Saturday, December 16, 2017


Americans (legals) are only one paycheck and two illegals away from homelessness.



We spent eight months and did over a hundred interviews to try to bypass the usual rhetoric and get to the bottom of what really happened when undocumented workers showed up in one Alabama town. Pictured: Albertville “Miss Chick” 1954.

...... the entire reason America's borders are wide open and employers are permitted to hire illegals is to keep wages depressed!

"Shielding American workers from foreign competition gave rise to the middle class which, in turn, created the "American Dream."

"The US jobs report for November, released Friday, provides 

further evidence that the much vaunted economic “recovery” 

in the United States has overwhelmingly benefited Wall 

Street, whose stock bonanza is based above all on stagnant 

wages and the destruction of working-class living standards."

Here’s how it breaks down; will make you want to be an illegal!


Will Trump’s Amnesty double these figures?

Wages remain mostly stagnant despite unemployment hitting new lows

Job seekers line up to apply during “Amazon Jobs Day,” a job fair being held at 10 fulfillment centers across the United States aimed at filling more than 50,000 jobs, at the Fulfillment Center in Fall River, Mass., on Aug. 2, 2017. Amazon chief executive, Jeffrey P. Bezos, owns The Washington Post. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)

As the nation’s post-recession recovery turned into a long-running economic expansion, policymakers had hoped wages would start to boom once laid-off workers found jobs. With workers in shorter supply, policymakers argued, companies would start offering raises to attract new employees and keep their current ones.
But as the unemployment rate has dipped to a 17-year-low of 4.1 percent and firms nationwide struggle to fill vacancies, workers aren’t seeing the pay increases that were supposed to come with what analysts call the strongest labor market in two decades.
“People are finding jobs more quickly and easily,” said Jason Furman, an economics professor at Harvard University and former Obama administration official. “They’re more confidently quitting their jobs to find another. Everything with the way people are behaving is consistent with the strength in the labor market. But wages just aren’t picking up the way we thought they would.”
Workers’ average hourly earnings grew by 5 cents in November to $26.55 — part of an overall increase of 2.5 percent since the same period last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. That’s a growth rate that lags significantly behind pre-recession levels, when year-over-year wage increases exceeded 4 percent.
Economists have struggled to find a single cause for the stubbornly slow pace. Some point to demographics: Baby boomers are retiring in droves, and the younger workers replacing them command smaller paychecks. Some suspect that automation may be eliminating formerly high-paying jobs. Others suspect it’s the result of a change in what types of employment are available, with growth in low-paying jobs outpacing more lucrative ones.
The lack of progress has frustrated policymakers, particularly because the economy is pulling people back into the labor market who had entirely given up on finding work in the wake of a devastating recession.
But so far, the pay bumps have been uneven. In construction, for example, average hourly pay has shot up 2.9 percent to $29.17 since last November, driven in part by rebuilding efforts in hurricane-walloped states, such as Texas and Florida.
Information workers — or those who make a living on the Internet, in publishing and in telecommunications — saw a 3.4 percent year-over-year raise to $38.59, the same as employees in the high-paying world of finance.
Leisure and hospitality workers have gotten a disproportionately large boost, 3.6 percent, but they still make an average of $15 an hour — less than the other major job categories.
Wages in manufacturing, however, appear especially stagnant, growing 1.9 percent since last November. That’s despite recent job growth in the sector, which Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta pointed out Friday has an unemployment rate of 2.6 percent.
“The lowest ever recorded,” he said in a statement.
President Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill have said they hope to pass sweeping changes to the tax code by the end of December, a move they believe will create more good-paying jobs and supercharge economic growth. Lowering the corporate tax rate, the GOP leaders assert, will inspire firms to invest and hire more. And in a controversial report, a top White House economist claimed the tax plan would cause workers to see thousands of dollars more per year.
“People are going to be very excited when they see their paycheck bigger,” White House economic council director Gary Cohn said about the president’s tax plan during a Friday interview with Fox Business.
The White House’s predictions for the economic affects greatly outstrip those of most mainstream economists.
Many analysts say it’s difficult to predict how companies would react to a tax cut, saying many may make moves that have little to do with economic stimulus or increased salaries. This week, Home Depot announced it would use some of its surplus billions to buy back shares of its own stock, a decision that will enrich top executives, and analysts predict other companies will make similar moves if offered a tax windfall.
“Historically, when you see tax cuts, there’s been no strong correlation there,” said Scott Anderson, chief economist at Bank of the West. “In my view, if I’m a CEO and I’m seeing tax cuts for my organization, I might give those tax cuts back to shareholders.”
The economy added 228,000 jobs in November, government economists reported Friday, maintaining a streak of growth that took off during President Barack Obama’s first term and kept pace through Trump’s first year in office. Monthly job gains have averaged out at 174,000 in 2017 and 187,000 in 2016, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Dan North, chief economist at Euler Hermes North America, a global credit insurance company, said the rising demand for workers at firms across the country lately isn’t enough to significantly increase paychecks.
“Workers should get a share in that increase,” North said, but “we also have labor coming back in off the sidelines.”
Productivity growth remains low, he said, inching up at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent over the last eight years, compared with its historic rate of 2.1 percent from 1974 to 2017, government numbers show.
Plus, the jobs growing most quickly in the United States offer some of the nation’s lowest wages. The home health aide industry, paying workers about $22,000 per year, will produce an estimated 425,600 positions by 2026.
Manufacturing continued to grow last month, adding 31,000 jobs including 8,000 in machinery, 7,000 in metal products, 4,000 in computer goods and 4,000 in plastic and rubber wares. That’s on top of 24,000 new manufacturing positions created in October after no growth in September.
Healthcare also showed strong expansion, the government data show. Ambulatory health-care services, which includes doctors’ offices and outpatient recovery centers, saw an increase of 25,000 jobs. Construction jobs surged by 23,000.
“November’s jobs report shows steady growth fueled by optimism about the pro-growth, pro-jobs policies being advanced by President Trump’s Administration,” Acosta said Friday in his statement. “Since January, the economy has added 1.7 million jobs.”




Amid “full employment,” no 

recovery in US wages

By Jerry White
11 December 2017
The US jobs report for November, released Friday, provides further evidence that the much vaunted economic “recovery” in the United States has overwhelmingly benefited Wall Street, whose stock bonanza is based above all on stagnant wages and the destruction of working-class living standards.
The Labor Department reported that nonfarm payrolls increased by 228,000 and the jobless rate remained unchanged at 4.1 percent, the lowest level since January 2000 at the height of the “” bubble. Manufacturing payrolls rose by 31,000; construction in the aftermath of the hurricanes in Texas and Florida added 24,000 jobs. There was also a boost in the low-wage retail (18,700) and leisure and hospitality (14,000) sectors.
Despite what economists, the media and politicians are calling “full employment,” average hourly earnings rose only 0.2 percent, or five cents, to $26.55 an hour, from a downwardly revised 0.1 percent drop in wages in October. Year-to-year wage increases in November were only 64 cents, or 2.5 percent. If wages rise by another nickel in December, yearly salaries will be up a mere 2.4 percent in 2017, barely above the official projected inflation rate of 2.0 percent.
“President Trump’s bold economic vision continues to pay off,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders boasted on Friday. “The economy’s vital signs are stronger than they have been in years,” the New York Times declared. “Companies are posting jobs faster than they can find workers to fill them. Incomes are rising. The stock market sets records seemingly every month.”
Economic analysts have pointed to anemic wage growth, euphemistically called weak “inflationary pressure,” as a major factor in the determination of the Federal Reserve to continue pumping up the stock market with cheap credit. Although most economists expect a modest interest rate hike at the Fed’s meeting Wednesday, Jerome Powell, President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Federal Reserve, made clear last month at his Senate confirmation hearing that he would keep rates at historically low levels. At the same time, he assured the senators that there was little danger of a wages push because of continuing “slackness” in the labor market, i.e., an ample supply of workers desperate for full-time employment.
Other analysts agree. “Wage growth has been muted thus far,” especially given the “very healthy pace of job creation,” said Michelle Meyer, head of US economics at Bank of America. “It’s been the story throughout the course of this year.”
Describing November’s wage increase as “tepid,” Carl Riccadonna and Yelena Shulyatyeva of Bloomberg Economics wrote: “Even though job gains are well in excess of the natural growth rate for the labor market, labor scarcity is not yet driving wage pressures higher. The moral of the story from this jobs report is that full employment is indeed much lower in the current cycle relative to history.”
US employers are exploiting a reserve of unemployed and underemployed workers to keep wages low. At the same time, corporations are filling positions with young workers who are paid far lower wages and benefits than the older workers they are replacing.
According to the government, 6.6 million workers in the US remain unemployed, including 1.6 million, or nearly one out of four jobless people, who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. Another 4.8 million were forced to work part-time last month although they want full-time work, and 1.8 million were “marginally attached” to the labor force. The latter want to work but did not search for employment in the four weeks preceding the survey and were therefore not counted as “unemployed.”
The labor force participation rate, or share of working-age people in the labor force, remained at 62.7 percent in November. However, just 79 percent of the prime-age work force, aged 25 to 54, is actually working—below the rate before the 2008 financial crash.
The situation facing the young generation is particularly dire. According to the Class of 2017 report by the Economic Policy Institute, the unemployment rate for young high school graduates is 16.9 percent (compared with 15.9 percent in 2007 and 12.1 percent in 2000). For young college graduates, the unemployment rate is currently 5.6 percent (compared with 5.5 percent in 2007 and 4.3 percent in 2000), and 7.1 percent for young male college graduates.
The figures are even higher for “underemployment,” which includes young graduates who are involuntary part-timers or are only marginally attached to the labor force. For young high school graduates, the underemployment rate is 30.9 percent (compared with 26.8 percent in 2007 and 20.8 percent in 2000). For young college graduates, the underemployment rate is 11.9 percent (compared with 9.6 percent in 2007 and 7.1 percent in 2000).
The share of young graduates who are “idled” by the economy—neither enrolled in further schooling nor employed—remains higher in the wake of the Great Recession than in 2007 and 2000, the report noted. This includes 15.1 percent of young high school graduates and 9.9 percent of young college graduates, many of whom are burdened with unsustainable debts.
The stagnation of wages is a long-term tendency. Since the early 1970s, hourly inflation-adjusted wages have grown by only 0.2 percent annually, and labor’s share of national income has fallen from nearly 65 percent in the mid-1970s to below 57 percent in 2017.
The deterioration in the social position of the working class and accompanying explosion of social inequality are not simply the result of objective economic laws. They are the intended outcome of the policies of the American ruling class, implemented by successive Democratic and Republican administrations alike. The transfer of production to lower-wage countries, deindustrialization and mass layoffs in the 1980s and 1990s were used as a hammer to beat back the resistance of workers to a historic lowering of their living standards.
This process was aided and abetted by the trade unions, whose pro-capitalist and nationalist orientation left workers without any progressive response to globalization. Far from opposing wage and benefit cuts, the United Auto Workers and other unions suppressed working-class opposition and collaborated with the corporations to slash labor costs in the name of boosting competitiveness and “protecting American jobs.”
This assault was escalated in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008. In the course of the eight years of the Obama administration, the unions limited strikes to the lowest levels since the Labor Department began recording work stoppages in 1947. They collaborated with the Democratic president to crush a potential wages push in 2015-16 as workers in auto, steel, oil, telecom, airlines, rail, health care, retail and other industries, as well as teachers and other public employees, were coming up for new labor agreements.
While workers were determined to recoup lost income after corporate profits had fully recovered from the crash, the unions signed deals that limited pay hikes to the rate of inflation or barely above it while shifting health care and pension costs onto the backs of workers. This was key to Obama’s “in-sourcing” strategy for attracting investment on the basis of low wages, as well as his “quantitative easing” interest rate policy, which fueled the massive rise in the stock market that continues to this day. Virtually all of the net increase in new jobs created under Obama’s “gig economy” were part-time, contingent or temporary OR ILLEGALS!
Trump claims his $1.5 trillion tax cut—including the slashing of the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent—will create more jobs and increase wages. As in the Obama years, however, this massive windfall for big business and the rich will not be used to expand production, let alone increase the wages and living standards of workers. It will go for stock buybacks and dividend increases, which benefit the richest investors.
Wages are so low now that 7.6 million Americans are forced to work multiple jobs, a number not seen in 20 years. In a recent article titled “China-Like Wages Now Part of US Employment Boom,” Forbes noted that a forklift operator hired at $12.75 an hour at Amazon’s Fall River, Massachusetts fulfillment center makes $382 for a 30-hour week, “not much more than the average guy in Beijing,” where the median weekly wage is $329.53. At 40 hours a week, a higher paid, full-time Amazon worker in Fall River earns $28,800 a year before taxes, roughly what Amazon’s billionaire CEO Jeff Bezos pockets every minute.

National Public Radio’s This American Life promotes anti-immigrant propaganda

By Eric London
13 December 2017
On December 8, National Public Radio (NPR) ran an episode of This American Life titled “Our Town,” which legitimized workplace raids against immigrants and justified tougher sanctions for employing undocumented workers.
The program’s host, Ira Glass, is not a far-right talk show host, but a favorite of affluent Democrats. His show has 2.2 million listeners.
The episode titled “Our Town” could very well have been aired on Breitbart Radio. Couched in the language of nationalist populism, the episode advanced an anti-immigrant agenda by blaming corporations for giving jobs to immigrants instead of US citizens.
In the episode, Glass describes Albertville, Alabama, a small town that is home to poultry processing plants, as having been overrun by immigrants. It “got a flood of outsiders,” Glass says, using the language of nativists to describe the influx of Latino workers seeking employment in the poultry plants as “immigrants pouring in,” “a ton of immigrants” and “tons of Mexican workers.”
Toward the beginning of the episode, Glass gives airspace to Roy Beck, the founder of NumbersUSA, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has denounced as part of the “nativist lobby.” Beck has spoken before the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens and is the protégé of the fascist anti-immigrant advocate John Tanton. Glass uncritically quotes Beck while introducing him simply as “the founder of a group called NumbersUSA.”
Glass then references the massive “SouthPAW” workplace immigration raids during which hundreds of agents descended on small southern towns in 1995 and deported 4,000 workers. PAW stands for “Protecting American Workers.” During the raids, immigration police dragged people out of their workplaces, split them from their families and summarily deported them to violent, war-torn Central American countries.
“The goal was to create job openings for American workers by arresting lots of people at work sites,” Glass says. “At the Gold Kist plant outside of town, workers cheered when [immigration agents] arrived.”
This reactionary effort to present deportations as “pro-worker” echoes the line of Bernie Sanders and the trade union bureaucracy. During the Democratic primary election campaign, in an interview with Vox ’s Ezra Klein, Sanders attacked open borders and free migration as “a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States.” He added, “It would make everybody in America poorer.”
This American Life’s producer, Miki Meek, then interviews the immigration agent responsible for leading the SouthPAW raids, Bart Szafnicki. This American Life uncritically repeats his claim that the raids did not go far enough.
Meek says: “Bart pointed out, there’s never been a serious crackdown on employers. These raids were short-lived. The fines were low. The chances of getting caught were small. Bart found it frustrating. Congress never had the political will to go after the companies that hire undocumented workers. There are congressmen who talk tough on immigration, but when INS went after worksites in their districts, they told them to back off.”
Meek and Glass criticize the corporations for being insufficiently tough on hiring immigrants, citing a 1986 immigration reform law that prohibited companies from interrogating their employees to discover their nationality.
Glass says these laws were too lax on employers who hire immigrants: “In 1995, Congress, in a very practical, bipartisan way that we almost never see any more, decided that it had to fix the problem and come up with a simple way for employers to tell who is legal to work in the United States and who isn’t, to figure out who they could hire… Senator Dianne Feinstein warned, at the time, they had to solve this crisis now—of immigrants coming in illegally and getting these jobs.”

But these efforts, Glass says, did not go far enough. “Obviously, they didn’t solve it. And here we are today. A bipartisan commission called the Jordan commission considered a bunch of solutions. One of the things they ended up proposing was a national computerized system to check people’s IDs, and make sure they were valid, and their social security numbers are real. This is the system we’ve come to know as E-Verify.”
The reference to the Jordan Commission, led by Texas Democratic Representative Barbara Jordan, is significant. The commission’s findings are well known among immigrant rights advocates as the wish list of the extreme right. Breitbart praised Jordan in an August 2017 article as “one of the few Democratic politicians that believed in a pro-American legal immigration system that ceased on inundating working class neighborhoods with low-skilled immigrants.” The same article noted that the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant program, including calls for expanding E-Verify, “has the same tenets as Jordan’s recommendations.”
The Jordan commission called for militarizing the border, massively increasing the size of the border patrol, and blocking immigrants from receiving benefits and work permits in the US. It is frequently cited by NumbersUSA and white supremacy groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Center for Immigration Studies as a model for mass deportation.
This American Life criticizes E-Verify as insufficiently strict in stopping undocumented people from seeking employment. Miki Meek says, “A study commissioned by the government in 2009 found that over half of undocumented workers with fake papers—people E-Verify should have caught—got a clean bill of health… So by the early 2000s, you have all these undocumented workers not getting caught by E-Verify working in the Albertville plants, which raises the central question you come to when we talk about immigration—did Americans end up out of work because of it?”
NPR then gives space to bureaucrats from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union to air their dirty xenophobic laundry. One shop steward, Martha, denounces immigrants for poisoning the atmosphere at the plant:
“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.”

“[A]fter they’d [the immigrant workers] been there a while, they kind of thought they owned it. And there was more of them. You know, they kind of stay with their group, the family, you know, like aunts and cousins. And just about all of them’s kin somehow, you know? They started changing their attitude… You know, and it started causing problems. We had quite a few fights in the break rooms. Then we had them carried out to the parking lot, you know.”
NPR also interviews the UFCW local president at the time, Joe Ellis. Ellis blames the immigrant workers for reducing the bargaining power of the union because of their unwillingness to pay union dues:
“And then when the Latinos come in, that changed. And when that changed, then the bargaining unit changed. Because we didn’t have any bargaining power.”
Though NPR presents this as legitimate, in actual fact the unions’ bargaining power was reduced not because of immigrants, but because the unions are rotten, corrupt institutions that police the workforce in collusion with the corporations. A 2004 press release from Kroger supermarkets cites Ellis as praising a deal that the company boasted “will provide wages and benefits that will allow Kroger to compete with other retailers in the market.” Ellis praised the sellout as the product of the union and the company “working together.”
Glass says there are many factors behind the decline of wages for US-born workers, including shareholder wealth, automation, lower unionization rates and trade with China. While Glass concludes that immigration is not the biggest factor overall, he claims that immigration is to blame for declining wages for undereducated workers in the region. He cites an economist who “found that after 20 years of immigrants pouring into the area around Albertville,” wages dropped “up to $1,200 per year, per worker. So it’s real money.”
Meek then confronts a white worker with these figures, telling her that she would be thousands of dollars richer if it weren’t for the immigrants.
This American Life concludes the show by referencing Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who, Glass says, is “always talking about working people” when he “explains what he’s trying to achieve by limitation.”
Implicitly backing the fascistic propaganda portraying attacks on immigrants as a struggle against the corporations in defense of American workers, Glass adds, “He barely sounds like a Republican… says our system’s too biased toward corporations.” He includes a sound bite of Sessions defending his mass deportation plans with arguments about benefiting native-born workers.
On this final note, Glass previews part two:
“Next week on our show, we go into town to see what 6,000 newcomers cost taxpayers, and what it was like to have all these immigrants who’d never driven cars before suddenly on the roads not understanding what a stop sign is, and why a Latino business owner told his friend to run for mayor on the platform of kicking out all the immigrants.”



CBO Report: DACA 

Amnesty Would Cost 

American Taxpayers 

$26 Billion

Giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who are covered and eligible for the President Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program would cost American taxpayers a total of $26 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The DREAM Act, which is the most expansive amnesty being considered in Congress, would give potentially 3.5 million illegal aliens who are shielded from deportation by DACA and those eligible for DACA a pathway to U.S. citizenship.
Such a plan, the CBO reports, would come with a costly price tag to American taxpayers:
In total, CBO and JCT estimate that changes in direct spending and revenues from enacting S. 1615 would increase budget deficits by $25.9 billion over the 2018-2027 period, boosting on-budget deficits by $30.6 billion and decreasing off-budget deficits by $4.7 billion over that period. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the bill would affect direct spending and revenues. [Emphasis added]

Under the DREAM Act, Americans would have to pay for at least two million illegal aliens who would become eligible for federal entitlement programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as “food stamps.”
Newly amnestied illegal aliens under the DREAM Act would also be allowed to receive federal benefits to go to college, costing Americans a billion dollars just between 2018 through 2022, the CBO estimates.
CBO also estimates that providing higher education assistance for newly eligible people under S. 1615 would cost $1.0 billion over the 2018-2022 period; such spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Breitbart News analysis conducted by John Carney previously found that the DREAM Act would cost American taxpayers an expensive $115 billion due the newly amnestied illegal aliens being able to receive immediate subsidies from the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare.”
The cost of DACA amnesty would be placed on top of the costs that Americans pay every year due to illegal immigration.
As Breitbart News reported, the most recent Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) report reveals that an illegal alien costs the American taxpayer approximately $8,075 each, totaling a burden of roughly $116 billion annually.
Researchers with FAIR said the finding was both a “disturbing and unsustainable trend,” as the cost of illegal immigration to taxpayers has risen nearly $3 billion since 2013, when illegal immigration cost $113 billion.
The study directly challenged research by libertarian think tanks and open borders organizations, which claim that illegal immigrants are net-gains for American taxpayers.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

DACA Amnesty Chain Migration Would Exceed Four Years of U.S. Births

NEW YORK CITY, New York — The Democrats’ draft Dream Act amnesty would likely add as many chain-migration foreigners to the United States population as are added by the total number of Americans who are born in four years’ time.

As House and Senate Republicans, 

Democrats, the big business lobby, the cheap 

labor industry, and the open borders lobby 

have teamed up to push an amnesty for 

potentially millions of illegal aliens who are 

enrolled and eligible for the President 

Obama-created Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the 

impact the move would have on Americans 

would be likely unprecedented.
Under the current legal immigration system, immigrants who are given a pathway to U.S. citizenship are eventually allowed to bring extended family members, children, their parents, siblings, and extended family members to the country. This process, which makes up more than 70 percent of the current legal immigration, is what’s known as “chain migration.”
Research by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) reveals that under a DACA amnesty deal, between about 800,000 and 3.5 million illegal aliens could be eligible for legalization to permanently remain in the U.S. Of those, MPI notes that 1.5 million of the estimated 3.5 million would be allowed to obtain U.S. citizenship.
According to Princeton University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, newly naturalized Mexican immigrants in the U.S. bring an average of six foreign relatives with them. Therefore, should all 1.5 million amnestied illegal aliens bring six relatives each to the U.S., that would constitute a total chain migration of nine million new foreign nationals entering the U.S.
If the number of amnestied illegal aliens who gained a pathway to citizenship under an amnesty plan were to rise to the full 3.3 million, and if each brought in three to six foreign family members, the chain migration flow could range from 9.9 million to 19.8 million foreign nationals coming to the U.S.
This chain migration flow triggered by a DACA amnesty — where an end to chain migration is not coupled with the plan — would be more than double the number of babies born in the U.S. every single year, which stands at about four million a year. Should a DACA amnesty trigger a chain migration flow of 19 million foreign nationals, it would be more than quadruple the number of American births every year.
The chain migration of a DACA amnesty would potentially outpace the populations of American cities like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston.
Such a chain migration would boom the number of foreign-born residents in the U.S. to a historic high.
Currently, the foreign-born population is 

already at historic levels, reaching 44 

million this year with no end in sight as legal 

immigration reductions to give relief to 

America’s working and middle-classes are 

stalled in Congress.
Trump has previously stated that an amnesty deal for DACA illegal aliens would have to include an end on chain migration in order to stop surges of legal immigration to the U.S., though it remains unclear how many Republicans would be willing to break from their big business donors to help pass a law to end chain migration.
Most recently, a group of Senators released legislation known as the SECURE Act that would end chain migration — thus reducing legal immigration to 500,000 admissions a year to give relief to Americans — but couples the pro-American immigration reform with an amnesty for DACA illegal aliens.
Nearly 120,000 foreign nationals have been allowed to enter the U.S. since 2005, despite coming from countries designated as state-sponsors of terrorism, including Iran, Syria and Sudan, Breitbart News reported.
In total, about 9.3 million foreign nationals have entered the U.S. since 2005 because of chain migration, making it the largest driver of legal immigration to the country.
As Breitbart News reported, chain migration makes up more than 70 percent of all legal immigration — with every two new immigrants bringing seven foreign relatives with them.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder


Dem Party’s obsession with 

open borders, amnesty and no

damned legal need apply!


The Democratic Party used to be the party of blue collar America- supporting laws and policies that benefited that segment of the U.S. population.  Their leaders may still claim to be advocates for American working families, however their duplicitous actions that betray American workers and their families, while undermining national security and public safety, provide clear and incontrovertible evidence of their lies…. MICHAEL CUTLER …FRONTPAGE mag


“Through love of having children we're going to take over." Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96
The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy Institute.”


"La Voz de Aztlan has produced a video in honor of the millions of babies that have been born as US citizens to Mexican undocumented parents. These babies are destined to transform America. The nativist CNN reporter Lou Dobbs estimates that there are over 200,000 (dated) "Anchor Babies" born every year whereas George Putnam, a radio reporter, says the figure is closer to 300,000 (dated) . La Voz de Aztlan believes that the number is aproximately 500,000 (dated)  "Anchor Babies" born every year."


THE HORDES OF ILLEGALS KEEP COMING…. Despite America’s jobs, housing and Mexican crime tidal wave.

"If the racist "Sensenbrenner Legislation" passes the US Senate, there is no doubt that a massive civil disobedience movement will emerge. Eventually labor union power can merge with the immigrant civil rights and "Immigrant Sanctuary" movements to enable us to either form a new political party or to do heavy duty reforming of the existing Democratic Party. The next and final steps would follow and that is to elect our own governors of all the states within Aztlan." 

Notice how we never hear the phony populist Trump talking about E-VERIFY!



“The percentage of foreign-born workers in the U.S. labor force has more than tripled over the last four decades and while the U.S. represents just 5 percent of the world’s population it attracts 20 percent of the world’s immigrants, according to a new report.”

Open the floodgates of our welfare state to the uneducated, impoverished, and unskilled masses of the world and in a generation or three America, as we know it, will be gone.

Those most impacted are middle class and lower middle class. It is they whose jobs are taken, whose raises are postponed, whose schools are filled with non-English speaking children that absorb precious resources for remedial English, whose public parks are trashed and whose emergency rooms serve as the local clinic for the illegal underground. 




Spike in Illegal Immigration Coincides with Talk of DACA Amnesty by GOP Establishment, DHS Secretary

A steady increase in illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border under President Trump’s administration has coincided with continued talks among lawmakers to give amnesty to illegal aliens.

The number of border-crossings in November 2017, Breitbart Texas reported, has risen to a staggering 39,006 illegal aliens. This puts last month’s border-crossings under Trump in-line with former President Obama’s administration when it comes to illegal immigration at the southern border.
Since April 2017, border-crossings have risen under Trump a whopping 147 percent.
Meanwhile, the increase in illegal aliens attempting to enter the U.S. through the southern border has coincided with constant discussion from the Republican establishment, Democrats, the open borders lobby, and corporate interests about giving amnesty to nearly 800,000 illegal aliens under the Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in September, announced the official termination of DACA, to take place in March 2018. Since then, establishment Republicans and Democrats have sought to push the Trump administration to sign off on an amnesty.
In October, for instance, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official Michael Dougherty claimed that Trump wanted an amnesty for illegal aliens before March.
When questioned by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) whether Trump wanted DACA illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. permanently through an amnesty, Dougherty claimed: “The president, yes, would like to work with Congress to get a solution.”
Later in October, Breitbart News revealed House Speaker Paul Ryan’s plot to attach an amnesty for DACA illegal aliens to a year-end spending bill, giving ammunition to Democrats who have now attempted to push the plan after Ryan failed to gain support for the deal.
Additionally, during the month of November, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen prominently promoted a DACA amnesty, saying that not only would she support the amnesty, but she would also work with Congress to help push the plan.
“I believe that we must and we owe it to them to find a permanent solution,” Nielsen said of passing a DACA amnesty that could potentially lead to a chain migration of 9.9 million to 19 million foreign nationals pouring into the U.S. legally. “It’s no way to expect anyone to live a month or two months at a time,” said Nielsen, even though the DACA work-permits each last for two years.
This week, Nielsen even admitted on Fox & Friends that illegal aliens looking to enter the U.S. through the southern border listen to Washington, D.C.’s discussions of national immigration policy to get a grasp on what time is best to illegally cross the border.
FOX & FRIENDS: When January happens and there’s a change in the administration, immediately there’s a drop [in border-crossings], but when Congress doesn’t give you the money and the people that they promised and the wall is delayed. The numbers start going up, it’s as if they’re listening — the would-be illegal crossers — are almost listening to Washington to see how they’re planning.
NIELSEN: Well, you know, we’re at such a disadvantage. They have money, they have time, and this is their job. So they do watch. They watch what’s happening in Congress. They watch what’s happening as part of our national conversation and they learn as we along. So we see more and more loopholes being exploited.
While Democrats, in November, claimed they would potentially shut down the federal government unless DACA illegal aliens were given amnesty, establishment Republicans followed their lead.
For instance, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told CNN when asked about shutting down the government to give illegal aliens amnesty that “anything is possible.”
Also, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) co-opted Ryan’s original plan of slipping a DACA amnesty in a year-end spending bill, announcing to the open borders lobby that he would help shut down the government if illegal aliens weren’t given amnesty by the end of the year.
Despite the continued pressure by Washington, D.C. lawmakers on Americans to support amnesty, a plurality of likely voters still believe that an amnesty would lead to more illegal immigration and increasingly oppose a government shutdown to give amnesty to DACA illegal aliens.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

"The $1.5 trillion tax cut, the benefits of which will go overwhelmingly to the rich, will dramatically expand the transfer of wealth and income in America from the bottom to the top, sharply increasing social inequality beyond existing levels that already surpass anything seen over the past century."

Analyses of the House and Senate bills by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Congressional Budget Office and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation all agreed that bills passed by the separate chambers would overwhelmingly benefit the richest five percent of the 
"Today, each of the top 5 billionaires owns as much as 750 million people, more than the total population of Latin America and double the population of the US."

Republicans release final bill to slash taxes for US corporations and the rich

By Barry Grey
16 December 2017
Scrambling to push through a final tax overhaul bill in time for passage early next week, Republican House and Senate conferees released a plan late Friday that will drastically cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, raise taxes for millions of working people, and bankrupt the federal Treasury, setting the stage for a historic assault on core social programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
The proposal is being rushed through Congress with only token opposition from the Democrats, on the basis of expedited and undemocratic procedures and no congressional hearings. The bill itself is the product of closed-door negotiations dominated by corporate lobbyists. It is being rammed through in the face of polls showing overwhelming popular opposition, despite a campaign of lies from the White House and congressional Republicans so brazen and transparent that it defies description.
The $1.5 trillion tax cut, the benefits of which will go overwhelmingly to the rich, will dramatically expand the transfer of wealth and income in America from the bottom to the top, sharply increasing social inequality beyond existing levels that already surpass anything seen over the past century.
Wall Street celebrated the release of the final bill with a new rally, sending all three major US indexes into record territory. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which has soared by more than 25 percent since Donald Trump’s election on the expectation of a gigantic tax windfall, ended trading with a gain of 143 points, closing in on 25,000. It has risen by nearly 400 percent since its post-crisis low point in March 2009.
The bill that emerged from two weeks of negotiations between House and Senate Republicans in the conference committee is even more slanted toward the wealthy than the measures that were being reconciled. For example, it includes a cut in the individual federal tax rate for the highest bracket from the current 39.6 percent to 37 percent. The House version included a smaller reduction and the Senate version had no reduction in the top rate.
The centerpiece of the bill is a huge cut in the corporate tax rate from the current level of 35 percent to 21 percent, to take effect in 2018. It is estimated that this will increase corporate revenues by more than $6 trillion over the next decade. While tax cuts for individuals in the bill are set to expire after 2025, laying the basis for a sudden tax increase for working-class and middle-class households, the cut in corporate taxes is permanent.
The class character of the bill is revealed most nakedly in its drastic reduction in the estate tax, a boon to the richest 0.2 percent of the population. The bill doubles the threshold for the tax on inherited wealth to $11 million. It thereby consolidates a new financial aristocracy able to pass on its wealth virtually intact to future generations. This measure itself demonstrates the reality, behind the threadbare trappings of democracy, of oligarchic rule in America, with both parties and the entire political system under the control of an unaccountable financial elite.
The bill also includes a sharp tax cut for owners of so-called “pass through” businesses such as partnerships and S corporations, who pay taxes at the individual rather than the corporate rate. Large corporations such as Apple, Amazon and Microsoft, which hoard billions in profits overseas in order to escape taxation, will be able to repatriate these sums at a vastly reduced tax rate.
The measure also repeals the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for corporations and raises the AMT income threshold for individuals, another windfall for the wealthy.
While the bill increases the standard deduction for non-itemized tax returns and the child tax credit, it reduces tax breaks on home mortgage interest and state and local taxes as well as a number of other expenses that primarily impact low- and moderate-income families.
At the same time, it eliminates the Obamacare individual mandate without providing any offsets for low-income households that depend on subsidies to afford health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this provision will result in 13 million fewer Americans having health insurance by the end of the decade, plus a 10 percent increase per year in premiums for those who purchase insurance on the individual market.
Analyses of the House and Senate bills by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Congressional Budget Office and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation all agreed that bills passed by the separate chambers would overwhelmingly benefit the richest five percent of the population. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that half of the tax cuts in the Senate bill would go to the top 1 percent, those making more than $700,000 a year. The top 0.1 percent would receive up to 30 percent of the total tax cut.
The Tax Policy Center found that the Senate bill “could reduce taxes by nearly three times as much for business owners in 2019 as for people…whose primary source of income is wages or salaries.”
The Joint Committee on Taxation reported that under the Senate bill, by 2027 every family earning less than $75,000 would pay higher taxes than under current law.
These reports have not prevented the White House and congressional Republicans from lying without restraint or shame, insisting that the tax bill is a boon for the “hard-working middle class” that will create jobs and raise wages. It will no more do these things than previous tax cuts for the rich implemented over the past four decades.
The reality is that the ravenous corporate-financial oligarchy wants an even bigger share of the national income to further pad its bank accounts and buy more and bigger mansions, private islands, yachts and private jets and stage more lavish and obscene displays of wealth.
Corporate profits are already at near-record levels and the real corporate tax rate in the US, after tax loopholes and dodges, is at 19 percent, below the rates in Europe and Japan. US corporations are hoarding their profits to the tune of nearly $2 trillion rather than investing them in plant, equipment and decent-paying full-time jobs.
As Reuters recently reported, “US corporations are saying they would use a tax reform windfall to buy back shares, retire debt and other shareholder-friendly moves, in recent post-earnings calls with investors and securities analysts.”
The vast majority of Americans see through this tissue of lies. A Quinnipiac University poll released December 13 showed that US voters oppose the Republican tax plan 55 percent to 26 percent. Only 16 percent say the plan will reduce their taxes, while 44 percent say it will increase their taxes and 30 percent say it will have little impact. Sixty-five percent say the wealthy will benefit most from the plan.
But the American capitalist class wants the money and proceeds with utter ruthlessness and contempt for democratic public opinion to take it.
At the same time, Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady and other Republicans have already made clear that they intend to pivot from the tax swindle to an unprecedented assault on social programs on which tens of millions of workers and youth rely. Ryan and Brady have explicitly spoken of the need to take on so-called entitlement programs, signaling their intention to privatize and ultimately dismantle the core programs dating from the 1930s and 1960s—Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
The release of the tax bill came just one day after a team of economists led by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman issued a report on global inequality showing 

that between 1980 and 2016, the richest one 

percent captured twice the income growth as 

the bottom half of the world’s population.
The transfer of income and wealth from the working class to the financial elite was greater in the US than in any other advanced economy. In 2016, 47 percent of total income in the US and Canada went to the top 10 percent. The income share of the top one percent doubled between 1980 and 2016 from 10 percent to 20 percent, while the bottom 50 percent saw its share of national income fall from 20 percent to 13 percent.
The authors of the report cited regressive tax changes as a major factor in the growth of economic inequality and predicted that the Republican tax cuts would “turbocharge” a further concentration of wealth at the top.
The Democrats’ opposition to the tax bill is a cynical charade. They too advocate a major cut in corporate taxes and have focused their response to the Republican proposals on pleas for bipartisan talks to work out a common tax plan. Last month, the pro-Democratic New York Times published an editorial headlined “The Right Way to Cut Corporate Taxes.” It declared, “The Republicans are right about the corporate tax system being broken.”
The Democrats have no interest in opposing Trump on the basis of his attacks on the social and democratic rights of working people, his assault on immigrants or his global warmongering. They are basing their opposition to Trump and the Republicans on McCarthyite-style agitation over allegations of sexual misconduct, Russian meddling and “fake news.” These thoroughly right-wing campaigns are aimed at blocking any working-class movement against social inequality and war and justifying military aggression, Internet censorship and attacks on free speech.

Virgil — The Two Americas: One America Grows and Profits, the Other Shrinks and Dies

headline in the Wall Street Journal last month put the matter plainly: There are “Two Americas.” One America that gains from globalization, and another, much larger, America that loses from globalization. And as we now know, this cleaving of the nation is not just a matter of economics, it’s also a matter of life and death.

The Journal piece was an interview with the Nobel Prize-winning Princeton University economist Angus Deaton; two years ago, Deaton and his wife and fellow Princeton economist, Anne Case, burst into prominence with a rigorous study on the rising death rate of white Americans. That is, after centuries of mostly steady decline, the white death rate had been rising since the late 1990s.
In fact, the additional deaths among white middle- and working-class Americans—some 488,500, mostly from opioid abuse, suicide, alcoholism and other deadly forms of despond—exceeded the deaths from AIDS in the ’80s and ’90s, when the disease in the U.S. was at its worst.
And yet as Deaton and Case observed, in contrast to the AIDS crisis, this latter plague was a “quiet epidemic.” That is, the mainstream media wasn’t much interested in what was happening in the heartland, nor was the popular culture, nor was, even, the political class—including those politicians who were supposed to be representing those afflicted areas. So there were few vigils, no quilts, no Broadway plays—not much of anything, except sorrow. Indeed, even now, a scan of the headlines and top stories reveals that this epidemic doesn’t trouble the big media hubs.

A billboard advertising treatment for opioid addition stands in Dickson, TN, on June 7, 2017. More than 2 million people in the U.S. are hooked on opioids. Overdoses from these drugs have killed more than 300,000 Americans since 2000, and they are killing an average of 120 people every day. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

Kyle Graves, who is in recovery for opioid addition, sits in the home he shares with his mother in Franklin, TN, on June 7, 2017. He was first prescribed oxycodone for degenerative arthritis. When he lost his job as a car dealership finance manager, he found the pills helped get him through that crisis, too. He was a functioning addict when his sixth child was born, a boy named Joshua Jeremiah who contracted spinal meningitis during childbirth. The infant clung to life for six weeks; his death sent Graves sinking deeper into addiction. (AP Photo/David Goldman)
Still, awareness is growing; just on Sunday, the White House issued a report indicating that the cost of the opioids epidemic for just a single year, 2015, was $504 billion. That estimate was mostly the direct cost of, and the loss of output from, the 33,000 Americans who died of overdoses that year, and yet it also included the costs of treatment for non-fatal incidents.
As Deaton told the Journal, “Bad things are really happening, and they’re continuing to happen.” Detailing his and his wife’s research, he added,
We dug down a lot more into the educational differences and found that it is very much a two-Americas situation, where people with bachelor’s degrees are doing pretty well and those without them aren’t doing very well at all. . . .  Sustained increases in mortality for any major group in any society are really quite rare.  It’s an indication that something is very wrong.
In particular, Deaton pointed to the abusive skyrocketing of OxyContin, a drug that didn’t even exist until 1995, when it was released by Purdue Pharma.  That company has racked up quite a record—a record, that is, of massive profitability amidst mass lethality. As a detailed account in The Guardian noted recently:
From 1996 to 2002, Purdue more than doubled its sales force and distributed coupons so doctors could let patients try a 30-day free supply of these highly addictive drugs. Prescriptions issued for OxyContin in the US increased tenfold over those six years, from 670,000 a year to more than six million.
It’s important to acknowledge that what Purdue did was legal, or mostly legal; the company was fined $600 million in 2007, although that fine was a pittance compared to its OxyContin profits. And in any case, legality is not the same thing as morality.
As a 2009 bulletin from the American Public Health Association headlined, “The promotion and marketing of OxyContin: commercial triumph, public health tragedy.” Just in October, The New Yorker magazine described Purdue’s owners, the Sacklers, as “the family that built an empire of pain.”
So there we have it: A corporation and its owners made billions, and hundreds of thousands of people died (Note to those libertarians who wish to decriminalize, or even legalize, drugs: This is what you’ll get. That is, some of the smartest chemists in the world will be teaming up with the wiliest marketers to produce products that will turn people into addicts and, possibly soon thereafter, corpses).
Yet finally, a few populist heroes are now willing to fight these corporate emperors of pain. In May 2017, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a Republican, filed suit against Purdue and four other drugmakers for mass-producing misery and mortality. As DeWine said:
These companies got thousands and thousands of Ohioans–our friends, our family members, our co-workers, our kids–addicted to opioid pain medications, which has all too often led to use of the cheaper alternatives of heroin and synthetic opioids.
And others, too, have filed lawsuits. Good.
Yet Deaton believes that combating opioids, important as that might be, is not enough. As he told the Journal, the drugs are just the symptom; the root cause, and thus the real disease, is economic collapse:
If you’re digging into what the underlying causes are, we are beginning to speculate about working-class whites possibly having the pillars that held up their lives beginning to crumble.
And what pillars were these? Deaton’s answer included such familiar-sounding points as “having a job with a ladder up,” and “having job where you could actually ask a woman to marry you and she would marry you.” In other words, the basic building blocks of a stable life—a job with prospects for upward mobility  and a family to bolster personal stability.
If those points seem to be familiar clichés, well, that’s because many clichés have, in fact, a firm basis in reality. It doesn’t take an expert to see that if young people don’t earn enough to move away from home and strike out on their own, they are a lot less likely to form a serious relationship with either work or another person. And it’s that lack of attachment that often leaves people defenseless against the impulse toward unsafe behavior. We can add that this is Conservative Wisdom 101; people crave the security of sturdy order—and if they can’t get it, they’ll crave something else.
So what to do? Among Deaton’s suggestions was a restoration of the “social contract.” That is, the basic positive relationship between people and society, starting with a good job that pays good wages. That’s how one gets going on the American Dream.
And yet as many Americans have discovered—and this is another story that the MSM was never much interested in, especially not during the Clinton and Obama years—it’s a fact that wages for many have been flat for most of the last half-century.
This is a change from the historic American pattern. In fact, not that long ago, before the vast inflation of real estate prices in many areas, a short-order cook could reasonably expect to buy a house and support a family. But today, what are the prospects for a Starbuck barista?
For his part, Deaton cites various factors in the waning of wages, including the erosion of the minimum wage, and also the rise of non-compete clauses, which have the effect of locking in working stiffs, not just hotshots. As a Baltimore Sun headline explained earlier this year, “Employers use non-compete agreements even for low-wage workers.”
Deaton also added a factor that’s been nearly forgotten—labor unions:
Many people have mixed views about unions, but unions used to give people some measure of control at work.  They gave them a social life and political representation in Washington, which doesn’t really exist anymore.
Yes, as Deaton conceded, labor unions have their share of detractors, including many, if not most, Republicans. And yet it’s hard for Americans of any party not to notice that the collapse of private-sector unionism—from more than a third of the workforce after World War Two to around six percent today—has coincided with the flattening of wages and the increasing of pathologies. So if one hates unions, one must then find other ways of raising incomes. If not, the deaths, and other ills,  seem destined to continue.

Weeds grow in the parking lot of the closed Culp Weaving plant in Burlington, NC, on June 8, 2009. The upholstery giant moved to China to take advantage of cheaper labor. (AP Photo/Jim R. Bounds)

Vacant land and a huge concrete slab is all that remains of the 130-acre General Motors auto plant complex known as Chevy-in-the-Hole in Flint, MI, on April 8, 2009. At its peak, the factories employed thousands. Now, all but one of the 20 factories and buildings in the industrial valley have been closed and torn down. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)
Some will say that part of the problem of flatlining wages, of course, is that economic growth has been slow. And that’s true: In fact, growth was much higher in the ’50s and ’60s than it has been in the decades since. And yet growth hasn’t been that slow: Today, the GDP of the nation is $19.5 trillion, more than double what it was two decades ago. Indeed, that much GDP works out to about $60,000 per person. That’s not per worker, that’s per person.
So the question arises: Where has all 
that money gone?  The quick answer: That  wealth is now in the 

hands of very rich Americans, and also

in the hands of foreign workers.
Here at home, according to the U.S. Federal Reserve, the top one percent now control 38.6 percent of all the nation’s wealth, and the top ten percent now control most of the rest. In the meantime, the bottom nine-tenths have less than 23 percent of the wealth, down from 33 percent three decades ago.
One needn’t be any sort of class warrior, nor an income redistributionist, to see that there’s something wrong with this picture. That is, if we’re to have a united country, in which Americans from the bottom 90 percent undertake the burden of all the hard work—virtually all the key civic duties of soldiering, policing, and firefighting, for example—then we’re going to have some more equity as to incomes and wealth.
Virgil hastens to add that this is not an argument for tax increases. As we all know, raising taxes tends to make the D.C. Swamp even swampier. The goal shouldn’t be to put more money in the hands of Deep State bureaucrats, nor of their Beltway Bandit contractor-cronies; instead, the goal should be to empower private-sector workers to demand higher wages from their private-sector employers.
Yet on that score—the power of workers to carve out a bigger share of the pie—the biggest inhibiting factors have been immigration and trade. That is, if U.S. employers have the option of bringing in cheap labor from other countries, or of moving their production offshore, well, then, American workers have lost their leverage.
The fact that immigration undercuts wages at the low end is well understood by now. And yet what hasn’t been so well understood is that outsourcing is undercutting wages even at the relatively high end. That is, it’s not just blue-collar workers who are losing their jobs to China, South Korea, and India; it’s also white-collar accountants, technicians, engineers—and even doctors.
And that’s all because of the ideology that supports outsourcing, namely, globalism. As Breitbart’s Stephen K. Bannon has said, “The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia.”
MONTGOMERY, AL - SEPTEMBER 26: Former advisor to President Donald Trump and executive chairman of Breitbart News, Steve Bannon introduces Roy Moore, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Alabama, at an election-night rally on September 26, 2017 in Montgomery, Alabama. Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama supreme court, defeated incumbent Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL) in a primary runoff election for the seat vacated when Jeff Sessions was appointed U.S. Attorney General by President Donald Trump. Moore will now face Democratic candidate Doug Jones in the general election in December. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Former chief strategist to President Donald Trump and executive chairman of Breitbart News Steve Bannon speaks to voters in Montgomery, AL. (Scott Olson/Getty Images).
Yes, that’s the truth. A key document for understanding this reality is a 2016 study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade.” The study proves that the detrimental impact of China trade on U.S. workers has been profound.  The authors note that China’s share of global manufacturing rose eight-fold from 1990 to 2012, and that among the consequences of this export-surge has been the loss of 560,000 American manufacturing jobs, and counting. As the MIT authors put it:
Improvements in China’s productive capabilities and reductions in its trade costs will [lead] to a contraction of industries subject to greater import exposure.
Indeed, we can add that the further reverberations—in terms of lower wages, lessened industrial muscle, and weakened national security—are far greater than just the job losses.  And those other academic authors, Deaton and Case, would add that the ultimate wages of low wages are… demoralization and death.
To be sure, not every American is suffering because of the China trade. The rich—those with capital and/or a connection to the global economy—are doing just fine; they’re the ones who do well when the American supply chain becomes, instead, the global supply chain.
Thus we see the Two Americas: First, there’s one tiny part, mostly in the coastal clusters, getting richer, and more arrogant. And then there’s the other, larger part, mostly in the middle, growing poorer—and angrier.
It’s hard to believe that the larger part of America will allow this painful process to continue for much longer. The goal for all Americans should be, of course, One America.
Yes, that’s the goal.


CHINA SHOCK: Study Shows Chinese Imports Caused ‘Deaths’ of American Factories

The flood of Chinese imports into the U.S. does not just cost jobs. It shuts down factories and businesses altogether, with devastating consequences for the communities where they are located.

After years of denial, it is now widely known that the opening of the U.S. market to Chinese imports was devastating, inflicting deep and lasting damage to many areas in the U.S. Regions most exposed to competition from China not only lost manufacturing jobs, they saw overall employment decline and never recovered. Areas with higher exposure have also been shown to have more people relying on food stamps and disability payments, more people addicted to opioids, lower rates of marriage, higher rates of political polarization, and higher rates of incarceration.
New research suggests that one of the main reasons the damage has been so deep and lasting is that the jobs lost from Chinese imports were not just from companies downsizing or becoming more efficient but from closing manufacturing plants altogether. The paper by four economists — Brian Asquith of the National Bureau of Economic Research and University of California at Irvine’s Sajana Goswami, David Neumark, and Antonio Rodriguez-Lopez — finds that the so-called “China shock” operated mainly through “deaths of establishments.”
This makes the job losses from the China shock fundamentally different from other adverse shocks, such as recessions, that can hit the U.S. labor market. In those situations, job losses are primarily from contractions of the number of people employed at a plant, rather than the outright closing of a plant.
“From a local-labor markets point of view, regional economies are likely to suffer more from deaths than from contractions (which tend to be one-off events or cyclical) because closed establishments can more permanently reduce local employment,” the authors write.
The economists say that many of the workers thrown out of 
work because of “establishment deaths” are later 
“reabsorbed” into the “nontradeable” sector, mainly through 
the births of new establishments. What is not explored in the 
paper is that many of these nontradeable sector jobs, 
however, a likely to be lower-paying service sector jobs.


"Additionally, the report found that concentration of wealth in the 

hands of the top one percent has risen sharply, particularly in the 

US, Russia and China. In the US, the wealth share monopolized by 

the top one percent rose from 22 percent in 1980 to 39 percent; in 

China it doubled from 15 percent to 30 percent; and in Russia it 

went from 22 percent to 43 percent."

OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERISM destroyed a TRILLION DOLLARS in home equity… and they’re still plundering us!

Barack Obama created more debt for the middle class than any president in US history, and also had the only huge QE programs: $4.2 Trillion.

OXFAM reported that during Obama’s terms, 95% of the wealth created went to the top 1% of the world’s wealthy. 


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).

World’s richest one percent capture twice as much income growth as the bottom half

By Niles Niemuth
15 December 2017
The inaugural World Inequality Report published on Thursday by economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman, Facundo Alvaredo and Lucas Chancel documents the rise in global income and wealth inequality since 1980.
The report covers up to 2016, leaving out the last year, in which the stock market has soared on the expectation that the US will enact massive tax cuts, providing yet another windfall for the rich.
The report found that between 1980 and 2016 the world’s richest one percent captured twice the income growth as the bottom half of the world’s population, contributing to a significant rise in global inequality.
The data shows that the world’s top 0.1 percent alone captured as much growth as the bottom half, and the top 0.001 percent, just 76,000 people worldwide, received 4 percent of global income growth. Meanwhile those in the 50th to 99th percentiles worldwide, which the report refers to as the “squeezed bottom 90 percent in the US and Western Europe,” encompassing the working class in the world’s advanced economies, experienced anemic growth rates.
The report is based on tax data and other financial information collected for the World Wealth and Income Database by more than 100 researchers in 70 countries. It shows that income inequality has either risen or remained stable in every country.
Additionally, the report found that concentration of wealth in the hands of the top one percent has risen sharply, particularly in the US, Russia and China. In the US, the wealth share monopolized by the top one percent rose from 22 percent in 1980 to 39 percent; in China it doubled from 15 percent to 30 percent; and in Russia it went from 22 percent to 43 percent.
In terms of income, the top ten percent captured 37 percent of national income in Europe, 41 percent in China, 47 percent in the United States-Canada, 54 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa, 55 percent in Brazil and India, and 61 percent in the Middle East.
Notably, Russia, when it was still part of the Soviet Union, had the lowest level of inequality in 1980, with the top ten percent accounting for 20 percent of income. There was a sharp spike in inequality following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1990-91, with half of all national income going to the top ten percent in less than five years. Russia has now reached parity with the United States, returning to levels of inequality that prevailed a century ago under the rule of the tsar.
The report also shows that there has been a significant divergence in inequality levels between the United States and Europe since 1980, when the top one percent claimed 10 percent of income in both regions. As of 2016, the top one percent in Europe claimed 12 percent of income, while in the United States its share had doubled to 20 percent.
The top one percent and the bottom half of the American population have essentially flipped positions. While the bottom 50 percent received 20 percent of national income in 1980, that figure declined steadily to just 13 percent by 2016. Conversely, the top one percent steadily increased their claim on national income, from 10 percent to 20 percent in less than two generations.
Average annual income for the bottom half of the US population, adjusted for inflation, has remained at $16,500 for the last 40 years, while the top one percent have seen their average income triple from $430,000 to $1.3 million.
The report’s authors note in an op-ed published in the Guardian that the United States is an outlier among the advanced economies, with a surge in income and wealth inequality over the last four decades that has developed into a “second Gilded Age.”
The authors attribute the dramatic difference between the US and Europe to a “perfect storm of radical policy changes” in the US. They argue that the growth of inequality in the US has been exacerbated by a number of factors, including a tax system that has become less progressive over time, a federal minimum wage that has not kept up with inflation, shrinking unions, deregulation of the finance industry and increasingly unequal access to higher education. They warn that the Republican tax cuts will “turbocharge” the further rise of inequality.
Despite its explosive content, the latest report on inequality was buried by the media, relegated to a small headline in the Business Day section of the New York Times and posted well down the Guardian’s front page in the world news section. The vast and ever-growing level of social inequality around the world is not what the ruling classes in the US, Europe and elsewhere want to talk about.
Social inequality in the United States is being ignored and covered up by the political system. The Democrats are entirely focused on issues of sex and the anti-Russia campaign, even as the Republicans are pushing to finalize tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy by the end of the year.
However, under the surface of official life, class conflict is growing. The World Inequality Report reveals that the contradictions of the capitalist system find expression in every country.
In concluding their report, the authors refer to policy decisions that could be adopted to reverse the growth of social inequality, promoting the illusion that a fair distribution of resources can be achieved under capitalism through various liberal reform measures and appeals to capitalist governments to enact progressive tax measures.
There is, however, no “reform” faction in the ruling class. The growth of inequality in the US has been carried out under both Democrats and Republicans, aided and abetted by the trade unions. In Europe, the ruling elite is moving rapidly to catch up to the United States through the implementation of labor “reform” measures, the destruction of social programs and the redistribution of wealth to the rich.
The response of the ruling class to growing social opposition is not reform, but repression. A movement against inequality requires the building of a socialist movement of the international working class on the basis of a socialist program to appropriate the wealth of the corporate and financial oligarchy, transform the banks and giant corporations into democratically controlled public utilities, and reorganize economic life on the basis of social need.


Portland billionaire attacks city’s homeless

By Hector Cordon
14 December 2017
With last month’s publication in the opinion section of The Oregonian of an anti-homeless rant by Columbia Sportswear president and CEO Tim Boyle, an effort has begun to shift the response to  city's the homeless crisis to a more open policy of criminalization.
Days after Boyle's op-ed was posted, Portland's Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler, who has been barred by multiple court decisions from using sit-lie laws which ban sitting or lying on sidewalks or in other public spaces, side stepped the issue by implementing an eight-block “pedestrian use zone,” restricting the use of sidewalks to pedestrians and mobility devices only. 
The mayor's bureaucratic maneuver effectively accomplished the aim of sit-lie laws: excluding the homeless from an area. This fact was emphasized by Wheeler’s assigning implementation of the measure to the Portland Police Bureau rather than the Transportation Department. The eight-block zone manages to encompass Boyle’s Columbia Sportswear downtown flagship store.
While Wheeler has issued statements and tweets insisting that “homelessness is not a crime” and “it’s irresponsible to conflate homelessness and crime.” However, the duplicitous content of these progressive-sounding phrases was revealed by an article in the Guardian, which noted that Boyle wrote his op-ed at Wheeler's urging. “[I]n Boyle’s telling, [Wheeler] is hoping to gain momentum to get more police on the streets.” Wheeler’s office Tuesday demanded a “correction” of this statement by the Guardian, denying any such request to Boyle.
However, in an interview with Oregon Public Radio on December 6, Boyle asserted that Wheeler had asked his help in promoting the view that “we need more police on the street in Portland.” He went on to say that he volunteered to “help him do that.” Boyle’s op-ed piece makes clear his solution to homelessness is to criminalize the victims.
He wrote, “Wheeler has put forward a proposal to the Portland City Council to add 80 police officers. Frankly, based on our employees’ experiences, we would suggest even more support for the Portland police, but Wheeler’s proposal is an important step and something that deserves prompt support.”
Boyle, with a net worth of nearly $2 billion, was a significant donor to Wheeler’s election campaign. He took the opportunity provided by the intransigently right-wing Oregonian to, indeed, conflate homelessness with crime, at one point describing thefts from employees’ cars as “our laptop donation program.”
Since then, he has attempted to deny that his opinion piece—in which he threatened to move his Sorel business out of the city—was anti-homeless. However, his reference to “individuals camping in our doorway” cannot be interpreted as anything but hostility to homeless people. Boyle’s specific and immediate call for deploying increased numbers of police against the homeless on Portland’s streets contrasts sharply with the vague and completely vacuous “liberal solution” he offered in a follow-up article in the Oregonian. “We cannot solve all problems, and we will likely never address all the needs related to homelessness, but as Oregonians we can make meaningful progress if our leaders (business, government, non-profits and others) have the will to do so,” he wrote.
The latest “point in time” count of homelessness—conducted nationally every two years—shows that Portland’s homeless population has increased by 10 percent from the 2015 count. Notorious for carrying out the count in January, when most homeless seek whatever accommodations can be had in order to avoid freezing in the winter weather, the count nonetheless shows a shocking number of 4,177 homeless.
In the midst of skyrocketing housing costs, alongside stagnant and low-wage jobs, both Section 8 and Public Housing lists are shown as closed on the Home Forward web site. In cold bureaucratic language, it informs those unfortunate enough to be ill-housed or homeless that “Home Forward (HF) is not accepting Public Housing waiting list applications at this time. This waiting list was last open for specific properties for three days in June 2016. There is no notice of when this waiting list will reopen.” The same canned message was repeated for Section 8 housing.
The City Council’s answer to homelessness is to implement market-based principles—normally an approach associated with the Republican right. According to Portland’s Homeless Challenge magazine, “‘We can’t just put people in housing,’ says Commissioner Saltzman. ‘It wouldn’t be sustainable. We have more of a balanced approach.’ The best solution, Saltzman believes, is getting real-estate developers to set aside units for low-income people.” A “balanced approach” that harmonizes well with the lack of regulation over rent increases and evictions. Oregon law prohibits the imposition of rent controls.
A report by the Oregon Employment Department illustrates the growth of social polarization, alongside homelessness. “The fastest growing sectors, over the last ten years in the Portland region, are low wage jobs ($21,000 for the average hospitality position) and the high wage jobs ($133,000 for the average high tech manufacturing position), growing at 18 percent and 13 percent respectively.” The author, Christian Kaylor, added, “It’s a classic tale of economic divide. And that divide is growing.”

According to Forbes, there is one other billionaire in Oregon in addition to Boyle, Phil Knight of Nike. His worth is $28.2 billion. The cost to fully resolve Portland’s homeless crisis over the next 20 years is estimated at $500 million per year, or one third of the combined wealth of these two individuals. Meanwhile, the combined wealth of the three richest billionaires, Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway) exceeds that of the bottom half of the US population.
Currently, the city is encouraging the homeless to find shelter as nighttime temperatures plummet to below freezing levels, in order to avoid the nation- and worldwide scandal that plagued Portland at the beginning of the year. In the first ten days of 2017, four homeless people and one newborn froze to death as the Democratic Party-dominated City Council failed to anticipate and make plans for the readily predictable disaster.
"Today, each of the top 5 billionaires owns as much as 

750 million people, more than the total population of Latin 

America and double the population of the US."....AND THEY 




Wealthy CEOs Lecture Americans To Show ‘Courage’ by Submitting to Diversity and Amnesty

Americans should have the courage to ignore their written laws, to amnesty DACA illegals and accept an open-borders world, says an op-ed by two wealthy CEOs who stand to gain more wealth in a labor market flooded by low-wage migrants.

The op-ed by Tim Cook (CEO of Apple, wealth $800 million and growing) and Charles Koch (Koch Industries, $49 billion and growing) was posted in the Washington Postnewspaper owned by Jeff Bezos (owner of Amazon, $98 billion and growing). Under the headline “Congress must act on the ‘dreamers,’” it declared:
We must do better. The United States is at its best when all people are free to pursue their dreams. Our country has enjoyed unparalleled success by welcoming people from around the world who seek to make a better life for themselves and their families, no matter what their backgrounds … each successive generation — including, today, our own — must show the courage to embrace that diversity and to do what is right.
For the Union-breaking billionaires, the 690,000 illegal immigrants are not the migrant citizens of a foreign country; they are “our neighbors, colleagues and friends.”
Moreover, the law demands that the immigration laws must be subordinated to a former president’s campaign-trail promise, regardless of the voters’ opinions, the billionaires declare:
Another foundation of our country’s success is our consistent and equal application of the law. In a free nation, individuals must be able to trust that when our government makes a promise, it is kept. Having laws that are reliable is what gives people the confidence to plan their futures and to invest in their businesses, their communities and themselves.
The United States should not hold hard-working, patriotic people hostage to the debate over immigration — or, worse, expel them because we have yet to resolve a complex national argument.
The illegals “have done their part,” so Americans have a moral obligation to submit, the billionaires insist to their non-billionaire readers:
Dreamers are doing their part. They have shown great faith in the United States by coming forward, subjecting themselves to background checks, and submitting personal and biometric data. Now, the rest of us need to do our part. Congress should act quickly, ideally before year’s end, to ensure that these decent people can work and stay and dream in the United States.
In fact, the illegals are vital to the economy, says the op-ed, which ignores the contributions made by Americans and their children, and the fact that a huge number of Americans don’t even have $400 in their savings accounts:
No society can truly flourish when a significant portion of its people feel threatened or unable to fulfill their potential. Nor can it prosper by excluding those who want to make positive contributions. This isn’t just a noble principle; it’s a basic fact, borne out through our national history.
Koch and Cook seem to be unaware of a recent admission by the Migration Policy Institute that DACA illegals graduate from college at one-quarter the rate of Americans. But they likely know that the Congressional Budget Office reported in 2014 that the proposed ‘Gang of Eight” amnesty would have shifted a huge amount of income from wage-earners to wealthy investors over 20 years, simply because more amnesty means more cheap workers and more welfare-aided customers.
Voters tend to think that lower wages are bad for them and their kids. The reported in 2016:
The [Federal Reserve Board] asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who knew?
Well, I knew. I knew because I am in that 47 percent.
I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can pay others. I know what it is like to have liens slapped on me and to have my bank account levied by creditors. I know what it is like to be down to my last $5—literally—while I wait for a paycheck to arrive, and I know what it is like to subsist for days on a diet of eggs
In contrast, President Donald Trump was elected in 2016 to curb migration and to help ordinary Americans. His immigration priorities are listed here.
Many polls show that the Democrats’ calls for amnesty are unpopular because they contradict Americans’ sense of fairness to other Americans.
Business groups and Democrats embrace the misleading, industry-funded “nation of immigrants” polls which pressure Americans to say they welcome migrants. The alternative “fairness” polls show that voters put a much higher priority on helping their families, neighbors, and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a high-tech, high-immigration, low-wage economy. The political power of the voters’ fairness priorities was made clear during the GOP primaries and again in November 2016.
Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.
But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting 1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.
The Washington-imposed economic policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.
The cheap-labor policy has also reduced investment and job creation in many interior states because the coastal cities have a surplus of imported labor. For example, almost 27 percent of zip codes in Missouri had fewer jobs or businesses in 2015 than in 2000, according to a new report by the Economic Innovation Group. In Kansas, almost 29 percent of zip codes had fewer jobs and businesses in 2015 compared to 2000, which was a two-decade period of massive cheap-labor immigration.
Because of the successful cheap-labor strategy, wages for men have remained flat since 1973, and a large percentage of the nation’s annual income has shifted to investors and away from employees.
Read it all here.




"During the same month that Schlafly had backed Trump for his “America First”


agenda, Nielsen’s committee released an ideologically-globalist report, promoting


the European migrant crisis as a win for big business who would profit greatly


from a never-ending stream of cheap, foreign migrants."





Approximates the great depression


HOMELESS AMERICA’S HOUSING CRISIS as 40 million illegals have climbed U.S. open borders.


EVERY AMERICAN (Legal) only one paycheck and two illegals away from living in their cars.









California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa….. Members of the racist, violent, fascist M.E.Ch.A. separatist movement.

Trump promises Wall Street, the Plundering U.S. Chamber of Corporate Fascist, Mexico and voting illegals:


But isn’t that already the La Raza Supremacy Democrat’s agenda???

THE WAR ON AMERICA’S MIDDLE-CLASS waged by D.C., U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the La Raza Fascist Party and Mexico!

The Washington-imposed economic policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign labor and spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions. NEIL MUNRO


The Trump Secret Deal with Narcomex:

NO E-VERIFY, NO ENFORCEMENT, NO (real) WALL and NO LEGAL NEED APPLY to keep wages depressed….. but isn’t that the Democrat Party’s amnesty plan in a nutshell???

Swamp Keeper Trump is hiring 70 illegals at his Swamp Palace of Mar-a- Lago.



NO (real) WALL!


Is Swamp Keeper Trumper hiring illegals to avoid paying living wages to Americans?............. JUST 70!



"Today, each of the top 5 billionaires owns as much as 750 million people, more than the total population of Latin America and double the population of the US."


Endless wars for Muslim dictators while the Mexican drug cartels expand from border to open border.



American middle-class is addicted, poor, jobless and suicidal…. Thank the corrupt government for surrendering our borders to 40 million looting Mexicans and then handing the bills to middle America?

"These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty. 


OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS to serve the filthy rich

The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s.

WALL STREET TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: DIE YOUNG… your company pension dies with you!

“This study follows reports released over the past several months documenting rising mortality rates among US workers due to drug addiction and suicide, high rates of infant mortality, an overall leveling off of life expectancy, and a growing gap between the life expectancy of the bottom rung of income earners compared to those at the top.”

Senate GOP DACA plan follows long history of avoiding workplace enforcement

Roy Beck's picture


  by  Roy Beck
"I have no good explanation whatsoever for why (mandatory) E-Verify was not included in the Republican Senators' immigration proposal that was released a couple of days ago," Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas said today.
Smith, who will retire next year, has been trying to stop U.S. employers from hiring illegal workers for nearly all of his 30 years in Congress and has introduced mandatory E-Verify legislation during most of that time.
Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist Jerry Kammer said there is a primary reason Smith's long battle to protect workers from illegal-labor competition has failed thus far:
Congress has always found it much more politically palatable to put money into the border patrol than to control the worksite. And if you don't control the worksite, if that job magnet remains active, people are going to find a way . . . especially those who . .. in the words of former labor secretary Ray Marshall, work hard and work scared ."
Is that why Senate Republican leaders introduced a three-year DACA amnesty this week without a mandatory E-Verify provision to deter another flood of illegal immigration?
Kammer and Smith spoke at the National Press Club in a panel about Kammer's new book, "What Happened to Worksite Enforcement? A Cautionary Tale of Failed Immigration Reform. (Order it here.)
Kammer's book details a history of perfidy, with Congress and five straight Presidents routinely breaking the promises to the American people that the government would protect law-abiding businesses from the unfair competition of outlaw businesses who hire illegal foreign workers -- and promises that the government would protect American workers from having to compete with illegal foreign workers for jobs and wages.
Rep. Smith indicated that the perfidy may finally be ending with the "sincere" enforcement efforts of Pres. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions:
I have been waiting 30 years for a President who would make enforcement of immigration laws a priority. And I am pleased with what this administration has been doing. . . . We have a Trump administration who is sincerely and, I think effectively, starting to both investigate, conduct investigations, and to engage in deportations as well, both sides. So it's refreshing to me to have an administration who is willing to enforce the law."
Smith said he won't stop his efforts to finally get floor votes on his mandatory E-Verify legislation which once again has passed at the committee level:
The E-Verify immigration reform is the most popular immigration reform, according to the polls, that is being considered. It enjoys 82% approval rate by the American people. No other immigration reform comes close, although several are in the 60s and 70s. "
But the Senate Republican working group did not include that incredibly popular mandatory E-Verify when it introduced a bill to grant a three-year amnesty to illegal aliens who are recipients of the now-ended DACA amnesty of Pres. Obama. The amnesty would allow businesses who want to hire illegal workers to continue to do so.
But Rep. Smith said mandatory E-Verify is more valued by House Republicans:
I am hoping that the House will have it (mandatory E-Verify) in their proposal. And I've talked to Chairman Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. And he certainly supports it. I've talked to Paul Ryan, our Speaker. He supports E-Verify. So I'd like to think that the House will improve on what the Senate has proposed."
-- ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA
Updated: Sat, Dec 9th 2017 @ 4:50pm EST
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. The views expressed in blogs do not necessarily reflect the official position of NumbersUSA.