horizon is long enough. With similar methods, it seems likely that out-of-wedlock childbearing could be found to have a net positive fiscal value as long as assumed future earnings are projected out 500 or 600 years. Slight variations to NAS’s assumptions used by NAS greatly affect the projected outcomes. For example, limiting the time horizon to 50 years and raising the assumed interest rate from 3 percent to 4 percent drops the NPV of the average immigrant from around $80,000 to $8,000.[53] Critically, the NAS projections assumed very large tax increases and benefits cuts would begin in 2016 to prevent the federal deficit from rising further relative to GDP. This assumption makes it far easier for future generations to be scored as fiscal contributors. If these large tax hikes and benefit cuts do not occur, then the long-term positive fiscal value of immigration evaporates.[54] Moreover, if future tax hikes and benefit cuts do occur, the exact nature of those changes would likely have a large impact on the findings; this issue is not explored in the NAS study. Critically, the estimated net fiscal impact of the whole immigrant population has little bearing on the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants, who are primarily low-skilled. As noted, at least 50 percent of illegal immigrants do not have a high school degree. As the NAS report states, “[S]ome groups of immigrants bring net fiscal benefits to natives and others impose net fiscal costs¼ [I]mmigrants with certain characteristics, such as the elderly and those with little education, may be quite costly.”[55] The NAS report shows that the long-term fiscal impact of immigrants varies dramatically according to the education level of the immigrant. The fiscal impact of immigrants with some college education is positive. The fiscal impact of immigrants with a high school degree varies according to the time horizon used. The fiscal impact of immigrants without a high school degree is negative: benefits received will exceed taxes paid. The net present value of the future fiscal impact of immigrants without a high school degree is negative even when the assumed earnings and taxes of descendents over the next 300 years are included in the calculation.[56] A final point is that the NAS study’s estimates assume that low skill immigration does not reduce the wages of native-born low-skill workers. If low-skill immigration does, in fact, reduce the wages of native-born labor, this would reduce taxes paid and increase welfare expenditures for that group. The fiscal, social, and political implications could be quite large. The Cost of Amnesty Federal and state governments currently spend over $500 billion per year on means-tested welfare benefits.[57] Illegal aliens are ineligible for most federal welfare benefits but can receive some assistance through programs such as Medicaid, In addition, native-born children of illegal immigrant parents are citizens and are eligible for all relevant federal welfare benefits. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens would have two opposing fiscal effects. On the one hand, it may raise wages and taxes paid by broadening the labor market individuals compete in; it would also increase tax compliance and tax receipts as more work would be performed “on the books,”[58] On the other hand, amnesty would greatly increase the receipt of welfare, government benefits, and social services. Because illegal immigrant households tend to be low-skill and low-wage, the cost to government could be considerable. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty.[59] This study found that illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and currently pay little in taxes. Illegal immigrant households also receive lower levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that, on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes.[60] Granting amnesty would render illegal immigrants eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payment among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic backgrounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around $5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per year.[61] preference for entry visas. The current visa allotments for family members (other than spouses and minor children) should be eliminated, and quotas for employment- and skill-based entry increased proportionately.

*

“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

*

ONE QUARTER OF CONGRESS!!!!!!! IS NOW THE HISPANIC CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS!!!!!! THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA! MEXIFORNIA SENDS FOUR LA RAZA FASCIST TO CONGRESS. THEY ARE RABIDLY RACIST SUPREMACIST REPS. JOE BACA, XAVIER BECERRA, SISTERS LINDA AND LORETTA SANCHEZ. OBAMA’S LA RAZA SEC. OF (ILLEGAL) LABOR IS FORMER CONGRESSWOMAN HILDA SOLIS. ALL PUT IN OFFICE BY THE VOTES OF ILLEGALS!!!!!

 HERE’S AN EXAMPLE OF THEIR PRO-LA RAZA – GRINGOS PAY AGENDA:


Reps. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) and  Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) wrote President Obama last month on behalf of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, calling on the White House to terminate the program.

Yesterday, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) held a mass rally on the Capitol's West Lawn to present the outline of his new mass amnesty / weak enforcement bill. Of course, his proposed legislation includes a path to citizenship for most of the illegal aliens currently in the U.S. Earlier this year, Gutierrez barnstormed the country, speaking to dozens of churches, arguing for more immigration and amnesty.

According to Gutierrez, granting amnesty to illegal aliens is the righteous, merciful, and just thing to do. To hear it from Gutierrez, entering America illegally is practically a civil right!

What about America's tens of millions of unemployed, who must compete with illegal aliens for jobs and scarce social services? Where's the compassion for these people? Hundreds of NumbersUSA members have written to me recently telling me they've been laid off. Anyone care about them?

*

“To hear it from Gutierrez, entering America illegally is practically a civil right!”


Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

In his first state of the union speech since becoming president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon criticized the U.S. government and its efforts to shut down illegal immigration. During the speech Calderon proclaimed that “Mexico does not end at its borders” and that “where there is a Mexican, there is a Mexico.”

*

“In Mexico, a recent Zogby poll declared that the vast majority of Mexican citizens hate Americans. [22.2] Mexico is a country saturated with racism, yet in denial, having never endured the social development of a Civil Rights movement like in the US--Blacks are harshly treated while foreign Whites are often seen as the enemy. [22.3] In fact, racism as workplace discrimination can be seen across the US anywhere the illegal alien Latino works--the vast majority of the workforce is usually strictly Latino, excluding Blacks, Whites, Asians, and others.”

 *

“The increase in the number living in poverty, and falling incomes for the vast majority, stand in contrast to the continued rise in incomes for the richest 1 percent. Payouts to Wall Street bankers and financial traders are set to reach new heights in 2009. The Census Bureau figures provide one more indication of the enormous social tensions building up within the United States.”

*

“It is clear that far from seeking to reign in executive pay, the Obama administration has done everything in its power to defend the exorbitant compensation of the Wall Street CEOs.”

*

Wsws.org… get on their free daily email news

US poverty rate hits 11-year high

By Shannon Jones
11 September 2009

Poverty in the United States climbed to 13.2 percent in 2008, up from 12.5 percent in 2007, the highest level since 1997. The increase came as millions of workers lost their jobs in the first year of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, median household income hit its lowest level since 1997, while the number of people without health insurance rose. The data was contained in the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey released on Thursday.

In 2008, 39.8 million people were living in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007. The government defines poverty as a family of four with an annual income of less than $22,025. By this measure, the poverty rate for children under the age of 18 rose from 18 percent in 2007 to 19 percent in 2009. There were 14.1 million children living in poverty in 2008. The family poverty rate rose to 10.3 percent in 2008, with 8.1 million families in poverty. As the government’s official poverty threshold is woefully low, these figures drastically understate the true picture.

The US Midwest and West showed increases in both the poverty rate and the number living in poverty. The Midwest, hard hit by job losses in manufacturing, saw an increase in the poverty rate to 12.4 percent in 2008, up from 11.1 percent in 2007, an increase of 900,000 people living in poverty. The poverty rate in the West, battered by the collapse of the housing bubble, rose from 12 percent to 13.5 percent, an increase of 1.2 million additional people.

The poverty rate for whites rose to 8.6 percent, up from 8.2 percent in 2007. Poverty among Hispanics rose to 23.2 percent, up from 21.5 percent in 2007. Meanwhile, poverty among African American remained unchanged at 24.7 percent. According to the report, 31 percent of Americans fell into poverty for at least two months between 2004 and 2007. In 2008, 17.1 million people had income below one-half of their poverty threshold, in other words were living in extreme poverty. Of this number, 36.8 percent were children.

According to the report, median household income fell 3.6 percent between 2007 and 2008. The drop in median income was the largest annual decline since 1991, and means that in inflation adjusted dollars median income stands lower than in 1998. This is the first time in the 40 years that the Census Bureau has tracked household income that there has been a 10-year period in which median income did not increase. In all likelihood this is the first such decline since the Depression decade of the 1930s, as the 1940s and 1950s generally saw rising incomes.

The largest drop in income, 5.4 percent, occurred among wage earners in the 45 to 54 year age-range. The second greatest decline, 3.9 percent, came for workers in the 55-64 age bracket.

While the percentage of people without health coverage remained unchanged in 2008, the number of uninsured increased to 46.3 million, up from 45.7 million in 2008. Among children under the age of 18, 15.9 percent lacked health coverage. The number of people covered by employment-based health insurance fell from 177.4 million to 176.3 million, reflecting the impact of job losses and employers dropping health coverage for employees. For the eighth straight year, 2008 saw a drop the percentage of people covered by employer-based health insurance.

Meanwhile, the number covered by government-based health insurance rose from 83 million to 87.4 million, as a number of states expanded Medicaid and health insurance programs for children.

Texas had the highest rate of uninsured, a staggering 25 percent, up from 24.1 percent in 2007. New Mexico came in second with an uninsured rate of 23 percent. California had the largest number of uninsured, with 6.7 million people lacking coverage.

These figures present a pale reflection of the present situation, since they do not reflect the impact of continuing mass layoffs and cuts in social services. Based on the continuing job losses, the real number of uninsured is probably closer to 50 million, the figure used by the Congressional Budget Office.

The official unemployment rate in August stood at 9.7 percent. Some 7 million people have lost their jobs since the start of the recession, 3.8 million so far this year, and the toll is growing.

An economist with the Economic Policy Institute told Reuters that by their estimate “a quarter of all children in this country will be living in poverty” by the end of this year.

The increase in the number living in poverty, and falling incomes for the vast majority, stand in contrast to the continued rise in incomes for the richest 1 percent. Payouts to Wall Street bankers and financial traders are set to reach new heights in 2009. The Census Bureau figures provide one more indication of the enormous social tensions building up within the United States.

*

VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE CRIMINAL BANKSTERS ARE OBAMA DONORS, OR WORK OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE NOW!

*

But Wall Street is often motivated by something more than money - winning.


"In general, these are professional prognosticators," said Ritsch. "And they may be putting their money on the person they predict will win, not the candidate they hope will win."


Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).
*

CEOs at bailed out banks got $13.8 million apiece last year

By Andre Damon
7 September 2009

Executives at financial firms bailed out by the government received on average $13.8 million in compensation last year, according to a study of bank earning statements released last week.

This figure is 37 percent higher than the average CEO income in the S&P 500, which stood at $10.1 million last year. The study found that CEOs stand to benefit even further after their companies granted them stock options at their low points in early 2009.

The study, published Wednesday by the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think tank, gave a comprehensive overview of Wall Street firms’ pay practices based on their proxy earnings statements to the SEC.

The report noted that the average financial CEO’s salary in 2008 was 430 times what an average worker earned during the same time.

The top five executives at the 20 financial firms that got the most money from the federal government collected a total of $3.2 billion in compensation in the past three years. During this time, these 100 people took in an average of $32 million apiece. This group received $1.2 billion in 2006 and 2007, and $0.8 billion last year.

100 US workers would have to work for a thousand years to make as much as this group made in three.

The report notes that “Executive pay at top US financial firms stands poised for spectacularly rapid recovery.” Many Wall Street firms gave executives large quantities of stock options in the beginning of the year, when stocks were at bottom prices. But as a result of the bailout and the Obama administration’s continued guarantees that it would compensate banks for any losses they incur, these stocks have drastically shot up in value.

Half of the top 20 firms receiving bailouts have already reported the details and valuations of stock options given earlier this year. The top five executives at each of these firms had the value of their stock options increase by a total of $90 million. Executives at JPMorgan Chase had their options grow by $20.6 million, followed by American Express and PNC, each of whose executives had their options grow by $17.9 million. If the rally continues, these people stand to earn far more.

Sarah Anderson, the report’s author, told Newsweek, “I think the most shocking thing was looking at how executives could use the financial crisis as a springboard to an even bigger windfall this year. Rather than hand out bonuses, many companies gave out new stock options. For example, the stock options of American Express’s CEO increased by $18 million, but the stock price of the company was about half since the economic crash. I think this shows that executives come out on top no matter what.”

Executive bonuses are expected to increase by 25 percent this year, according to the Wall Street Journal. Goldman Sachs alone has already allocated $11 billion for employee compensation in the first part of the 2009.

“The federal government has, to this point, not moved forward into law or regulation any measure that would actually deflate the executive pay bubble that has expanded so hugely over the last three decades,” the study concluded.

This is a striking admission, but one that is absolutely true. For all its talk of reigning in executive compensation, the Obama Administration has taken no concrete measures to reduce the actual quantity of funds doled out to executives.

The closest thing to such a measure has been the appointment of Kenneth Feinberg to approve the pay packages of firms receiving some forms of government aid. Feinberg has the power to vote up or down the pay packages for the top 100 employees at these companies. But this limited oversight applies only for companies that still owe the US government money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

So far, eight of the top 20 receivers of government funds have paid back their TARP obligations, freeing themselves from any pay oversight. In any case, Feinberg has already approved “in principle” multi-million-dollar bonuses at failed insurer AIG. Feinberg is expected to release the results of his investigation later this month.

In another toothless measure, Congress has mandated that large financial firms conduct non-binding shareholder votes on executive pay packages.

The response from the media has been a mixture of feigned outrage and cynical acceptance. David Weidner wrote in a Wall Street Journal column Thursday, “It’s futile to try and eliminate risk-taking and big rewards on Wall Street. Greed is the nature of the business. Capping Wall Street pay is like telling Apple Inc. to be less innovative or Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to go easy on the discounts.” Instead, he argues that CEO pay should be better aligned with their companies’ interests.

This has been the nominal line of the Obama administration, which has on principle rejected any comprehensive restraints on CEO pay. At the G20 finance ministers’ meeting, which concluded talks on Saturday, France and Germany sought to create some sort of global oversight for pay in the financial industry, but US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner rejected any such approach, calling instead for token regulations on the amount of capital that banks are required to hold.

It is clear that far from seeking to reign in executive pay, the Obama administration has done everything in its power to defend the exorbitant compensation of the Wall Street CEOs.

*

L.A.County's $48 Million Monthly Anchor Baby Tab

Last Updated: Wed, 08/12/2009 - 11:24am

Taxpayers in the nation’s most populous county dished out nearly $50 million in a single month to cover only the welfare costs of illegal immigrants, representing a whopping $10 million increase over the same one-month period two years ago. 

In June 2009 alone Los Angeles County spent $48 million ($26 million in food stamps and $22 million in welfare) to provide just two of numerous free public services to the children of illegal aliens, which will translate into an annual tab of nearly $600 million for the cash-strapped county. 

The figure doesn’t even include the exorbitant cost of educating, medically treating or incarcerating illegal aliens in the sprawling county of about 10 million residents. Los Angeles County annually spends more than $1 billion for those combined services, including $400 million for healthcare and $350 million for public safety. 

The recent single-month welfare figure was obtained from the county’s Department of Social Services and made public by a county supervisor (Michael Antonovich) who assures illegal immigration continues to have a “catastrophic impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers.” The veteran lawmaker points out that 24% of the county’s total allotment of welfare and food stamp benefits goes directly to the children of illegal aliens—known as anchor babies—born in the United States.  

A former fifth-grade history teacher who has served on the county’s board for nearly three decades, Antonovich has repeatedly come under fire for publicizing statistics that confirm the devastation illegal immigration has had on the region. Antonovich represents a portion of the county that is roughly twice the size of Rhode Island and has about 2 million residents.

Numerous other reports have documented the enormous cost of illegal immigration on a national level. Just last year a renowned economist, who has thoroughly researched the impact of illegal immigration, published a book breaking down the country’s $346 billion annual cost to educate, jail, medically treat and incarcerate illegal aliens throughout the U.S.

*

WELFARE COSTS FOR CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IN L.A. COUNTY OVER $48 MILLION IN JUNE



August 11, 2009—Figures from the Department of Public Social Services show that children of illegal aliens in Los Angeles County collected nearly $22 million in welfare and over $26 million in food stamps in June, announced Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.  Projected over a 12 month period – this would exceed $575 million dollars.

Annually the cost of illegal immigration to Los Angeles County taxpayers exceeds over $1 billion dollars, which includes $350 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $500 million in welfare and food stamps allocations.  Twenty-four percent of the County’s total allotment of welfare and food stamp benefits goes directly to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States.

“Illegal immigration continues to have a catastrophic impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,” said Antonovich.  “The total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education.”

 IF YOU CALL REP. HENRY WAXMAN’S OFFICE AND ASK THEM WHAT HIS POSITION IS ON ILLEGALS AND THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION, HIS OFFICE VOLUNTEERS STAMMER THEN GO DUMB. NO WONDER LA RAZA ENDORSES HENRY WAXMAN.

*

THE MEXICAN LOOTER’S MENTALITY

“I know that many aliens who come here to work want to remain here, yet all too many come to the United States with a "looter" philosophy, giving the lawful immigrants who want to share in the “American Dream” a bad reputation.” In my former INS experience, it was not uncommon for the illegal aliens I arrested to make it clear that they were here for one purpose: to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible and send it all home. I know that many aliens who come here to work want to remain here, yet all too many come to the United States with a "looter" philosophy, giving the lawful immigrants who want to share in the “American Dream” a bad reputation. Part of the problem is that the relationship that businesses have with the United States is one of greed. These companies couldn't care less about the damage that they do to this country or the average working American. They are happy to exploit the illegal aliens and in so doing, get a lucrative piece of the action. And the bankers and money wire services like Western Union have become the silent partners of the illegal aliens. Of course, if the American dollar plummets far enough many illegal aliens will probably just head home, leaving this country in financial disarray. But when you read about the amounts of money being sent out of the United States that is lost to our economy, you must realize that the money you are reading about is not being earned by Americans or by lawful immigrants, because they have been displaced by illegal aliens who are willing to work for substandard wages. Unfortunately, Congress has just passed what has been billed as an "Economic Stimulus Package." This bill will undoubtedly be signed into law by the President and will call for taxpayers to be mailed one-time rebate checks that (it is hoped) will be used to spend on consumer goods that – get this – for the most part are not even produced in the United States. A large part of the problem we are having right now is that Americans are not saving enough money. Our citizens have been cashing in the value of their homes with second mortgages and huge credit card debts and now, the value of most of those houses has fallen into the basement! There is an utter lack of fiscal responsibility in abundant evidence in Washington and around kitchen tables across the United States and meanwhile, the front runners in the Presidential elections are eager to provide amnesty and thus more incentives for still more illegal aliens to drain still more money out of our economy. They will do this through remittances and other means of sending money back home. They will do this when they show up in the emergency rooms of hospitals across our nation demanding medical treatment without medical insurance. The criminal element of this massive influx of illegal aliens will injure and kill more victims in our country, destroying lives and the lives of family members of the victims of those crimes. Some of the crimes will also result in property losses and in fraud.

*

Identity theft is the fastest growing white collar crime in America today and is often motivated by organized rings that sell these stolen identities to illegal aliens seeking illegal employment.

*

The Congressional Budget Office has recently done a study that concludes that contrary to the assertions of the open borders / pro-amnesty crowd, illegal aliens represent a net drain on the economy. Finally, the attacks of September 11, 2001, in addition to the death and destruction they wrought, hammered our economy and the economies of other countries. Trade suffered, travel and tourism suffered – yet the travel and hospitality industries are pushing a program known as "Discover America" wherein they are attempting to have the United States government expand the Visa Waiver Program beyond the current 27 participating countries to as many as 39 countries. In the end, the United States and its working poor and middle class that is shouldering the greatest burden of the open borders and cash movement mess. Interestingly, with all of the interviews that were conducted in the article linked above, not a single interview was conducted to find out what the impact of the decline of the dollar has had on the average American family.

*

 U.S. efforts to find and deport illegal immigrants are overwhelmed by sheer numbers and hampered by public agencies working at cross-purposes. The $2 billion spent each year has little measurable effect on either crime or immigration. Most people deported say they intend to return to the U.S. – and many do. Criminals have less trouble returning than most.”

 *

Illegals Receiving Health Care …."But....( of course there is!)"


 “If you’re in this country illegally, should you be able to get health care?” CNN’s John King asked Mrs. Pelosi.


“No, illegal immigrants are not covered by this plan,” she replied.


Mrs. Pelosi’s remarks are downright deceptive, according to Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who points out that the proposed health care legislation “ contains gaping loopholes that will allow illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-funded benefits .”


These loopholes, Rep. Smith maintains, are “no accident.” He maintains that the proposed legislation, despite months of debate, still contains no mechanism for verifying if applicants are legal residents or not.


The Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee attempted to address this loophole by an amendment proposed by Congressman Dick Heller (R-Nevada) which would have required applicants for government provided or subsidized health care to demonstrate eligibility through the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) systems.

But, on July 29, the Heller Amendment was soundly defeated by the following 26 Majority Members of the House Ways & Means Committee: Xavier Becerra (Calif.), Shelley Berkley (Nev.), Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Joe Crowley (N.Y.), Artur Davis (Ala.), Danny Davis (Ill.), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Bob Etheridge (N.C.), Brian Higgins (N.Y.), Ron Kind (Wis.), John Larson (Conn.), Sander Levin (Mich.), John Lewis (Ga.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Kendrick Meek (Fla.), Richard Neal (Mass.), Bill Pascrell (N.J.), Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), Chairman Charlie Rangel (N.Y.), Linda Sanchez (Calif.), Allyson Schwartz (Pa.), Pete Stark (Calif.), John Tanner (Tenn.), Mike Thompson (Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), and John Yarmuth (Ky.).


The Federal for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) believes the legislation is now purposefully self-contradictory in order to ensure that the millions of illegal Latinos will receive coverage. FAIR points out that while one provision of the proposed health care reform bill states illegal immigrants will not be eligible for benefits, the legislation remains without any system of verification for determining if a patient is a legal or illegal U. S. resident.

Moreover, Fair insists, the bill leaves open the possibility that if one citizen family member is eligible for benefits, then the entire family — including illegal immigrants — is also eligible for the benefits.

“At a time when the federal government is running trillion dollar deficits, and the projected costs of the proposed health care overhaul seem to grow with each passing day, the committee that writes our tax laws wants Americans to pay for the health care costs of illegal aliens,” says FAIR President Dan Stein. “Given the opportunity to close loopholes that would cost the public billions of dollars each year, Democrats on the committee unanimously rejected an amendment that would bar illegal aliens from a national health care program.”

The cost of treating illegal aliens amounts to nearly $11 billion a year, according to calculations done by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a non-profit group that opposes illegal immigration. And that cost is not expected to go away if a health insurance reform bill becomes law.

According to FAIR’s Director of Special Projects Jack Martin, illegal immigrants presently cost U. S. taxpayers $10.7 billion a year for health care. The numbers are contained in a report that FAIR plans to publish in the near future.

“The current health care bill is looking as if it is leaving a very large loophole for medical coverage being provided to illegal aliens,” Martin said.

So again, yes, the speaker of the House can say: "We've made no provision for Health Care for Illegal Aliens". But, is she in fact telling you the WHOLE truth or only half a truth. I am an independent voter and I, at this point, have my opinion. You be the judge for your own opinion.

*

The politics of Healthcare Reform

from the AP -

"Immigration analyst James R. Edwards Jr. reported last week in National Review that "no health legislation on the table requires federal, state or local agencies -- or private institutions receiving federal funds -- to check the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of the money distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to illegal aliens." Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee plan creates a preference for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to buy insurance.

That's right. Lawabiding, uninsured Americans would be fined if they didn't submit to the ObamaCare prescription.

Lawbreaking bordercrossers and deportation fugitives would be spared.

For years, advocates of uncontrolled immigration have argued that illegals aren't getting free health care, and that even if they were, they'd not be draining government budgets. The fiscal crisis in California gives lie to those talking points. In March, the Associated Press reported that Sacramento and Contra Costa counties were slashing staff and closing clinics due to the prohibitive costs of providing nonemergency health services for illegals.

"The general situation there is being faced by nearly every health department across the country, and if not right now, shortly," Robert M. Pestronk of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told the AP."

*

 DO YOU THINK LA RAZA’S SUPREMACY HAS WANED SINCE THESE WERE PUBLISHED?

 FAIR Legislative Update December 22, 2009

 Radical Amnesty Bill Introduced in House

On Tuesday, December 15, open borders advocate Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) introduced H.R. 4321, the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009,” (CIR ASAP). H.R. 4321 would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, dramatically increase legal immigration, and create loopholes in existing penalties in exchange for promises of “enforcement” in the future. (See FAIR’s Legislative Updates from October 19, 2009 and December 14, 2009). At introduction, CIR ASAP had over 90 original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. (See Cosponsor listing).

CIR ASAP contains several amnesty programs, including AgJOBS (Title IV, Subtitle B); the DREAM Act (sprinkled throughout the bill); and a broad amnesty program through which millions of illegal aliens could obtain “earned legalization” (Title IV, Subtitle A). These provisions are in many ways similar to those in the Bush-Kennedy Amnesty Bill of 2007, except that several significant requirements have been weakened. For example, for an illegal alien to receive amnesty under H.R.4321, he or she does not even have to establish employment, only that he or she is an active member of the community.

In addition to granting amnesty, CIR ASAP would dramatically increase legal immigration by:

           Recapturing purportedly “unused” family and employment-based green cards from 1992 to 2008 (§301(a)-(b)). According to State Department data, this provision alone could bring in as many as 550,000 immigrants—all of whom would compete with American workers for jobs. (U.S. State Department, Unused Family and Employment Preferences Numbers Available for Recapture, Fiscal Years 1992-2007).

           Expanding the definition of “immediate relatives” to include children and spouses of lawful permanent residents. (§302). This would allow an unlimited number of these children and spouses to immediately qualify for a visa.

           Increasing the annual per country limits on family and employment-based visas from seven percent to ten percent. (§303). Under current law, each foreign country has a seven percent share of the total cap of visas allocated each year.

In exchange for the multiple amnesties and massive increases in legal immigration proposed in the bill, H.R. 4321 contains measures ostensibly aimed at strengthening immigration “enforcement.” Upon closer examination, however, CIR ASAP would actually undermine the enforcement of our immigration laws. For example, the bill would:

           Repeal the highly successful 287(g) program, which allows federal officials to train state and local law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. (§184).

           Establish a new, untested electronic employee verification system. (§201). This would completely reverse years of progress made with respect to E-Verify.

           Temporarily suspend Operation Streamline pending a re-evaluation of the program’s future viability. (§125(a)). Operation Streamline is a highly successful, zero-tolerance program that targets illegal aliens for immediate prosecution upon apprehension at or near the border. After Operation Streamline was put into effect in December 2006, the Yuma, Arizona sector saw nearly 1200 prosecutions in the first 9 months. Border apprehensions decreased by 70 percent. (CBP Press Release, July 24, 2007).

           Prohibit the Armed Forces and the National Guard from assisting in securing the border unless: (1) the President declares a national emergency, or (2) the use of the Armed Forces/National Guard is required for specific counter-terrorism duties. (§131(a) & (b)).

           Require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to identify and inventory the current personnel, human resources, assets, equipment, supplies, or other physical resources dedicated to border security and enforcement prior to any increase in these categories. (§114(a); §116(a)).

At a press conference announcing the introduction of his bill, Rep. Gutierrez indicated that his bill was to set the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’s standard for immigration reform legislation. However, he also acknowledged that the Senate will most likely be the first chamber to act on amnesty legislation. While a bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is planning to introduce a bill in early 2010, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has indicated he will kick off the amnesty debate sometime in February or March. (Congressional Quarterly, December 15, 2009).

FAIR will be releasing a more detailed summary of the Gutierrez amnesty bill shortly. Stay tuned for our in-depth analysis.

                       

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Thursday, October 22, 2009

 The federal government has declared war on Sheriff JOE ARPAIO of Maricopa County, Arizona, for enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. “America’s Toughest Sheriff” will give Lou an update.


*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Friday, October 16, 2009

E-Verify- the single most successful federal program aimed at keeping illegal immigrants out of the workforce- is once again threatened. This time, E-Verify was stripped from a Senate Amendment behind closed doors and without explanation. Instead of becoming a permanent program E-verify has been reduced to only three years. Critics are calling this a stall tactic and an attempt at killing an employment enforcement system. We will have a full report tonight.


*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Thursday, October 15, 2009

 E-Verify -- the single most successful federal program aimed at keeping illegal immigrants out of the nation's workforce is once again being threatened. Permanent reauthorization for the program -- which has a 99.7-percent accuracy rate -- has been pulled from pending legislation. Now the program is set to expire in just 3-years. The change was made behind closed doors in the Senate -- without public comment or debate.

 *

 Lou Dobbs Tonight

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

New attempts to put comprehensive immigration reform back on the front burner. Congressman Luis Gutierrez -- the chair of the Democratic Caucus Immigration Task Force -- is unveiling new legislation that would call for amnesty for the up to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country.

Congressman Gutierrez will join me tonight


*
Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The Obama administration could be weakening a successful joint federal and local program aimed at keeping illegal immigrants off our streets. "287 G" gives local police the training and authority to enforce federal immigration law. Supporters of the program believe the ministration wants to limit the program to criminal illegal immigrants already in custody -- limiting the investigative authority of police.

And Father PATRICK BASCIO has a remarkably different perspective on illegal immigration from that of most Christian clergymen-one he’s outlined in a remarkable new book entitled

On the Immorality of Illegal Immigration: An Alternative Christian View.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, September 28, 2009

And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is headed. Call him toll-free on the Independent Hotline at 877-55 DOBBS.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

 Federal contractors now must use E-verify to check the status of their employees on federal projects. The rule which goes into effect today will affect almost 169,000 contractors and some 3.8 million workers. The E-verify program has an accuracy rating of 99.6% but has been repeatedly challenged by the U.S. Chamber of Congress. We will have a full report tonight.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight    

And there are some 800,000 gang members in this country: That’s more than the combined number of troops in our Army and Marine Corps. These gangs have become one of the principle ways to import and distribute drugs in the United States. Congressman David Reichert joins Lou to tell us why those gangs are growing larger and stronger, and why he’s introduced legislation to eliminate the top three international drug gangs.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight    

Senator Ted Kennedy kicked off a week of events and meetings focusing on immigration before he introduces legislation promoting amnesty for millions of illegal aliens living in the United States. Today, Kennedy met with Cardinal Roger Mahony, an outspoken and controversial supporter of illegal aliens and Kennedy’s bill. Senators McCain, Kennedy and Representatives

Flake and Gutierrez are expected to unveil their legislation later this month. We’ll have a full report.

 *

Lou Dobbs Tonight                       

Thursday, September 18, 2008

 Another victory for American workers in Arizona. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the get-tough employer sanctions law in the state. The law hits employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens with strict penalties and in some cases even strips businesses of their licenses. A lower court upheld the same law in February. But open-borders and amnesty groups along with the business lobby are considering yet another appeal.

 *

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, February 11, 2008

In California, League of United Latin American Citizens has adopted a resolution to declare "California Del Norte" a sanctuary zone for immigrants. The declaration urges the Mexican government to invoke its rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo "to seek third nation neutral arbitration of ....disputes concerning immigration laws and their enforcement." We’ll have the story.

Last year, Prince William County, Virginia passed an initiative to allow local police to check the immigration status of anyone in police custody. The county recently held its first immigration training session for local police officers. We’ll have a look inside the training.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon is in New York today on the first leg his five day tour across America to meddle in immigration issues in the United States. This is his first visit to the U.S. since he became President in 2006, but he will not meet with President Bush or any of the presidential candidates, who he has accused of spewing anti immigrant rhetoric. Join us for that report.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight Wednesday

March 5, 2008

Immigration experts are appearing on Capitol Hill today to release the results of a study showing the cost of illegal immigration on the criminal justices system in the 24 U.S. counties bordering Mexico–more $1 billion in less than a decade.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Gov. Schwarzenegger said California is facing “financial Armageddon”. He is making drastic cuts in the budget for education, health care and services. But there is one place he isn’t making cuts… services for illegal immigrants. These services are estimated to cost the state four to five billion dollars a year. Schwarzenegger said he is “happy” to offer these services. We will have a full report tonight.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Thursday, May 28, 2009

 Plus drug cartel violence is spreading across our border with Mexico further into the United States. Mexican drug cartels are increasingly being linked to crimes in this country. Joining Lou tonight, from our border with Mexico is the new “border czar” Alan Bersin, the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs.

 *

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, April 20, 2009

 And compelling new evidence that H-1B visas for foreign workers lower the pay of information technology workers in this country. Critics say the report, by NYU’s Stern School of Business and Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, proves that corporate elites are importing cheap overseas labor simply to lower the wages of American workers. We’ll have a special report.

 *

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Plus, outrage after President Obama prepares to push ahead with his plan for so-called comprehensive immigration reform. Pres. Obama is fulfilling a campaign promise to give

legal status to millions of illegal aliens as he panders to the pro-amnesty, open borders lobby. Tonight we will have complete coverage.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, February 16, 2009

Construction of the 670 miles of border fence mandated by the Bush administration is almost complete. The Border Patrol says the new fencing, more agents and new technology

have reduced illegal alien apprehensions. But fence opponents are trying to stop the last few miles from being finished. We will have a full report, tonight.

 Plus, even open border advocates agree that the most effective way of fighting illegal immigration is to crack down on the employment of illegal aliens. Yet, those same groups are

opposed to E-Verify, which has an initial accuracy rate of 99.6% making it one the most accurate programs ever. E-Verify was stripped from the stimulus bill but who stripped it out and who is opposed to verifying employment status is still not clear.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Friday, October 17, 2008

 Tonight, a Supreme Court ruling is putting our democracy at risk. The court today overturned a federal appeals court decision that would have forced Ohio to do more to verify questionable voter registrations. We’ll have the very latest in our special report.

 Plus, in the War on the Middle Class tonight, a government program is found to be rampant with fraud and abuse, giving even more American jobs to foreign workers. A new Department of Homeland Security report shows cases of violations, forgery and shell businesses in the H-1B visa program. We’ll have that and much more.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, January 13, 2009


In Colorado, over 1,300 illegal aliens are being investigated for applying for improper tax refunds. The ACLU has written a letter to the judge threatening to sue if the judge convenes a grand jury to investigate the case. We will have all the latest developments of the case as well as the ACLU’s bullying in pursuit of their amnesty agenda.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

And WILLIAM GHEEN, the president of Americans for Legal Immigration, breaks down his push for E-Verify—and why the Obama administration is wrong to delay its implementation when it comes to federal contractors.

 *

JUDICIAL WATCH.org

REPORT CARD ON BARACK OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY:

With trillion dollar bailouts, government-run healthcare, banks and car companies, ACORN corruption, attacks on conservative media, illegal alien amnesty, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors—this is the Obama legacy—and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency!

 BARACK OBAMA 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20500 comments@whitehouse.gov Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard for live listener: 202 456 1414 Fax: 202-456-2461

*
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.
*

“As economist Philip J. Romero concluded in a 2007 study, "illegal immigrants impose a 'tax' on legal California residents in the tens of billions of dollars.”
latimes.com

Opinion

California must stem the flow of illegal immigrants

The state should go after employers who hire them, curb taxpayer-funded benefits, deploy the National Guard to help the feds at the border and penalize 'sanctuary' cities.

*

By Steve Poizner (FORMER CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR)

March 27, 2010

The United States, and California in particular, has been built by immigrants who legally crossed our borders in search of a brighter future. For generations, these legal immigrants have made immeasurable contributions to creating a unique and vibrant California. As Americans and Californians, we are right to welcome people from all over the globe when they obey our laws and are willing to play by the rules.

*

Illegal immigration is another matter entirely. With the state budget in tatters, millions of residents out of work and a state prison system strained by massive overcrowding, California simply cannot continue to ignore the strain that illegal immigration puts on our budget and economy. Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in our state billions of dollars each year. As economist Philip J. Romero concluded in a 2007 study, "illegal immigrants impose a 'tax' on legal California residents in the tens of billions of dollars."


Some have said that illegal immigration is an issue for the federal government, not the states, and that there's little a governor can do to fix the problem. Those people are wrong.

*
In government at any level, federal or state, a chief executive's duty is to preserve the rule of law. This also means confronting those who flout it, including illegal immigrants and those who shield them.


I believe there are many ways our state can stem the flow of illegal immigration, including social services reform and beefed-up border security. The state needs to confront the problem in a way that is fair and decent but also unapologetically aggressive.



(LA RAZA DEM, GOV JERRY BROWN JUST SIGNED A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY, DESPITE CA’S STAGGERING UNEMPLOYMENT OF LEGALS!)


Above all, California has too many policies that reward illegal aliens and act like magnets, drawing them to and keeping them in our cities and communities. We have to change those policies.

Ten other states, including neighboring Arizona, have passed laws to cut taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants. We need such legislation too. In this time of fiscal crisis, we can't afford to subsidize the presence of illegal aliens.

One taxpayer-funded benefit for illegal aliens that should be stopped is in-state tuition at our public colleges and universities. Today, California is one of just 10 states that allow illegal immigrants access to reduced college tuition at taxpayer expense.
California must also do its part to help secure the border by deploying the state's National Guard to assist federal authorities. We should also work with other border states to create a multi-state partnership for sharing information, resources and manpower. (OBAMA HAS NOW SUED FOUR STATES ON BEHALF OF HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE!)

*

THE MEXICAN LOOTER’S MENTALITY

“I know that many aliens who come here to work want to remain here, yet all too many come to the United States with a "looter" philosophy, giving the lawful immigrants who want to share in the “American Dream” a bad reputation.”

*
NOTE THE DATE OF THE ARTICLE BELOW. SINCE THEN THE LA RAZA DEMS HAVE PUT MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS IN OUR JOBS! IN FACT, LA RAZA JERRY BROWN OF MEXIFORNIA HAS SIGNED A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY!!!
*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/11/mexico-makes-america-colony-and.html

Immigrating America Into a Colony of Mexico

Article by Frosty Wooldridge

2004

Published on The Washington Dispatch.

America faces a greater and more dangerous threat from within than from without. While our armed forces secure Afghanistan and Iraq, our own borders stand unguarded 24 hours a day. Al-Qaeda insurgents plan their next attacks somewhere inside our country. They advocate a violent overthrow of America.

We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or the reconquest of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the country of Mexico. With 9.2 million Mexicans now living in America, their goal of colonizing our country back into Mexico moves forward. A more sobering reality stems from the evidence that it’s Mexican-American citizens in the forefront of this disintegration of our country.

*

“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
*

LA RAZA OCCUPIED MEXIFORNIA – MUCHO LOOT FOR WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS… BUT WHO REALLY PAYS, AND WHO VOTED FOR THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE IN OUR BORDERS? ILLEGALS!

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

*
BOOK:
Mexifornia: SHATTERING OF AN AMERICAN DREAM (illegals call it their DREAM ACT)

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/book-mexifornia-shattering-of-american.html

*

THESE FIGURES ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ARE DATED. IT NOW EXCEEDS $600 MILLION PER YEAR!!! (source: Los Angeles County & JUDICIAL WATCH)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949085/posts

*