Monday, September 23, 2019


Just who is behind the caravans of illegal immigrants coming to the United States? Michelle Malkin asks the questions and finds the answers. How much taxpayer money is being funneled into groups that support illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities? And is there really a conspiracy to use illegal immigration to “destroy” America?

Study: 14.3M Illegal Aliens Living in U.S., Costing Americans $132B a Year

Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images

About 14.3 million illegal aliens are living across the United States, according to a new study, costing American taxpayers roughly $132 billion a year.

An annually released report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that that illegal population living in the U.S. has risen nearly two million in two years, now standing at about 14.3 million illegal aliens.
FAIR analysts fault the increase in illegal aliens to an unsecured southern border, growing sanctuary city policies, widespread available U.S. jobs with no nationwide E-Verify mandate, an increase in social welfare programs, exploitable asylum laws, and the ongoing promise of amnesty by GOP and Democrat lawmakers.
The rise in the illegal population, FAIR analysts find, means illegal aliens are costing American taxpayers nearly $132 billion every year. That fiscal burden to Americans is set to grow even larger without major immigration-reducing reforms, according to the study.

(Federation for American Immigration Reform)

(Federation for American Immigration Reform)
“Unless the federal government takes meaningful action to eliminate the incentives that fuel illegal immigration, the total number of illegal aliens residing in the United States could surge to over 21 million by 2025, at a cost of nearly $200 million, annually,” FAIR analysts project.
The FAIR study is among many that have attempted to estimate the illegal population living in the U.S. Researchers from Yale University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have estimated an illegal population of 22 million, while Pew Research Center regularly cites an illegal population of 11 to 12 million.
As noted previously, the FAIR study confirms that the illegal population is largely concentrated in six states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois — four of which are sanctuary states where criminal illegal aliens are shielded from deportation.
California, for example, is home to more than three million illegal aliens with the broadest sanctuary state policy in the country. Texas has an illegal population of more than two million, and Florida is home to nearly 1.1 million illegal aliens despite both outlawing sanctuary city jurisdictions.
The sanctuary states of New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have a combined illegal population of about 2.22 million.
Illegal immigration is not only fiscally burdensome on American taxpayers to the sum of billions every year, but an increase of foreign workers in the U.S. labor market due to legal immigration levels — where about 1.2 million immigrants are admitted every year — reduces the wages of America’s working and middle class. Conversely, less immigration increases Americans’ wages.
Extensive research by economist George Borjas and analyst Steven Camarota reveals that the country’s current mass legal immigration system burdens working and middle class Americans while redistributing about $500 billion in wealth every year to major employers and newly arrived immigrants. Similarly, immigration keeps wages low for employers and stagnant for employees.
For every one-percent increase in the immigrant portion of American workers’ occupations, their weekly wages are cut by about 0.5 percent, Camarota finds. This means the average native-born American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by perhaps 8.75 percent.
Today, about 17.5 percent of the American workforce is made up of foreign-born workers. About 7.8 million of these foreign-born workers are illegal aliens living in the U.S., according to the latest analysis by Pew Research Center.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

Walters: Will two new laws push California to its tipping point?


A reported ‘13,000 companies moved out of state’ from 2008 to 2016–new rent control, gig worker laws won’t help


 Could California reach a tipping point when taxes, regulation, traffic and soaring housing and utility costs overwhelm the positives of living and doing business here?

Circa of America got its start more than a half-century ago, during San Francisco’s Hippie heyday, when Ronaldo Cianciarulo began making and selling leather belts out of his van in the city’s Haight-Ashbury neighborhood.
During several changes of ownership and names, it continued to make belts in a factory in San Francisco’s Bayview District, the largest manufacturing facility remaining in the city.
However, earlier this month, Circa announced that it was closing its plant, laying off 92 employees and moving its headquarters to Atlanta.
“Due to changing economic conditions in the city and globally as well as a shifting customer base, Circa of America has made the business decision to move,” a Circa spokeswoman told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Circa had reached its tipping point, when the disadvantages of operating in San Francisco outweighed the advantages.
A two-hour drive to the southeast, Jim deMartini had already reached his tipping point.
A prominent farmer and Stanislaus County supervisor, deMartini announced in July that he was not only giving up his political position, but had sold his 1,100 acres of farmland and was moving to Nevada. Not for business reasons. “I’ve had it with California,” deMartini said.
Circa apparently isn’t alone. Joseph Vranich, who helps businesses relocate, has published a report, entitled “Why Companies Leave California,” claiming that between 2008 and 2016, “at least 13,000 companies moved out of state during that nine-year period.”
Vranich says high taxes and increasingly onerous regulatory laws are the major reasons for business departures.
DeMartini isn’t alone either. California routinely loses more people to other states than it gains, with Texas the No. 1 destination of ex-Californians. There are numerous anecdotal reports of wealthy people, such as deMartini, quietly opting to relocate to no- or low-tax states such as Nevada and Texas as their tax burdens increase.
The larger question is whether California as a 
whole could reach a tipping point when high 
taxes, regulation, soaring housing, utility and fuel 
costs, choking traffic congestion, disease-ridden 
encampments of the homeless and other negative 
factors overwhelm the positives of living and 
doing business here and the state begins to 
experience economic and social erosion.
We have seen tipping points in California before, both positive and negative.
We saw the San Francisco Bay Area explode as a generator of jobs and wealth when technical innovation, venture capital and entrepreneurial spirit combined in just the right proportions.
We saw Los Angeles County implode when the end of the Cold War ravaged its aerospace industry and more than a million people fled the region, leaving it with the worst poverty in a state with the nation’s worst poverty.
What might be California’s tipping point? Could it be one or more of the bills just passed in the Legislature?
Could it be Assembly Bill 5, which would, by codifying a state Supreme Court decision, force businesses to place more workers on their payrolls, rather than treat them as contractors?
Could it be Assembly Bill 1482, which imposes limits on rents in older apartment houses?
Or could it be one of the measures that voters might face next year to raise property taxes on commercial real estate or boost income taxes on the highest income Californians?
We may not be there yet, but logic — and history — tell us that there is always a tipping point. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire is one obvious reminder.
More to the point, we should remember that Detroit, the booming Silicon Valley of its time, arrogantly assumed that its prosperity was impregnable, and then stumbled into a socioeconomic abyss.

Leaving California to the Homeless

Donald Trump visited enemy territory this week.
He came out here to the deep blue state of California to raise a few million bucks at private fundraisers in Silicon Valley and Beverly Hills.
He also went down to the border with Mexico to inspect the wall the federal government is building to stop illegal immigration and protect what no longer deserves to be called the Golden State.
What the president couldn't see while he was out here were all the wealthy and productive Californians who are leaving this state in droves.
They are the people who are tired of being tortured by high state taxes and bad laws like the ones that prevent low-income housing from being built, or that make their electricity and gasoline so expensive.
They are the people who've watched the sidewalks of their great cities being turned into permanent tent communities for the poor, the homeless, the drugged and the mentally disturbed.
They are the tax base that has been footing the bill for the social welfare benefits and government services that are bestowed so generously on state citizens and illegal immigrants.
They have seen the grim future of their formerly great state and said to themselves, "We're outta' here."
But millions of Californians like me can't leave. We have kids and grandkids here.
We love the state and its people. We love the weather, the beaches, the deserts and the mountains.
What we don't love is what the Democrat Party and its policies have been doing for decades to harm California and its big cities.
The Democrats running this state almost act like they hate it. All they seem to want is more illegal immigrants, more crippling environmental laws and higher prices for everything.
The shocking TV images of huge homeless communities living in tents in Los Angeles and San Francisco are the most glaring sign of the Democrats' failure.
Even Democrats like Gov. Gavin Newsom agree that it has been state policies like strict building laws and environmental regulations that have created tens of thousands of homeless people.
Only let's please not call them "homeless people." It's a misnomer.
Most of the thousands of people you see on TV living in tents and sleeping bags are homeless by choice.
They're mostly drug addicts. Or mentally ill. Or bums or vagrants who've chosen to live on the street amid their own garbage, used drug needles and human waste.
They're also mostly males.
There are lots of genuinely homeless people in California who need assistance from government or private social agencies.
But they're usually women and children and they're usually living in shelters where they can get the help they need.
Shelters have rules you have to follow and homeless mothers and their kids will abide by them. Men won't.
We keep hearing that we need to build more low-income housing units for the homeless.
But the truth is, most of the men on the sidewalks of downtown L.A. wouldn't stay in a shelter if it was located in the penthouse of the Westin Bonaventure Hotel.
Half of the country's unsheltered homeless people live in California. LA Mayor Eric Garcetti wants President Trump to solve the state's homeless crisis.
But it's the responsibility of the Democrat-controlled state government, the Democrat governor and the Democrat mayors - the ones who created the crisis in the first place.
For California natives like me, it's a crying shame.
The most beautiful state in the U.S. has been wrecked by Democrats and it's only going to get worse as more illegal immigrants arrive from Mexico and Central America.
I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before the state runs out of money and the productive people who provide it. -

Self-Destruction in the Golden State


Written by  John F. McManus

Relocating to California was once the goal of many Americans. But in recent years, the luster of living in the “Golden State” has dimmed considerably. Those who still desire to move to what was once widely viewed as a semi-paradise on the West Coast might want to assess what they’ll find before pulling up stakes and heading there.
The Los Angeles Times has surveyed and published some unnerving California developments. In the area served by this newspaper, Times investigators discovered what certainly should be termed failing grades if the region were an educational institution. It’s not, of course, but over recent months, the hard truths they found include:
• 95 percent of warrants for murder in Los Angeles and 75 percent of those on the “most wanted” list contain the names of illegal immigrants.
• Over two/thirds of the births in L.A. County are from illegal immigrant parentage and are paid for by taxpayers.
• Nearly 35 percent of inmates in the state’s detention centers are illegal immigrants.
• According to the FBI, half of the gang members in Los Angeles are illegal immigrants from south of the state’s border.
• In Los Angeles County, 5.1 million people speak only English and 3.1 million speak only Spanish.
This information came from the mass-circulation newspaper known for its liberal stance on almost all issues. Featuring information about the effects of illegal immigration isn’t its usual practice. The numbers we have cited didn’t appear in a single article. The bad news compiled in this column was spread out over time. The bad news has led many Californians to relocate themselves and their businesses to other parts of the Golden State, even to other states.
Rather than simply accept the conclusions reached above, I decided to ask a close friend who lives in Los Angeles County if all of it was verifiable. He responded: “Yes it is. But there are bigger problems that weren’t mentioned.” For instance, he pointed to the growing number of vagrants living — and defecating — in the streets. He said the water at the beaches is becoming hazardous to health and dangerous for swimming. He told of business owners who have to get their sidewalks cleaned each morning. And he reported that rats and disease-carrying insects have proliferated. Los Angeles, he assured me, is filled with tents and absolute filth.
He then added the following:
Illegals are registered to vote. Many are without a driver’s license and they get around in dilapidated autos without insurance. A large number of these individuals find jobs and demand to be paid only in cash. That way, there are no taxes paid or reported. While many illegals are hard-working and otherwise model citizens, they are encouraged to skirt the laws that everyone is supposed to obey. Even they would confirm what the LA Times reported.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has responded to the situation by calling for the imposition of a new “windfall tax” on retirement incomes and stock market gains. She wants to distribute the funds to unemployed illegal immigrants. Wasn’t it Karl Marx who suggested this as the way to solve such problems (“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”)?
Pelosi regularly scoffs at President Trump’s plan to build a wall at the border. She never airs the most important reason for her opposition to keeping illegals from simply walking into the United States. But her reason for such a stance is obvious: She expects that the illegals who have already arrived and those who continue to cross into the United States will vote for Democrats. And she’ll do whatever she can to care for them, protect them, and urge their relatives to cross the border as well. Illegal immigrants, like many legal immigrants and native-born Americans, are overwhelmingly ignorant of limitations on government that made America great. As soon as they are given the privilege of voting, they will speed the conversion of California and the entire United States into a duplicate of Venezuela or Cuba where central governments have total power.
Sad to state, California isn’t alone in suffering from these problems. Pelosi’s home city of San Francisco is close behind Los Angeles in its degradation. Other cities are close behind. The entire nation seems determined to commit suicide. Illegal immigration must be eliminated.

John F. McManus is president emeritus of The John Birch Society.



Xavier Becerra breaks the news, files suit against Trump administration public-charge rule.

August 19, 2019

More than 22 million people are illegally present in the United States, according to a recent study by scholars at MIT and Yale. Pew Research pegged the figure at 11 million, and for years it stood as the official count for media and government. It now emerges that 11 million is more like the number illegally present in California alone.
“California is home to over 10 million immigrants,” reads a chart displayed by California attorney general Xavier Becerra and governor Gavin Newsom as they announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s public-charge rule. “Immigrants,” is California code for “illegals,” a term the state’s ruling class has banned. As Rachel Bovard notes at American Greatness, even a legal immigrant’s ability “to stay off the welfare system must be taken into account when considering qualifications for a green card.”  
California heaps welfare benefits on those illegally present, including nearly $100 million for health care in the recent budget. Many of those 10 million illegals came to California specifically to get those taxpayer-funded benefits. It disturbs Becerra and Newsom that this disqualifies the recipients from any future legal status, but there’s more to it. As attorney Madison Gesiotto explains in The Hill, voting must also be taken into account. 
“Voting as an illegal alien in federal elections is a crime punishable by fine, imprisonment, deportation, or inadmissibility.” According to a State Department investigation, false-documented illegals have been voting in federal, state and local elections for decades. In 1996, illegals cast 784 votes against Republican Robert Dornan in a congressional race Democrat Loretta Sanchez won by only 984 votes.
If Newsom and Becerra are certain that more than 10 million people illegally reside in the state, they doubtless know how many voted in 2016. Trouble is, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla refused to release any voter information to a federal voter-fraud probe.
Back in 2015, Padilla told the Los Angeles Times, “At the latest, for the 2018 election cycle, I expect millions of new voters on the rolls in the state of California,” with “new voters” code for ineligible voters. True to form, by March, 2018, more than one million “undocumented” immigrants received driver’s licenses from the state Department of Motor Vehicles, which automatically registered them to vote under the “Motor Voter” program.
Padilla is now claiming that only six “California residents” were erroneously added to voter rolls for 2018, that it was all due to DMV errors, and that none was guilty of “fraudulently voting or attempting to vote.” To paraphrase John Goodman in The Big Lebowski, this is what happens when the governor’s own department of finance, not the official state auditor, investigates the DMV.
In reality, California officials know full well how many non-citizens voted in 2016 and 2018. With more than 10 million illegals in the state, the ballpark figure of one million illegal voters is probably low. In California, illegals are the Democrats’ electoral college, and the Democrats reward them with welfare benefits and protection from deportation through sanctuary laws. This raises another issue.
Illegals’ use of welfare benefits and practice of voting in federal elections disqualifies them from legal residency and citizenship. This makes for a permanent group of more than 10 million foreign nationals in California alone. In these conditions, Congress should start pushing back.
Public officials who apportion taxpayer-funded benefits for foreign nationals should be required to register as agents of the governments of those foreign nationals. The primary candidates would be the governments of Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, which Gavin Newsom visited before he had even toured his own state.
State and federal governments should also bill the foreign governments for welfare, medical, education and incarceration costs. Some of this could be alleviated by a tax on remissions, such as the 33.4 billion Mexicans abroad sent back last year. That amount is impossible without massive inputs from U.S. taxpayers. Legitimate citizens and legal immigrants have no obligation to relieve foreign governments of responsibility for their own citizens.
Meanwhile, as Rachel Bovard also notes, the Trump administration’s new rule only updates a 1996 law proclaiming “inadmissible” those aliens likely to become a public charge. The law was supported by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden and other leading Democrats.  The Trump administration measure gives more definition to what constitutes a welfare benefit, food stamps, Medicaid, public housing assistance and such. Those benefits are all for legitimate citizens and legal immigrants but Bovard cites Census data showing that 63 percent of non-citizens use the welfare system.
Those who thought there were only 11 million illegals nationwide were mistaken. Thanks to Jerry Brown crony Gavin Newsom, and Xavier Becerra, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, Americans now understand that “more than 10 million” illegally reside in California alone, and that might understate the figure.
The MIT-Yale estimate ranges as high as 29.1 million nationwide, more than the population of Australia, with 25,088,636 and a veritable occupation. To all but the willfully blind, politicians have abandoned the rule of law, and made false-documented illegals a protected, privileged class.

This is how a nation loses its sovereignty. 

Report: California’s Middle-Class Wages Rise by 1 Percent in 40 Years

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
3 Sep 2019172

Middle-class wages in progressive California have risen by 1 percent in the last 40 years, says a study by the establishment California Budget and Policy Center.

“Earnings for California’s workers at the low end and middle of the wage scale have generally declined or stagnated for decades,” says the report, titled “California’s Workers Are Increasingly Locked Out of the State’s Prosperity.” The report continued:
In 2018, the median hourly earnings for workers ages 25 to 64 was $21.79, just 1% higher than in 1979, after adjusting for inflation ($21.50, in 2018 dollars) (Figure 1). Inflation-adjusted hourly earnings for low-wage workers, those at the 10th percentile, increased only slightly more, by 4%, from $10.71 in 1979 to $11.12 in 2018.
The report admits that the state’s progressive economy is delivering more to investors and less to wage-earners. “Since 2001, the share of state private-sector [annual new income] that has gone to worker compensation has fallen by 5.6 percentage points — from 52.9% to 47.3%.”
In 2016, California’s Gross Domestic Product was $2.6 trillion, so the 5.6 percent drop shifted $146 billion away from wages. That is roughly $3,625 per person in 2016.
The report notes that wages finally exceeded 1979 levels around 2017, and it splits the credit between the Democrats’ minimum-wage boosts and President Donald Trump’s go-go economy.
The 40 years of flat wages are partly hidden by a wave of new products and services. They include almost-free entertainment and information on the Internet, cheap imported coffee in supermarkets, and reliable, low-pollution autos in garages.
But the impact of California’s flat wages is made worse by California’s rising housing costs, the report says, even though it also ignores the rent-spiking impact of the establishment’s pro-immigration policies:
 In just the last decade alone, the increase in the typical household’s rent far outpaced the rise in the typical full-time worker’s annual earnings, suggesting that working families and individuals are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. In fact, the basic cost of living in many parts of the state is more than many single individuals or families can expect to earn, even if all adults are working full-time.
Specifically, inflation-adjusted median household rent rose by 16% between 2006 and 2017, while inflation-adjusted median annual earnings for individuals working at least 35 hours per week and 50 weeks per year rose by just 2%, according to a Budget Center analysis of US Census Bureau, American Community Survey data.
The wage and housing problems are made worse — especially for families — by the loss of employment benefits as companies and investors spike stock prices by cutting costs. The report says:
Many workers are being paid little more today than workers were in 1979 even as worker productivity has risen. Fewer employees have access to retirement plans sponsored by their employers, leaving individual workers on their own to stretch limited dollars and resources to plan how they’ll spend their later years affording the high cost of living and health care in California. And as union representation has declined, most workers today cannot negotiate collectively for better working conditions, higher pay, and benefits, such as retirement and health care, like their parents and grandparents did. On top of all this, workers who take on contingent and independent work (often referred to as “gig work”), which in many cases appears to be motivated by the need to supplement their primary job or fill gaps in their employment, are rarely granted the same rights and legal protections as traditional employees.
The center’s report tries to blame the four-decade stretch of flat wages on the declining clout of unions. But unions’ decline was impacted by the bipartisan elites’ policy of mass-migration and imposed diversity.
In 2018, Breitbart reported how Progressives for Immigration Reform interviewed Blaine Taylor, a union carpenter, about the economic impact of migration:
TAYLOR: If I hired a framer to do a small addition [in 1988], his wage would have been $45 an hour. That was the minimum for a framing contractor, a good carpenter. For a helper, it was about $25 an hour, for a master who could run a complete job, it was about $45 an hour. That was the going wage for plumbers as well. His helpers typically got $25 an hour.
Now, the average wage in Los Angeles for construction workers is less than $11 an hour. They can’t go lower than the minimum wage. And much of that, if they’re not being paid by the hour at less than $11 an hour, they’re being paid per piece — per piece of plywood that’s installed, per piece of drywall that’s installed. Now, the subcontractor can circumvent paying them as an hourly wage and are now being paid by 1099, which means that no taxes are being taken out. [Emphasis added]
Diversity also damaged the unions by shredding California’s civic solidarity. In 2007, the progressive Southern Poverty Law Center posted a report with the title “Latino Gang Members in Southern California are Terrorizing and Killing Blacks.” In the same year, an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times described another murder by Latino gangs as “a manifestation of an increasingly common trend: Latino ethnic cleansing of African Americans from multiracial neighborhoods.”
The center’s board members include the executive director of the state’s SEIU union, a professor from the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the research director at the “Program for Environmental and Regional Equity” at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Outside California, President Donald Trump’s low-immigration policies are pressuring employers to raise Americans’ wages in a hot economy. The Wall Street Journal reportedAugust 29:
Overall, median weekly earnings rose 5% from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the same quarter in 2018, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For workers between the ages of 25 and 34, that increase was 7.6%.

The New York Times laments that reduced immigration does force wages upwards and also does force companies to buy labor-saving, wage-boosting machinery. Instead, NYT prioritizes "ideas about America’s identity and culture.” 

NYT Admits Fewer Immigrants Means Higher Wages, More Labor-Saving Machines



UK Govt Blocks ‘Culturally Insensitive’ Ban on Cat and Dog Meat


The British government’s Ministry of Justice had blocked a “culturally insensitive” move to ban cat meat and dog meat, fearing it could offend people in Asian countries.

Cabinet Office chief Michael Gove drew up plans to outlaw the possession of cat and dog meat over the while he was still Secretary of State at the Department for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), according to reports.
However, the move is understood to have been blocked by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), currently headed by former solicitor-general Robert Buckland, after “nervous civil servants” suggested it was “culturally insensitive” and liable to cause offence in Asian countries where cat and dog meat consumption is more common.
The MoJ’s reasoning came as something of a surprise to Giles Watling, a Tory MP who has championed a ban, who pointed out “It’s not culturally insensitive because we’re not telling them what to do – we’re just telling them what we do” in comments to The Sun.
“Dogs are our companion animals. We do not eat them, and that is a very important message to send to the rest of the world,” he asserted.
Animal welfare campaigners in Asia itself have also stressed the importance of Western governments setting an example, with Kike Yuen of the World Dog Alliance explaining that “legislation against dog meat in UK would provide us with strength to continue our work in Asia, as the UK could influence other countries to stop dog meat consumption” in December 2018.
“Most of them usually refused to do so with the excuse that there is no such law in Western countries.”
Britain’s former colony of Hong Kong, now a semi-autonomous but increasingly repressed province of the People’s Republic of China, is one of the few jurisdictions in the Far East which has banned dog meat, as has the independent Republic of China — commonly known as Taiwan.

“We currently have some of the strongest animal welfare laws in the world,” claimed a Ministry of Justice spokesman in response to the controversy.
“The government is currently considering whether any changes are needed in this area in the UK and will set out any plans in due course,” they added non-commitally — language which generally indicates that there are no plans to act on a particular issue.