Monday, March 16, 2020

DEMOCRAT PARTY FOR ABORTION FACTORIES AND BILLIONS IN WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS JUMPING OUR BORDERS TO BRED ANCHOR BABIES

The Cost of Illegal Immigration to the United States

At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend. The sections below will break down and further explain these numbers at the federal, state, and local levels.

Schumer Exposed the Democrats' Abortion Extremism

Just when you think abortion extremists in Congress can’t sink any lower, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) threatened to make two sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices “pay the price” if they vote to uphold popular pro-life laws.
Recently the Court heard oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, the first major abortion case since President Trump was elected. The case involves a Louisiana law that requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. The law was introduced in 2014 by State Representative Katrina Jackson, a pro-life Democrat, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and signed by a Democratic governor.
Speaking at a pro-abortion rally outside the Court, Senator Schumer singled out President Trump’s two Supreme Court appointees by name with a chilling threat: “I want to tell you, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price…you won’t know what hit you if you go forward.”
Imagine for a moment if a Republican leader had used such unhinged, violent rhetoric. Every American should be horrified by Schumer’s outrageous comments, his refusal to apologize, and his implausible attempts to spin them away after the fact. Voters, elected leaders of both parties, and the media should demand to know exactly what he meant – impeachment? Further attempts to personally destroy the lives and good names of two upstanding public servants? Something even worse?
Equally horrifying is the context of abortion extremism in which Schumer’s comments were made. In recent weeks, Congress had three opportunities to vote on bills that would stop late-term abortions after five months of pregnancy – a point when science shows unborn children can feel excruciating pain – and to protect babies born alive in failed abortion attempts by ensuring they receive appropriate medical care that could save their lives. Pro-abortion Democrats blocked these compassionate, popular bills every single time.
Meanwhile in the presidential race, every leading Democratic contender has backed abortion on demand through birth, paid for by taxpayers, and even infanticide. Several have entertained the idea of packing the Supreme Court; in a February debate, frontrunner Joe Biden vowed to apply a pro-abortion litmus test to high court nominees if elected. His closest competitor, Bernie Sanders quickly agreed, pledging never to nominate anyone who is not “100 percent” pro-abortion. What is such a litmus test, if not Schumer’s threat in policy form? Candidates should have to answer whether they unequivocally condemn Schumer’s bullying.
The average American might rightly wonder, why the fuss over a modest, popular law that prevents no one from seeking an abortion, but simply protects women’s health and safety? Abortion activists claim abortion is “safe” and that it is like any other routine medical procedure – ignoring the fact that two patients go into every abortion appointment and, by design, at least half of them don’t come out alive. Abortion businesses show their true colors when they demand special treatment, fighting tooth and nail against sensible regulations that hold abortion centers to the same standard as other outpatient facilities.
A look at Louisiana’s abortion facilities shows they need more oversight, not less. The appalling violations uncovered by pro-life advocates include rusted surgical equipment, floors and furniture caked with dried blood, missing and expired emergency medications, falsified records, orders not to call an ambulance, and procedures so badly botched, just last year a patient required an emergency hysterectomy. Similar conditions have been found across the nation in facilities run by so-called doctors like James Pendergraft, Steven Chase Brigham, Ulrich Klopfer, and of course Kermit Gosnell. The abortion industry has proven incapable of self-regulating and putting patient safety before profits, and so states must step in to protect their citizens.
Abortion extremists have everything to lose. Any gain for unborn children and their mothers, no matter how small, is a step back from the national status quo of abortion on demand through birth imposed by Roe v. Wade and a loss for the radical abortion lobby.
Under the Trump administration, there have been many such gains. President Trump has governed as the most pro-life president in history, taking action to stop taxpayer funding of abortion businesses, protect conscience rights, and give voice to the victims of Democrats’ cruel extremism. The Trump Department of Justice is fighting on the side of women, submitting a brief to the Court in support of Louisiana’s pro-life law. And with two Supreme Court justices and nearly 200 federal judges successfully confirmed, and the potential for future vacancies, the abortion lobby has seen its undemocratic grip on power steadily eroded.
This explains the desperation on Schumer’s side and shines an enormous spotlight on the stakes of the coming elections. Susan B. Anthony List takes this threat seriously. After all, activist lawyer Debra Katz confessed preserving our national abortion-on-demand regime was a significant motivator – perhaps the most significant – in the smear campaign against Justice Kavanaugh. Our ground team is active in key battleground states now, on a mission to make four million visits to voters’ homes through Election Day to defeat abortion extremists so Schumer’s threat never becomes a political reality. Voters should take the Democrats at their word, take no chances, and re-elect President Trump and the pro-life Senate majority.
Marjorie Dannenfelser is president of the national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List. She serves as national co-chair of Pro-Life Voices for Trump.

WHY IS AMERICA MEXICO’S WELFARE COLONY? OF COURSE, THE GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS LONG SURRENDERED OUR BORDERS, LAWS, AND CULTURE TO THE INVADING ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS SO THE WORK CHEAP FOR DEM DONORS.

The pregnant caravaner who calculatingly slipped across the U.S. in San Diego late last year, only to have her baby the next day, now, along with her entire family, gets that free ride on government housing. 

For example, in Nancy Pelosi’s state of California alone, there are about 1.2 million children born out of "tourism" of pregnant illegal aliens.  These are official hospital data.  For comparison, the population of the legitimate state of Wyoming is about 600,000 people.

“Here’s a fun fact: Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman — the notorious Mexican drug lord, sentenced on July 17 to life plus 30 years for drug trafficking and multiple murder conspiracies — has two children who are American, born in sunny California to his wife, who’s an anchor baby herself.” ANN COULTER
Today, there are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. under 18-years-old, exceeding the annual roughly four million American babies born every year and costing American taxpayers about $2.4 billion every year to subsidize hospital costs.

 “Through love of having children we're going to take over."  Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Fascist Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96 (LOS ANGELES COUNTY HANDS OUT $1 BILLION YEARL TO MEXICO’S ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS)

Nearly 400K Anchor Babies Born in 2019, Exceeding U.S. Births in 48 StatesJohn Moore/Getty Images

Close to 400,000 anchor babies were born in the United States in 2019 as an executive order to end birthright citizenship gets kicked down the road for another year by President Donald Trump’s administration.
Analysis conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies revealed in 2018 that about 300,000 U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are born every year. These children, often referred to as “anchor babies,” immediately obtain American citizenship and anchor their illegal or foreign parents in the country.
In addition, about 72,000 anchor babies are born to foreign tourists, foreign visa workers, and foreign students every year — all of whom obtain immediate American citizenship simply for being born within the parameters of the country.
Altogether, about 372,000 anchor babies are estimated to have been born last year despite a commitment by Trump to sign an executive order ending the nation’s “anchor baby policy” that incentivizes pregnant migrant women to cross the U.S.-Mexico border in the hopes of securing American citizenship for their children.
This indicates that there were more anchor babies born in 2019 than births in each of the 50 states except California and Texas. California residents deliver about 455,000 babies a year, while Texans deliver about 379,000 babies a year, just slightly more than the total annual number of anchor babies born.
For example, there were more than 34 times as many anchor babies born nationwide than American children born in the state of Delaware and nearly five times as many anchor babies born nationwide than the American children born in Arizona.
To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic American citizenship, and a number of legal scholars dispute the idea.
Many leading conservative scholars argue the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not provide mandatory birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or noncitizens, as these children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as that language was understood when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
For more than a year, Trump has signaled that he has reviewed signing an executive order to end birthright citizenship, otherwise known as the “anchor baby policy.”

Today, there are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. under 18-years-old, exceeding the annual roughly four million American babies born every year and costing American taxpayers about $2.4 billion every year to subsidize hospital costs.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

BLOG: LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALONE HANDS MEXICO’S ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS MORE THAN A BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR IN WELFRE.
“Here’s a fun fact: Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman — the notorious Mexican drug lord, sentenced on July 17 to life plus 30 years for drug trafficking and multiple murder conspiracies — has two children who are American, born in sunny California to his wife, who’s an anchor baby herself.” ANN COULTER

 

Ann Coulter: How we became the world's suckers on immigration

Ann Coulter: How we became the world's suckers on immigration
TheHill.com
Looking at our immigration policies compared to the rest of the world, you’d think America lost a bet.
The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world (the other is Canada, and even it has some restrictions we don’t have) with full “birthright citizenship,” meaning that any child born when his mother was physically present within the geographical borders of the U.S. automatically gets a U.S. birth certificate and a Social Security card.
That means legal immigrants, pregnant women sneaking in on tourist visas, travelers on a three-week vacation, cheap foreign workers on “temporary” visas and, in some cases, foreign diplomats.
There are laws on the books that say the kids born to diplomats don’t automatically become citizens simply by being born here but — like so many of our immigration laws — these are treated as mere suggestions.
And that’s not all.
We’re the only country but two that confers automatic citizenship on children born to illegal aliens, or “anchor babies.” This is not “birthright citizenship,” which refers to children born to legal immigrants. (There’s nothing vulgar, bigoted, racial or sexual about the term “anchor baby.” It’s a boating metaphor: A geographical U.S. birth “anchors” the child’s entire family in this country by virtue of the baby’s citizenship.)
The other two countries that grant citizenship to anchor babies are Canada and Tanzania. Canada doesn’t have Latin America on its border, of course — and Tanzania is reconsidering the policy.
Here’s a fun fact: Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman — the notorious Mexican drug lord, sentenced on July 17 to life plus 30 years for drug trafficking and multiple murder conspiracies — has two children who are American, born in sunny California to his wife, who’s an anchor baby herself.
Why would any country make the calculated decision to reward illegal immigration by granting the full privileges of citizenship to the children of illegals or foreign visitors who arrange to have the births take place on its soil?
As a matter of fact, “we” didn’t make such a decision.
The late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan invented the anchor-baby policy out of whole cloth and snuck it into a footnote of an opinion written in 1982. Yes, this ancient bedrock principle, this essence of “Who We Are,” dates all the way back to the Reagan administration.
The Brennan footnote was not part of the decision. It does not have the force of law. Yet, today, we act as if Brennan’s absurd dicta is the law of the land for no reason other than: a) sheer ignorance and b) a fear of being called “racist.”
No U.S. Congress or Supreme Court ever debated and then approved the idea that children born to mothers illegally present in the country should automatically become citizens. Consequently, any president or Congress could simply state that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens. If only we had a president or Congress that would do so.
Which reminds me: No other country fawns over illegal immigrants brought in as minors, day in and day out, calling them “Dreamers.”
The U.S. is one of the rare countries that makes citizens of people who can’t speak the language — along with the masochistic Swedes. (How did they terrorize the world 800 years ago?) The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands all have the crazy idea that citizens should be able to communicate with one another. We have a language requirement on the books but, it turns out, that too is merely a suggestion. 
No other country holds a “lottery” in which the prize is U.S. citizenship. Ireland has a lottery but, for whatever sick and twisted reason, the Irish give the winners money, not citizenship in their country.
We bring in 50,000 lucky lottery winners each year, literally for no reason at all. (Thanks, First President Bush!) To enter, you must be from a specified country, like the Congo, Nepal, Ethiopia or Uzbekistan. You submit your name to the State Department and, if your name is pulled out of a hat, WELCOME TO AMERICA!
This rigorous system for choosing our fellow citizens gave us, for example, Egyptian national Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, who opened fire at the El Al Airlines ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport in 2002, murdering two people. His wife had won the lottery five years after he came here on a tourist visa.
It got us Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbeki who plowed a rented truck into a crowd of bicyclists and pedestrians on Halloween 2017 in New York City, killing eight and injuring many more.
It bestowed upon us Akayed Ullah, the Bangladeshi national who got in as the nephew of a lottery winner. Ullah enriched us by detonating a bomb in New York City’s Port Authority in December 2017.
Speaking of nephews of Bangladeshi lottery winners trying to blow up the Port Authority, no other major country in the world issues a majority of its visas to people based on the fact that they have a relative already living here. 
We’re not talking about the spouses and minor children of immigrants we really want. These are adult siblings, nephews and nieces — who have their own adult children, elderly parents and mothers-in-law. Two-thirds of all legal immigrants to the U.S. come in on these “family reunification” visas. (We wouldn’t want our immigrants to be illiterate, poor and lonesome.)
Even the New York Times — despite its decidedly anti-MAGA bent — has described our “family reunification” system as wildly out of step with the rest of the world. 
We’re in a buyer’s market but, instead of taking the top draft picks, we aggressively recruit the desperately poor, the culturally deprived, the sick and the needy. All because American elites seem to believe that it’s unfair — even snooty — to try to bring in the best immigrants we can.
Ann Coulter is a lawyer, a syndicated columnist and conservative commentator, and the author of 13 New York Times bestsellers. The most recent, “Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind,” was published in 2018. Follow her on Twitter @AnnCoulter
ANN COULTER
In fact, Trump is steadily moving in the precise opposite direction of what he promised.

Illegal immigration is on track to hit the highest levels in more than a decade, and Trump has willfully decided to keep amnesty advocates Jared, Ivanka, Mick Mulvaney, Marc Short, and Mercedes Schlapp in the White House. For all his talk about immigration, did he ever consider hiring people who share his MAGA vision?

372,000 born to immigrants every year, 33,000 to ‘tourists’

 | December 12, 2019 04:13 AM
Illegal and visiting immigrants give birth to enough children in the United States every year to top the populations of St. Louis, Pittsburgh, or Anaheim, and at least 33,000 are considered “birth tourists” eager to win their children birthright citizenship and themselves a quick ticket in, according to two new reports out Thursday.
The Center for Immigration Studies, using federal statistics, has found that there are 39,000 births a year to foreign students, guest workers, and others on long-term temporary visas, plus an additional 33,000 births annually to tourists.
The group that advocates for immigration reform added, “These births are in addition to the nearly 300,000 births each year to illegal immigrants.”
Steven Camarota, the report's lead author and the center's director of research, said, “Our analysis makes clear that the number of children born to visitors is not trivial; and over time the numbers are substantial.”
And, he added, “It seems doubtful that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment could have anticipated that tens of thousands of people each year would automatically be granted citizenship simply because their parents were on a temporary visit to the United States at the time of their birth.”
“Birth tourism” has been ripped by critics as a top immigration scam. Not only, under the Fourteenth Amendment, do children born in the U.S. receive birthright citizenship, but it opens the door to their parents, and eventually their extended family, to getting citizenship or legal status.
The key findings from Camarota’s reports are:
  • Primarily foreign students, guest workers, and exchange visitors, give birth to about 39,000 children annually or 390,000 each decade.
  • Many news stories in recent years have focused on "birth tourism," which describes the phenomenon of pregnant women coming to America shortly before their due dates so their children are born in the U.S. and are awarded U.S. citizenship. Based on a comparison of birth records and Census Bureau data, we estimate there were 33,000 births to women on tourist visas in the second half of 2016 and the first half of 2017. This translates to perhaps 330,000 such births each decade.
  • We estimate that at least 90% of the fathers of children born to non-immigrant women were not U.S. citizens, almost all of them on a temporary visa themselves or illegal immigrants. This means at least 35,000 children were born to a non-immigrant mother and were awarded U.S. citizenship at birth solely because they were born on U.S. soil and not because their parents were citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders).

Another line they cut into: Illegals get free public housing as impoverished Americans wait



Want some perspective on why so many blue sanctuary cities have so many homeless encampments hovering around?
Try the reality that illegal immigrants are routinely given free public housing by the U.S., based on the fact that they are uneducated, unskilled, and largely unemployable. Those are the criteria, and now importing poverty has never been easier. Shockingly, this comes as millions of poor Americans are out in the cold awaiting that housing that the original law was intended to help.
Thus, the tent cities, and by coincidence, the worst of these emerging shantytowns are in blue sanctuary cities loaded with illegal immigrants - Orange County, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, New York...Is there a connection? At a minimum, it's worth looking at.
The Trump administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development is finally trying to put a stop to it as 1.5 million illegals prepare to enter the U.S. this year, and one can only wonder why they didn't do it yesterday.
According to a report in the Washington Times:
The plan would scrap Clinton-era regulations that allowed illegal immigrants to sign up for assistance without having to disclose their status.
Under the new Trump rules, not only would the leaseholder using public housing have to be an eligible U.S. person, but the government would verify all applicants through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database, a federal system that’s used to weed illegal immigrants out of other welfare programs.
Those already getting HUD assistance would have to go through a new verification, though it would be over a period of time and wouldn’t all come at once.
“We’ve got our own people to house and need to take care of our citizens,” an administration official told The Washington Times. “Because of past loopholes in HUD guidance, illegal aliens were able to live in free public housing desperately needed by so many of our own citizens. As illegal aliens attempt to swarm our borders, we’re sending the message that you can’t live off of American welfare on the taxpayers’ dime.”
The Times notes that the rules are confusingly contradictary, and some illegal immigrant families are getting full rides based on just one member being born in the U.S. The pregnant caravaner who calculatingly slipped across the U.S. in San Diego late last year, only to have her baby the next day, now, along with her entire family, gets that free ride on government housing. Plus lots of cheesy news coverage about how heartwarming it all is. That's a lot cheaper than any housing she's going to find back in Tegucigalpa.
Migrants would be almost fools not to take the offering.
The problem of course is that Americans who paid into these programs, and the subset who find themselves in dire circumstances, are in fact being shut out.
The fill-the-pews Catholic archbishops may love to tout the virtues of illegal immigrants and wave signs about getting 'justice" for them, but the hard fact here is that these foreign nationals are stealing from others as they take this housing benefit under legal technicalities. That's not a good thing under anyone's theological law. But hypocrisy is comfortable ground for the entire open borders lobby as they shamelessly celebrate lawbreaking at the border, leaving the impoverished of the U.S. out cold.
The Trump administration is trying to have this outrage fixed by summer. But don't imagine it won't be without the open-borders lawsuits, the media sob stories, the leftist judges, and the scolding clerics.
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers $5.3 Billion: 

429,000 Annual Immigrant Birth Costs...isn't that the same figure they can't find to build the wall???
By Frosty Wooldridge
"According to various estimates, American taxpayers spend from 110 to 260 billion dollars a year to support illegal aliens.  This large discrepancy is due to exactly how to count, and who exactly counts." GARY GINDLER

“We have to act now because both parties failed in the past. Many Democrats want open borders because they see illegal aliens as future voters. Many donor-class Republicans have tolerated illegal immigration because of business demand for cheap labor. That is why both parties have overlooked the laws they voted to pass and ignored the wishes of the American people.” Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News 

“Our border wall will cost upwards of $25 billion. Democrats have the audacity to say that the wall is too expensive. Meanwhile, Democrats shower illegal aliens with $135 billion annually in giveaways. How can Democrats, with a straight face, tell us that $25 billion is too much?” LLOYD MARCUS / AMERICAN THINKER

The Hidden State of Illegalia



All of us have to thank Nancy Pelosi.  She turned out to be not only the speaker of the House of Representatives, but also an excellent salesperson.  Thanks to her ill conceived tricks, the advertisement of the annual presidential State of the Union (SOTU) address to the Congress reached unprecedented heights.
If earlier such traditional performances were simply routine, and only a few people outside Washington were interested, then this year, the situation (thanks to Pelosi) was significantly different.  She invited Trump to speak on January 3, 2019, then "canceled" her invitation on January 16.  Then the partial government shutdown ended, and the SOTU was rescheduled to February 5.
Pelosi's request for a cancelation of this traditional presidential address was an unprecedented and unheard of scandal, which ignores a hundred-year-old tradition.  She was successful in postponing the presidential address, but that was a classic example of a Pyrrhic victory (hat tip: Ronald Cherry).  Trump could have used this opportunity for his advantage.  He talked about the economy, record low unemployment numbers, legal immigration, and foreign policy.  What he spent less time on than he should have is the State of Illegalia. 
Unfortunately, most Americans are not aware of such a state.  No, it is not the 51st state in the Union; instead, it is a satellite substate within every legitimate state of the Union.
For example, in the state of California alone, there are about 1.2 million children born out of "tourism" of pregnant illegal aliens.  These are official hospital data.  For comparison, the population of the legitimate state of Wyoming is about 600,000 people.
That is, inside the state of California, there is a substate — the State of Illegalia — whose population is twice the state of Wyoming.
California's State of Illegalia is not alone.  All states of the Union contain within them, hidden from prying eyes, substates of Illegalia.  In Illinois, there are 174,000 illegal children.  For comparison, the popular among legal immigrants Chicago North Shore area contains just half of Illegalia's population — 86,000.  In the state of New York, there are 224,000 such children.  For comparison, only 36,000 people live in the popular among legal immigrants Brighton Beach area of New York City.
This confrontation is obviously a losing matter for the Democrats.  They openly position themselves as a party that protects illegal aliens and distance themselves from the protection of American citizens.  Pelosi did not want to give Trump the podium, which he could and did use to once again turn to the common sense of the American people.  Whenever Trump speaks, he speaks directly to American citizens, and not through the filter of mass disinformation media.
After the Democrats attempted to destroy a hundred-year-old tradition, Trump could have made some unconventional moves, too.  In order to emphasize this talk about the States of Illegalia, he could have invited some non-traditional guests to the SOTU address. 
The composition of these guests would be the main headache of the Democrats.
Imagine guest seats filled with parents of those American children who were killed by the citizens of the State of Illegalia — by illegal aliens.  Some of them were murdered directly, and some indirectly — with the help of drugs transported across the border with Mexico in tons. 
Also, several crying 15-year-old girls from South America could be invited, who were secretly brought by human-traffickers across the southern border for underground brothels in the State of Illegalia.  Moreover, President Trump could end the tradition of the one-man-show and give the floor to them all in turn.
Trump could also give the floor to American doctors, who will tell the public what diseases they face in the states of Illegalia.  Many of these diseases were practically eliminated in America soon after the Second World War — measles, scarlet fever, lice, tuberculosis, syphilis.  However, these diseases are returning to America, and they are penetrating — initially through the open border with Mexico, and then through the States of Illegalia.  Also, there are numerous cases of AIDS and hepatitis, plus widespread rape of women of all ages.
The U.S. Border Patrol guards would then be invited to the podium.  They would bring with them a few rugs — the rugs Muslims use to pray.  Recently, border guards have been finding more and more such rugs in the border zones of Arizona and Texas.  Why should representatives of the "peaceful religion" get into America through the State of Illegalia?  Why resort to such infiltration?  What is the level of cooperation between sharia states and the State of Illegalia?
Trump could also go to extremes and order a baker's dozen handcuffed MS-13 gang members, with the most evil faces, entirely covered with scary tattoos, to be seated right next to Democrats' guests for the SOTU.  These bandits — citizens of the State of Illegalia — could play an excellent backdrop to Trump's pitch for the country's sovereignty.
According to various estimates, American taxpayers spend from 110 to 260 billion dollars a year to support illegal aliens.  This large discrepancy is due to exactly how to count, and who exactly counts.  However, regardless of who makes the estimates and how, all calculations are one in one: the balance is negative.  That is, illegal aliens receive more from American society than they give, at least 100 billion dollars a year.  This number is the budget of the State of Illegalia.
The Democrats have long represented the interests of the states of Illegalia, and not the citizens of the states of the Union.  We must hope that Pelosi will play her role to the end.
Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles. Follow him on Twitter.


Hispanic Family Values?
OR RUNAWAY ILLEGITIMACY paid for by AMERICANS?
“Through love of having children, we are going to take over.”
City Journal
Hispanic Family Values?
Runaway illegitimacy is creating a new U.S. underclass.
By Heather Mac Donald
Unless the life chances of children raised by single mothers suddenly improve, the explosive growth of the U.S. Hispanic population over the next couple of decades does not bode well for American social stability. Hispanic immigrants bring near–Third World levels of fertility to America, coupled with what were once thought to be First World levels of illegitimacy. (In fact, family breakdown is higher in many Hispanic countries than here.) Nearly half of the children born to Hispanic mothers in the U.S. are born out of wedlock, a proportion that has been increasing rapidly with no signs of slowing down. Given what psychologists and sociologists now know about the much higher likelihood of social pathology among those who grow up in single-mother households, the Hispanic baby boom is certain to produce more juvenile delinquents, more school failure, more welfare use, and more teen pregnancy in the future.
The government social-services sector has already latched onto this new client base; as the Hispanic population expands, so will the demands for a larger welfare state. Since conservative open-borders advocates have yet to acknowledge the facts of Hispanic family breakdown, there is no way to know what their solution to it is. But they had better come up with one quickly, because the problem is here—and growing.
The dimensions of the Hispanic baby boom are startling. The Hispanic birthrate is twice as high as that of the rest of the American population. That high fertility rate—even more than unbounded levels of immigration—will fuel the rapid Hispanic population boom in the coming decades. By 2050, the Latino population will have tripled, the Census Bureau projects. One in four Americans will be Hispanic by mid-century, twice the current ratio. In states such as California and Texas, Hispanics will be in the clear majority. Nationally, whites will drop from near 70 percent of the total population in 2000 to just half by 2050. Hispanics will account for 46 percent of the nation’s added population over the next two decades, the Pew Hispanic Center reports.
But it’s the fertility surge among unwed Hispanics that should worry policymakers. Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country—over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly one and a half times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003 (the latest year for which data exist), compared with 28 children for every 1,000 unmarried white women, 22 for every 1,000 unmarried Asian women, and 66 for every 1,000 unmarried black women. Forty-five percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with 24 percent of white births and 15 percent of Asian births. Only the percentage of black out-of-wedlock births—68 percent—exceeds the Hispanic rate. But the black population is not going to triple over the next few decades.
As if the unmarried Hispanic birthrate weren’t worrisome enough, it is increasing faster than among other groups. It jumped 5 percent from 2002 to 2003, whereas the rate for other unmarried women remained flat. Couple the high and increasing illegitimacy rate of Hispanics with their higher overall fertility rate, and you have a recipe for unstoppable family breakdown.
The only bright news in this demographic disaster story concerns teen births. Overall teen childbearing in the U.S. declined for the 12th year in a row in 2003, having dropped by more than a third since 1991. Yet even here, Hispanics remain a cause for concern. The rate of childbirth for Mexican teenagers, who come from by far the largest and fastest-growing immigrant population, greatly outstrips every other group. The Mexican teen birthrate is 93 births per every 1,000 girls, compared with 27 births for every 1,000 white girls, 17 births for every 1,000 Asian girls, and 65 births for every 1,000 black girls. To put these numbers into international perspective, Japan’s teen birthrate is 3.9, Italy’s is 6.9, and France’s is 10. Even though the outsize U.S. teen birthrate is dropping, it continues to inflict unnecessary costs on the country, to which Hispanics contribute disproportionately.
To grasp the reality behind those numbers, one need only talk to people working on the front lines of family breakdown. Social workers in Southern California, the national epicenter for illegal Hispanic immigrants and their progeny, are in despair over the epidemic of single parenting. Not only has illegitimacy become perfectly acceptable, they say, but so has the resort to welfare and social services to cope with it.
Dr. Ana Sanchez delivers babies at St. Joseph’s Hospital in the city of Orange, California, many of them to Hispanic teenagers. To her dismay, they view having a child at their age as normal. A recent patient just had her second baby at age 17; the baby’s father is in jail. But what is “most alarming,” Sanchez says, is that the “teens’ parents view having babies outside of marriage as normal, too. A lot of the grandmothers are single as well; they never married, or they had successive partners. So the mom sends the message to her daughter that it’s okay to have children out of wedlock.”
Sanchez feels almost personally involved in the problem: “I’m Hispanic myself. I wish I could find out what the Asians are doing right.” She guesses that Asian parents’ passion for education inoculates their children against teen pregnancy and the underclass trap. “Hispanics are not picking that up like the Asian kids,” she sighs.
Conservatives who support open borders are fond of invoking “Hispanic family values” as a benefit of unlimited Hispanic immigration. Marriage is clearly no longer one of those family values. But other kinds of traditional Hispanic values have survived—not all of them necessarily ideal in a modern economy, however. One of them is the importance of having children early and often. “It’s considered almost a badge of honor for a young girl to have a baby,” says Peggy Schulze of Chrysalis House, an adoption agency in Fresno. (Fresno has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in California, typical of the state’s heavily Hispanic farm districts.) It is almost impossible to persuade young single Hispanic mothers to give up their children for adoption, Schulze says. “The attitude is: ‘How could you give away your baby?’ I don’t know how to break through.”
The most powerful Hispanic family value—the tight-knit extended family—facilitates unwed child rearing. A single mother’s relatives often step in to make up for the absence of the baby’s father. I asked Mona, a 19-year-old parishioner at St. Joseph’s Church in Santa Ana, California, if she knew any single mothers. She laughed: “There are so many I can’t even name them.” Two of her cousins, aged 25 and 19, have children without having husbands. The situation didn’t seem to trouble this churchgoer too much. “They’ll be strong enough to raise them. It’s totally okay with us,” she said. “We’re very close; we’re there to support them. They’ll do just fine.”
As Mona’s family suggests, out-of-wedlock child rearing among Hispanics is by no means confined to the underclass. The St. Joseph’s parishioners are precisely the churchgoing, blue-collar workers whom open-borders conservatives celebrate. Yet this community is as susceptible as any other to illegitimacy. Fifty-year-old Irma and her husband, Rafael, came legally from Mexico in the early 1970s. Rafael works in a meatpacking plant in Brea; they have raised five husky boys who attend church with them. Yet Irma’s sister—a homemaker like herself, also married to a factory hand—is now the grandmother of two illegitimate children, one by each daughter. “I saw nothing in the way my sister and her husband raised her children to explain it,” Irma says. “She gave them everything.” One of the fathers of Irma’s young nieces has four other children by a variety of different mothers. His construction wages are being garnished for child support, but he is otherwise not involved in raising his children.
The fathers of these illegitimate children are often problematic in even more troubling ways. Social workers report that the impregnators of younger Hispanic women are with some regularity their uncles, not necessarily seen as a bad thing by the mother’s family. Alternatively, the father may be the boyfriend of the girl’s mother, who then continues to stay with the grandmother. Older men seek out young girls in the belief that a virgin cannot get pregnant during her first intercourse, and to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.
The tradition of starting families young and expand- ing them quickly can come into conflict with more modern American mores. Ron Storm, the director of the Hillview Acres foster-care home in Chino, tells of a 15-year-old girl who was taken away from the 21-year-old father of her child by a local child-welfare department. The boyfriend went to jail, charged with rape. But the girl’s parents complained about the agency’s interference, and eventually both the girl and her boyfriend ended up going back to Mexico, presumably to have more children. “At 15, as the QuinceaƱera tradition celebrates, you’re considered ready for marriage,” says Storm. Or at least for childbearing; the marriage part is disappearing.
But though older men continue to take advantage of younger women, the age gap between the mother and the father of an illegitimate child is quickly closing. Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties tries to teach young fathers to take responsibility for their children. “We’re seeing a lot more 13- and 14-year-old fathers,” says Kathleen Collins, v.p. of health education. The day before we spoke, Scott Montoya, an Orange County sheriff’s deputy, arrested two 14-year-old boys who were bragging about having sexual relations with a cafeteria worker from an Olive Garden restaurant. “It’s now all about getting girls pregnant when you’re age 15,” he says. One 18-year-old in the Planned Parenthood fathers’ program has two children by two different girls and is having sex with five others, says health worker Jason Warner. “A lot of [the adolescent sexual behavior] has to do with getting respect from one’s peers,” observes Warner.
Normally, the fathers, of whatever age, take off. “The father may already be married or in prison or doing drugs,” says Amanda Gan, director of operations for Toby’s House, a maternity home in Dana Point, California. Mona, the 19-year-old parishioner at St. Joseph’s Church, says that the boys who impregnated her two cousins are “nowhere to be found.” Her family knows them but doesn’t know if they are working or in jail.
Two teen mothers at the Hillview Acres home represent the outer edge of Hispanic family dysfunction. Yet many aspects of their lives are typical. Though these teenagers’ own mothers were unusually callous and irresponsible, the social milieu in which they were raised is not unusual.
Irene’s round, full face makes her look younger than her 14 years, certainly too young to be a mother. But her own mother’s boyfriend repeatedly forced sex on her, with the mother’s acquiescence. The result was Irene’s baby, Luz. Baby Luz has an uncle her own age, Irene’s new 13-month-old brother. Like Irene, Irene’s mother had her first child at 14, and produced five more over the next 16 years, all of whom went into foster care. Irene’s father committed suicide before she was old enough to know him. The four fathers of her siblings are out of the picture, too: one of them, the father of her seven-year-old brother and five-year-old sister, was deported back to Mexico after he showed up drunk for a visit with his children, in violation of his probation conditions.
Irene is serene and articulate—remarkably so, considering that in her peripatetic early life in Orange County she went to school maybe twice a week. She likes to sing and to read books that are sad, she says, especially books by Dave Pelzer, a child-abuse victim who has published three best-selling memoirs about his childhood trauma. She says she will never get married: “I don’t want another man in my life. I don’t want that experience again.”
Eighteen-year-old Jessica at least escaped rape, but her family experiences were bad enough. The large-limbed young woman, whose long hair is pulled back tightly from her heart-shaped face, grew up in the predominantly Hispanic farming community of Indio in the Coachella Valley. She started “partying hard” in fifth grade, she says—at around the same time that her mother, separated from her father, began using drugs and going clubbing. By the eighth grade, Jessica and her mother were drinking and smoking marijuana together. Jessica’s family had known her boyfriend’s family since she was four; when she had her first child by him—she was 14 and he was 21—her mother declared philosophically that she had always known that it would happen. “It was okay with her, so long as he continued to give her drugs.”
Jessica originally got pregnant to try to clean up her life, she says. “I knew what I was doing was not okay, so having a baby was a way for me to stop doing what I was doing. In that sense, the baby was planned.” She has not used drugs since her first pregnancy, though she occasionally drinks. After her daughter was born, she went to live with her boyfriend in a filthy trailer without plumbing; they scrounged food from dumpsters, despite the income from his illegal drug business. They planned to get married, but by the time she got pregnant again with a son, “We were having a lot of problems. We’d be holding hands, and he’d be looking at other girls. I didn’t want him to touch me.” Eventually, the county welfare agency removed her and put her in foster care with her two children.
Both Jessica and her caddish former boyfriend illustrate the evanescence of the celebrated Hispanic “family values.” Her boyfriend’s family could not be more traditional. Two years ago, Jessica went back to Mexico to celebrate her boyfriend’s parents’ 25th wedding anniversary and the renewal of their wedding vows. Jessica’s own mother got married at 15 to her father, who was ten years her senior. Her father would not let his wife work; she was a “stay-at-home wife,” Jessica says. But don’t blame the move to the U.S. for the behavior of younger generations; the family crack-up is happening even faster in Latin America.
Jessica’s mother may have been particularly negligent, but Jessica’s experiences are not so radically different from those of her peers. “Everybody’s having babies now,” she says. “The Coachella Valley is filled with girls’ pregnancies. Some girls live with their babies’ dads; they consider them their husbands.” These cohabiting relationships rarely last, however, and a new cohort of fatherless children goes out into the world.
Despite the strong family support, the prevalence of single parenting among Hispanics is producing the inevitable slide into the welfare system. “The girls aren’t marrying the guys, so they are married to the state,” Dr. Sanchez observes. Hispanics now dominate the federal Women, Infants, and Children free food program; Hispanic enrollment grew over 25 percent from 1996 to 2002, while black enrollment dropped 12 percent and white enrollment dropped 6.5 percent. Illegal immigrants can get WIC and other welfare programs for their American-born children. If Congress follows President Bush’s urging and grants amnesty to most of the 11 million illegal aliens in the country today, expect the welfare rolls to skyrocket as the parents themselves become eligible.
Amy Braun works for Mary’s Shelter, a home for young single mothers who are homeless or in crisis, in Orange County, California. It has become “culturally okay” for the Hispanic population to use the shelter and welfare system, Braun says. A case manager at a program for pregnant homeless women in the city of Orange observes the same acculturation to the social-services sector, with its grievance mongering and sense of victimhood. “I’ll have women in my office on their fifth child, when the others have already been placed in foster care,” says Anita Berry of Casa Teresa. “There’s nothing shameful about having multiple children that you can’t care for, and to be pregnant again, because then you can blame the system.”
The consequences of family breakdown are now being passed down from one generation to the next, in an echo of the black underclass. “The problems are deeper and wider,” says Berry. “Now you’re getting the second generation of foster care and group home residents. The dysfunction is multigenerational.”
The social-services complex has responded with barely concealed enthusiasm to this new flood of clients. As Hispanic social problems increase, so will the government sector that ministers to them. In July, a New York Times editorial, titled young latinas and a cry for help, pointed out the elevated high school dropout rates and birthrates among Hispanic girls. A quarter of all Latinas are mothers by the age of 20, reported the Times. With the usual melodrama that accompanies the pitch for more government services, the Times designated young Latinas as “endangered” in the same breath that it disclosed that they are one of the fastest-growing segments of the population. “The time to help is now,” said the Times—by which it means ratcheting up the taxpayer-subsidized social-work industry.
In response to the editorial, Carmen Barroso, regional director of International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region, proclaimed in a letter to the editor the “urgent need for health care providers, educators and advocates to join the sexual and reproductive health movement to ensure the fundamental right to services for young Latinas.”
Wherever these “fundamental rights” might come from, Barroso’s call nevertheless seems quite superfluous, since there is no shortage of taxpayer-funded “services” for troubled Latinas—or Latinos. The schools in California’s San Joaquin Valley have day care for their students’ babies, reports Peggy Schulze of Chrysalis House. “The girls get whatever they need—welfare, medical care.” Advocates for young unwed moms in New York’s South Bronx are likewise agitating for more day-care centers in high schools there, reports El Diario/La Prensa. A bill now in Congress, the Latina Adolescent Suicide Prevention Act, aims to channel $10 million to “culturally competent” social agencies to improve the self-esteem of Latina girls and to provide “support services” to their families and friends if they contemplate suicide.
The trendy “case management” concept, in which individual “cases” become the focal point around which a solar system of social workers revolves, has even reached heavily Hispanic elementary and middle schools. “We have a coordinator, who brings in a collaboration of agencies to deal with the issues that don’t allow a student to meet his academic goals, such as domestic violence or drugs,” explains Sylvia Rentria, director of the Family Resource Center at Berendo Middle School in Los Angeles. “We can provide individual therapy.” Rentria offers the same program at nearby Hoover Elementary School for up to 100 students.
This July, Rentria launched a new session of Berendo’s Violence Intervention Program for parents of children who are showing signs of gang involvement and other antisocial behavior. Ghady M., 55 and a “madre soltera” (single mother), like most of the mothers in the program, has been called in because her 16-year-old son, Christian, has been throwing gang signs at school, cutting half his classes, and ending up in the counseling office every day. The illegal Guatemalan is separated from her partner, who was “muy malo,” she says; he was probably responsible for her many missing teeth. (The detectives in the heavily Hispanic Rampart Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, which includes the Berendo school, spend inordinate amounts of time on domestic violence cases.) Though Ghady used to work in a factory on Broadway in downtown L.A.— often referred to as Little Mexico City—she now collects $580 in welfare payments and $270 in food stamps for her two American-born children.
Christian is a husky smart aleck in a big white T-shirt; his fashionably pomaded hair stands straight up. He goes to school but doesn’t do homework, he grins; and though he is not in a gang, he says, he has friends who are. Keeping Ghady and Christian company at the Violence Intervention Program is Ghady’s grandniece, Carrie, a lively ten-year-old. Carrie lives with her 26-year-old mother but does not know her father, who also sired her 12-year-old brother. Her five-year-old brother has a different father.
Yet for all these markers of social dysfunction, fatherless Hispanic families differ from the black underclass in one significant area: many of the mothers and the absent fathers work, even despite growing welfare use. The former boyfriend of Jessica, the 18-year-old mother at the Hillview Acres foster home, works in construction and moonlights on insulation jobs; whether he still deals drugs is unknown. Jessica is postponing joining her father in Texas until she finishes high school, because once she moves in with him, she will feel obligated to get a job to help the family finances. The mother of Hillview’s 14-year-old Irene used to fix soda machines in Anaheim, California, though she got fired because she was lazy, Irene says. Now, under court compulsion, she works in a Lunchables factory in Santa Ana, a condition of getting her children back from foster care. The 18-year-old Lothario and father of two, whom Planned Parenthood’s Jason Warner is trying to counsel, works at a pet store. The mother of Carrie, the vivacious ten-year-old sitting in on Berendo Middle School’s Violence Intervention Program, makes pizza at a Papa John’s pizza outlet.
How these two value systems—a lingering work ethic and underclass mating norms—will interact in the future is anyone’s guess. Orange County sheriff’s deputy Montoya says that the older Hispanic generation’s work ethic is fast disappearing among the gangbanging youngsters whom he sees. “Now, it’s all about fast money, drugs, and sex.” It may be that the willingness to work will plummet along with marriage rates, leading to even greater social problems than are now rife among Hispanics. Or it may be that the two contrasting practices will remain on parallel tracks, creating a new kind of underclass: a culture that tolerates free-floating men who impregnate women and leave, like the vast majority of black men, yet who still labor in the noncriminal economy. The question is whether, if the disposition to work remains relatively strong, a working parent will inoculate his or her illegitimate children against the worst degradations that plague black ghettos.
From an intellectual standpoint, this is a fascinating social experiment, one that academicians are—predictably—not attuned to. But the consequences will be more than intellectual: they may severely strain the social fabric. Nevertheless, it is an experiment that we seem destined to see to its end. Tisha Roberts, a supervisor at an Orange County, California, institution that assists children in foster care, has given up hope that the illegitimacy rate will taper off. “It’s going to continue to grow,” she says, “until we can put birth control in the water.”


 The surge in Mexican breeders in America’s open borders.
MEXICO'S BIGGEST EXPORTS ARE: DRUGS, POVERTY, CRIMINALS and ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS FOR 18 YEARS OF GRINGO-PAID WELFARE.

“Through love of having children, we are going to take over.”  AUGUSTIN CEBADA, BROWN BERETS, THE LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY
PREGNANT WOMEN JUMP AMERICAN BORDERS FOR THE LA RAZA WELFARE PROGRAM TO ANCHOR AND EXPAND MEXICO’S WELFARE STATE IN U.S. BORDERS

2003: Mexican population in U.S. reported to have increased 10 percent in just three years, mostly as a result of illegal immigration. Mexicans encouraged to breed at all costs. "A baby a year" Mexican pride slogan emerges …EVERY ANCHOR BABY GETS MORE WELFARE FOR 18 YEARS. THAT CHILD IS ALSO STILL A CITIZEN OF MEXICO!
The birthrate among illegals is more than double that of legal US residents. The Pew Hispanic Center calculates that within seven years, the children of immigrants, legal and illegal, will account for one in nine school-age children in the US.
Heritage: Amnestied Illegals Will Get $9.4T in Benefits; Increase Debt $6.3T'
…. LA RAZA already gets all our jobs!
what is the REAL cost of all that “CHEAP” Mexican labor? Add it up and then factor in the MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVE and the fact that the MEXICAN  now operate in 2,500 American cities!

“THE AMNESTY ALONE WILL BE THE LARGEST EXPANSION OF THE WELFARE SYSTEM IN THE LAST 25 YEARS” Heritage Foundation
"The amnesty alone will be the largest expansion of the welfare system in the last 25 years," says Robert Rector, a senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation, and a witness at a House Judiciary Committee field hearing in San Diego Aug. 2. "Welfare costs will begin to hit their peak around 2021, because there are delays in citizenship. The very narrow time horizon [the CBO is] using is misleading," he adds. "If even a small fraction of those who come into the country stay and get on Medicaid, you're looking at costs of $20 billion or $30 billion per year."
IMMIGRATION BILL TO BRING IN AT LEAST 33 MILLION PEOPLE IN ONE DECADE
 By Frosty Wooldridge
 April 30, 2013
 NewsWithViews.com
If the S744 amnesty bill passes, we can expect 33 million added immigrants within 10 years. That’s for starters. When you add their progeny, chain migration and our own population momentum of one million annually, we face the most profound explosion of humanity within our borders ever in the history of humanity.
 It’s the equivalent of adding one additional New York City, Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Austin, San Francisco, Columbus, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Detroit, El Paso, Memphis and Boston. If the bill passed, it would be the same as adding ALL of the Top 20 cities in the United States in a short 10 years. That of course does not include additional population growth driven by birth rates.
“The pending Senate immigration bill would bring a minimum of 33 million people into the country during its first decade of operation,” said Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.org. “By 2024, the inflow would include an estimated 9.2 million illegal immigrants, plus 2.5 million illegals who arrived as children — dubbed ‘Dreamers’ — plus roughly 3.4 million company-sponsored employees with university degrees, said the unreleased analysis.
“The majority of the inflow, or roughly 17 million people, would consist of family members of illegals, recent immigrants and of company-sponsored workers. The estimate is likely the first of several that will be produced by advocates as the Senate grapples with the immigration bill developed by the “Gang of Eight” senators.
“The 844-page bill was released last week, and was scheduled for debate and amendment in the Senate’s judiciary committee starting April 25. However, the amendment process was held up for a week by Republican Senators. Advocates for the bill have yet to release any estimates of the future inflow.”
“Nobody has a number that is based on the bill right now that’s accurate,” Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of the pro-immigration America’s Voice Education Fund, told the Christian Science Monitor in an April 25 article. “It’ll take a bit more [analysis] to get a specific number about how things will change.”
“An April 20-22 Fox News poll of 1,009 registered voters showed that 55 percent of respondents want a reduction in the current number of legal immigrants,” said Beck. “Currently, the country accepts 1 million immigrants and 700,000 temporary company-sponsored workers each year. The bill would boost that to roughly 3 million immigrants and 1 million company-sponsored workers per year. Forty-five percent of non-whites, 53 percent of independents and 62 percent of people without college degrees, favor a reduction in legal immigrants. Only 18 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of independents favor an increase in legal immigration, the Fox poll reported.”
The current population of the United States is 316 million. That estimate includes 40 million immigrants, both legal and illegal. Opponents of the immigration bill are already highlighting the potentially large inflow.
“I believe the interest that needs to be protected is the national interest of the United States, and that includes existing workers today, workers whose wages have been pulled down, without doubt, by a large flow of low-wage labor into the country,” Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions said during one of three hearings on the pending bill. “This bill would continue that in a way that’s very disturbing to me.”
Beck said, “Estimates of a 33 million inflow are conservative … [because they do] not attempt to project increases in these categories that are certain to occur in future years,” once many of the new immigrants seek green cards for their overseas relatives. Also, some categories of immigrants are uncapped, and the analysis does not attempt to project increases in these [family unification] categories that are certain to occur in future years.
“The pending bill allows illegal immigrants to bring their overseas spouses and children into the country. If that provision is implemented, it could more than double the [illegal immigrant inflow] number shown in the chart, bringing the total inflow to 40 million by 2024.”
The analysis shows an inflow of roughly 3.4 million university trained immigrants. That estimate does not include graduates who get green cards under the family unification route, or the uncapped inflow of doctors and PhD-carrying scientists. Roughly 1.8 million Americans graduate from college each year, including 300,000 with degrees in science and engineering. Population-growth forecasts will also contribute to the emerging fight over the bill’s cost, because the award of a green card — or the right to live in the United States — confers access to some government benefits.
“It is important to note here that each of the individuals represented in this chart becomes eligible for Obamacare on the day a green card is issued,” said Beck. “Most of those on the chart will then have to wait five years before they become eligible for all US welfare benefits … [but some] will actually become eligible for welfare immediately upon being issued a green card.” Enrollment in Obamacare is expected to spike the cost of the immigration bill, partly because federal subsidies are used to offset the annual Obamacare cost of $20,000 for a family of four. All totaled, The Heritage Foundation estimate the total cost of this amnesty from a low of $3 trillion to as high as $5 trillion.

Join me, Frosty Wooldridge, with Dave Chaffin, host of the Morning Zone at 650 AM, www.KGAB.com, Cheyenne, Wyoming every Monday 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., as we discuss my latest commentaries on www.NewsWithViews.com about issues facing America. You may stream the show on your computer. You may call in at: 1-888-503-6500.

EVERY DAY THERE ARE 12 AMERICANS MURDERED BY MEXICANS AND 8 CHILDREN MOLESTED.
MEXICANS ARE THE MOST VIOLENT CULTURE IN THE HEMISPHERE.
ACCORDING TO CA ATTORNEY GEN. KAMALA HARRIS, NEARLY HALF OF ALL MURDERS IN CA ARE NOW BY MEXICAN GANGS.
YOU REALLY WANT LA RAZA AMNESTY AND OPEN BORDERS?
NEWS & VIEWS This Just In
Stepfather of '9-Year-Old' Girl Who Gave Birth Admits to Fathering Baby
Posted by Lindsay Mannering
on February 15, 2013 at 12:33 PM
The 9-year-old girl who allegedly gave birth last month in a Mexican hospital may not be as young as originally reported. After authorities dug a little deeper, it's now believed Dafne is at least 12 or 13, or even as "old" as 15, says one doctor.
It was Dafne's mother who first claimed her daughter was impregnated when she was 8-years-old by her 17-year-old boyfriend, but it's becoming more and more clear that may not be the case. The mother's husband, Dafne's 44-year-old stepfather, has admitted to having sexwith the girl on a couple of occasions and has revealed he's the father of her child.
He's now in police custody and will be charged with child molestation for the alleged rape of his step-daughter.
The circumstances under which Dafne's birth certificate were obtained are shady -- her mother filed for one in 2011, claiming Dafne was born in 2003, making her 9. The validity of that claim is still under investigation.
Dafne's story continues to get sadder, though, believe it or not. Neighbors told MailOnline that Dafne's mother may have lied about her daughter's age for two reasons: One, because Dafne was never in school, and her mother wanted to enroll her daughter for the first time -- a feat more likely accomplished if her daughter was 8 or 9.
Or two, because Dafne's mother, an alleged prostitute, wanted to sell her daughter as a 9-year-old in the sex trade and was motivated to shave off a few years since, apparently, there's a bigger prize for girls younger than 12 or 13-years-old.
Anyone else sick to their stomach right now?
To say Dafne's story is heartbreaking or gut-wrenching is an understatement. Even though she may not have been 8 when she was impregnated, is 12 or 13 any better? Doctor's still deemed her body too young to handle a vaginal birth and had to perform a C-section. This girl was still, in fact, a child, no matter how you calculate it.
It's hard to find a silver lining to this story, but I suppose the fact that the stepfather is behind bars is a small one, and the fact that international light has been shed on Dafne's story is perhaps a slightly bigger one.
Because the more people invested in learning more about what happened and how to consequently keep this child who had a child safe from further abuse and danger, the better.
Do you think it makes a difference whether she's 9 or 12?
WHO ARE AMERICA’S OCCUPIERS?
THE LA RAZA “THE RACE” INVADERS:
AMERICA vs MEXICO: CLASHING CULTURES
By Frosty Wooldridge
Anyone understand why Mexicans fail at a successful culture? Ever wonder why millions of them invade the United States in search of a better life? Have you noticed that once they arrive, they create the same kind of ‘society’ in the United States? Unconsciously, they create the same conditions they left behind. You can take the boy out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the boy. For example, in Denver in December, illegal alien Navi dragged his girlfriend to death behind his car. Illegal alien Cruz shot his girlfriend dead in the back because she wouldn’t reconcile with him. Illegal alien Ruizz ran over and killed Justin Goodman, but Ruizz drove away from the scene leaving Goodman to die. In Greeley, Colorado they suffered 270 hit and run accidents in one year. Over 80 percent of hit and run wrecks in Denver involve illegal aliens. Denver boasts the drug smuggling capital of the West as well as the people smuggling mecca of the country. Illegals cheat, distribute drugs, lie, forge documents, steal and kill as if it’s a normal way of life. For them, it is. Mexico’s civilization stands diametrically opposed to America’s culture. Both countries manifest different ways of thinking and operating. With George Bush’s push to create the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” by dissolving our borders with Mexico, he places all Americans at risk. Would you become friends with neighbors who throw their trash on city streets and parks, create ghettoes wherever they enclave their numbers, promote corruption, deal in violence, encourage drug use, manifest poverty, endorse exism and downgrade education? America’s culture and Mexico ’s culture remain diametrically opposed to one another. America’s fought Mexico and won. Today, Mexico invades America with sheer numbers of poor. However, cultures rarely change and neither do their people. As you can see from the ten points below, everything about Mexico degrades everything about America. For further information, you may visit www.immigrationshumancost.org and www.limitstogrowth.org where you will find a plethora of information by a brilliant journalist Brenda Walker. Her original report may be viewed on www.Vdare.com on January 17, 2007 under the title: “Ten Reasons Why America Should Not Marry Mexico.” I suggest you read more of her work. She exemplifies incisive, sobering and shocking information. These ten point stem directly from Brenda Walker’s work. Let’s examine why America must not entangle itself by merging with Mexico. The legal age of sexual consent in Mexico is 12 years old. Sex with children at this age and younger is socially acceptable in Mexico. For example: A Mexican Lopez-Mendez pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a 10 year old girl in West Virginia. His excuse: sex with young girls was common with his people. He said, “I was unaware that it was a crime.” Mexicans remain the most sexist males next to Islamic men. Both boast the most misogynous cultures in the world. Rape and other violence toward women are not treated as serious crimes. In Mexico, a custom known as “rapto” whereby men kidnap women for sex is regarded as harmless amusement. Mexican society regards women little more than objects. Crime and violence remain mainstays of Mexican culture. Drug cartels and the Mexican army coordinate their massive efforts to promote drug distribution not only in Mexico but into the USA. Mexico City suffers the second highest crime rate in Latin America. Kidnapping remains second only to Columbia for ransom money. Beheadings, killings and gun fire erupt at drug distribution points on the US/Mexican border. Spontaneous hanging continues in Mexico. A mob beat up and burned to death two policemen on live television in 2004 in Mexico City. As Brenda Walker wrote, “Mexicans do not have the same belief as Americans that the law is central to the equitable functioning of a complex nation. It’s the Third World.” Mexicans abhor education. In their country, illiteracy dominates. As they arrive in our country, only 9.6 percent of fourth generation Mexicans earn a high school diploma. Mexico does not promote educational values. This makes them the least educated of any Americans or immigrants. The rate of illiteracy in Mexico stands at 63 percent. Drunk driving remains acceptable in Mexico. As it stands, 44,000 Americans die on our nation’s highways annually. Half that number stems from drunken drivers. U.S. Congressman Steve King reports that 13 American suffer death from drunken driving Mexicans each day. Alcoholism runs rampant in Mexican culture. They suffer the most DUI arrests. Mexicans set the benchmark for animal cruelty. Mexicans love dog fighting, bullfighting, cock fighting and horse tripping. Those blood sports play in every arena and backyard in Mexico. They expand into America as more Mexicans arrive. They also engage in “steer-tailing” where the rider yanks the animal’s tail in an attempt to flip it to the ground. In horse tripping, they run the animals at full gallop around a ring, then, use ropes to trip them at full speed. It’s a death sentence as the horses break their legs, teeth, shoulders and necks—all to the delight of the cheering Mexican fans. As La Raza confirms, Mexicans maintain the most racist society in North America . “For the Hispanic race, everything; for anyone outside the race, nothing!” Guadalupe Loaeza, a journalist, said, “Mexican society is fundamentally racist and classist. The color of your skin is a key that either opens or shuts doors. The lighter your skin, the more doors open to you.” Corruption becomes a mechanism by which Mexico operates. Corruption remains systemic. The Washington Post wrote, “Mexico is considered one of the most corrupt countries in the hemisphere.” They feature drug cartels, sex slave trade, people smuggling, car theft cartels, real estate scam cartels, murder for money and, you must bribe your mail man to get your mail. Last, but not least, Mexicans are Marxists. They promote a one party government. As with any kind of Marxism, brutal totalitarian rule keeps the rich in power and everyone else subservient. As we allow millions of Mexicans to colonize our country, we can’t help but be caught up in these ten deadly cultural traits of Mexicans. With over 12 million Mexicans here today, the predictions grow to as many as 20 even 40 million Mexicans in a few decades as they come here for a better life. The fact remains, as they come to America for a better life, they make our lives a living hell.
Times Staff Writers
July 10, 2007
Over the next half-century, California's population will explode by nearly 75%, and Riverside will surpass its bigger neighbors to become the second most populous county after Los Angeles, according to state Department of Finance projections released Monday. California will near the 60-million mark in 2050, the study found, raising questions about how the state will look and function and where all the people and their cars will go. Dueling visions pit the iconic California building block of ranch house, big yard and two-car garage against more dense, high-rise development. But whether sprawl or skyscrapers win the day, the Golden State will probably be a far different and more complex place than it is today, as people live longer and Latinos become the dominant ethnic group, eclipsing all others combined. Some critics forecast disaster if gridlock and environmental impacts are not averted. Others see a possible economic boon, particularly for retailers and service industries with an eye on the state as a burgeoning market. "It's opportunity with baggage," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in "a country masquerading as a state. "Other demographers argue that the huge population increase the state predicts will occur only if officials complete major improvements to roads and other public infrastructure. Without that investment, they say, some Californians would flee the state. If the finance department's calculations hold, California's population will rise from 34.1 million in 2000 to 59.5 million at the mid-century point, about the same number of people as Italy has today. And its projected growth rate in those 50 years will outstrip the national rate — nearly 75% compared with less than 50% projected by the federal government. That could translate to increased political clout in Washington, D.C. Southern California's population is projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1 million over just seven counties. L.A. County alone will top 13 million by 2050, an increase of almost 3.5 million residents. And Riverside County — long among the fastest-growing in the state — will triple in population to 4.7 million by mid-century. Riverside County will add 3.1 million people, according to the new state figures, eclipsing Orange and San Diego to become the second most populous in the state. With less expensive housing than the coast, Riverside County has grown by more than 472,000 residents since 2000, according to state estimates. No matter how much local governments build in the way of public works and how many new jobs are attracted to the region — minimizing the need for long commutes — Housing figures that growth will still overwhelm the area's roads. USC Professor Genevieve Giuliano, an expert on land use and transportation, would probably agree. Such massive growth, if it occurs, she said, will require huge investment in the state's highways, schools, and energy and sewer systems at a "very formidable cost."If those things aren't built, Giuliano questioned whether the projected population increases will occur. "Sooner or later, the region will not be competitive and the growth is not going to happen," she said.If major problems like traffic congestion and housing costs aren't addressed, Giuliano warned, the middle class is going to exit California, leaving behind very high-income and very low-income residents. "It's a political question," said Martin Wachs, a transportation expert at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica. "Do we have the will, the consensus, the willingness to pay? If we did, I think we could manage the growth. "The numbers released Monday underscore most demographers' view that the state's population is pushing east, from both Los Angeles and the Bay Area, to counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino as well as half a dozen or so smaller Central Valley counties. Sutter County, for example, is expected to be the fastest-growing on a percentage basis between 2000 and 2050, jumping 255% to a population of 282,894 , the state said. Kern County is expected to see its population more than triple to 2.1 million by mid-century. In Southern California, San Diego County is projected to grow by almost 1.7 million residents and Orange County by 1.1 million. Even Ventura County — where voters have imposed some limits on urban sprawl — will see its population jump 62% to more than 1.2 million if the projections hold. The Department of Finance releases long-term population projections every three years. Between the last two reports, number crunchers have taken a more detailed look at California's statistics and taken into account the likelihood that people will live longer, said chief demographer Mary Heim. The result? The latest numbers figure the state will be much more crowded than earlier estimates (by nearly 5 million) and that it will take a bit longer than previously thought for Latinos to become the majority of California's population: 2042, not 2038. The figures show that the majority

of California's growth will be in the Latino population, said

Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography

at USC, adding that "68% of the growth this decade will be

Latino, 75% next and 80% after that."That should be a wake-up call for voting Californians, Myers said, pointing out a critical disparity. Though the state's growth is young and Latino, the majority of voters will be older and white — at least for the next decade." The future of the state is Latino growth," Myers said. "We'd sure better invest in them and get them up to speed. Older white voters don't see it that way. They don't realize that someone has to replace them in the work force, pay for their benefits and buy their house."
“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

Anchor Baby Population in U.S. Exceeds One Year of American Births  JOHN BINDER



Anchor Baby Power

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 "Anchor Babies" born every year whereas George Putnam, a radio reporter, says the figure is closer to 300,000. La Voz de Aztlan believes that the number is approximately 500,000 "Anchor Babies" born every year.

The video below depicts the many faces of the "Anchor Baby Generation". The video includes a fascinating segment showing a group of elementary school children in Santa Ana, California confronting the Minutemen vigilantes. The video ends with a now famous statement by Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez of the University of Texas at Austin.
This Illegal Alien and Her Buggy Full of Babies Will Cost US Taxpayers Over Half a Million Dollars By Time They Graduate (If They Graduate) 

By Jim Hoft 


This woman and her four babies will cost US taxpayers over $32,000 a year but probably more.

By the time these four babies reach 18 and graduate from high school (if they graduate) they will have cost US taxpayers over half a million dollars.
 

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

Report by Matt O'Brien and Spencer Raley | September 27, 2017 | View the Full Report (PDF)

Introduction

A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government’s ineffective efforts to secure our borders, present significant national security and public safety threats to the United States. They also have a severely negative impact on the nation’s taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. This study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets.

The Number of Illegal Immigrants in the US

Estimating the fiscal burden of illegal immigration on the U.S. taxpayer depends on the size and characteristics of the illegal alien population. FAIR defines “illegal alien” as anyone who entered the United States without authorization and anyone who unlawfully remains once his/her authorization has expired. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has no central database containing information on the citizenship status of everyone lawfully present in the United States. The overall problem of estimating the illegal alien population is further complicated by the fact that the majority of available sources on immigration status rely on self-reported data. Given that illegal aliens have a motive to lie about their immigration status, in order to avoid discovery, the accuracy of these statistics is dubious, at best. All of the foregoing issues make it very difficult to assess the current illegal alien population of the United States.
However, FAIR now estimates that there are approximately 12.5 million illegal alien residents. This number uses FAIR’s previous estimates but adjusts for suspected changes in levels of unlawful migration, based on information available from the Department of Homeland Security, data available from other federal and state government agencies, and other research studies completed by reliable think tanks, universities, and other research organizations.

The Cost of Illegal Immigration to the United States

At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend. The sections below will break down and further explain these numbers at the federal, state, and local levels.

Total Governmental Expenditures on Illegal Aliens

Total Tax Contributions by Illegal Aliens

Total Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration 


Federal

The Federal government spends a net amount of $45.8 billion on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children. This amount includes expenditures for public education, medical care, justice enforcement initiatives, welfare programs and other miscellaneous costs. It also factors in the meager amount illegal aliens pay to the federal government in income, social security, Medicare and excise taxes.

FEDERAL SPENDING

The approximately $46 billion in federal expenditures attributable to illegal aliens is staggering. Assuming an illegal alien population of approximately 12.5 million illegal aliens and 4.2 million U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, that amounts to roughly $2,746 per illegal alien, per year. For the sake of comparison, the average American college student receives only $4,800 in federal student loans each year.
FAIR maintains that every concerned American citizen should be asking our government why, in a time of increasing costs and shrinking resources, is it spending such large amounts of money on individuals who have no right, nor authorization, to be in the United States? This is an especially important question in view of the fact that the illegal alien beneficiaries of American taxpayer largess offset very little of the enormous costs of their presence by the payment of taxes. Meanwhile, average Americans pay approximately 30% of their income in taxes.

It’s time to ‘reimagine’ birthright citizenship

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/its_time_to_reimagine_birthright_citizenship_.html

 

One of the biggest challenges in the immigration debate today is that the American people are routinely given faulty “facts” or outright lies by the media and opportunistic politicians.  The media-manufactured crisis over separating children from their illegal alien parents at the southern border is just the most recent example.  The misrepresented photos, absurd comparisons of detention centers to concentration camps, and nonstop cable news demagoguery have served to confuse the public and advance the narrative of the open borders movement.
Now comes a whopper: Much of what the American public has been told about birthright citizenship is wrong.  The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Fitisemanu v. United States, a case of birthright citizenship currently before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.  In its brief, IRLI attorneys did not take a position on the primary issue inFitisemanu, whether American Samoa is part of the United States for purposes of citizenship.  The brief instead examined the overarching matter of birthright citizenship.  Namely, does the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution grant automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. residents, or who are in the country without permission?  The findings may well topple conventional wisdom about one of the crown jewels of the left’s immigration agenda.
For decades, many agencies have treated virtually all children born in the United States – even the children of illegal aliens or tourists – as citizens at birth under the Constitution.  This all-inclusive interpretation of birthright citizenship, repeated endlessly in the mainstream media, is what gave rise to the “anchor baby” phenomenon.  With children born in the United States to illegal alien parents instantly qualifying for welfare and other state and local benefit programs, the incentive for aliens to have their children born in the U.S. is immense.  
 Yet under Supreme Court precedent, neither the children of illegal aliens nor those of tourists are citizens at birth.  In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment because his parents, when he was born, were legally residing in the United States.  The holding of this case is widely misread as conferring citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment on all persons whatsoever born in the United States, with the narrow exceptions of children of diplomats, members of an invading force, or Indians born in the allegiance of a tribe.  The brief shows that this reading is wrong; the Court clearly excluded the children of illegal aliens and non-U.S. residents from constitutional birthright citizenship.  The Court’s decision has been incorrectly applied for 120 years.
Based on Wong Kim Ark and an earlier decision in Wilkins v. Elk, the still-controlling rule of the Supreme Court is clear: whether one is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment depends on whether one was born in the United States to a U.S.-resident parent who, at the time, both had permission to be in the United States and owed direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.  This rule happens to exclude the children of both illegal aliens (who do not have permission to be in the country) and tourists (who do not “reside” here) from constitutional birthright citizenship.
Interpreted correctly, the precedents of these cases would work a sea change in immigration law as it is currently applied.  In addition to shrinking the magnet for illegal passage across the southern border, recognition of the correct rule would prevent crass exploitation of our laws by the “birth tourism” industry, in which foreign nationals essentially plan an American vacation with the explicitpurpose of bearing a child here.  The payoff is a U.S. passport for the child, who would then have the right to sponsor the parents for citizenship when he or she reaches 21 years of age.  Is this an objective of U.S. immigration policy, or a mockery of it?
In her virtue-signaling attacks on Trump administration immigration policy, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) declared an urgent need to “reimagine” the purpose of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  While that proposal is child-like, unserious and a political nonstarter, she’s correct that some reimagining of immigration law is overdue.  A good place to start would be the loopholes and misinterpretations that have allowed birthright citizenship to be manipulated in ways that run counter to America’s best interests.  

September 15, 2018

Trump and Birthright Citizenship



I once supported Ted Cruz over Donald Trump in the primaries, largely due to the fact that Trump seemed a bull who carried around his own china shop and campaigned like Sherman marching through Atlanta with matches.  But he won me over, and I repented my political sins and saw the method in his madness as he overturned the tables at which the elitist moneychangers sat along with the status quo they cherished.
He has unleashed America's entrepreneurs, cut all our taxes, chopped off the strangling regulatory tentacles of big government, liberated American energy, rebuilt the military, ended "free" trade transfers of wealth to those who are not all our friends, fundamentally transformed the judiciary, and dared to step on the new third rail of American politics: illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.
Sadly, some persist in their unbelief, most notably the #NeverTrumps over at the increasingly irrelevant National Review, who have published a piece taking the absurd position that the concept of birthright citizenship is not only constitutional, but an integral part of any originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution:
The conservative beltway publication National Review published a piece in which their legal columnist argues that "constitutional originalism requires" that United States citizenship be given to the children of illegal aliens.
Dan McLaughlin of National Review – which infamously launched a campaign against President Trump during the 2016 presidential election – published the piece, titled "Constitutional Originalism Requires Birthright Citizenship," which claims that the U.S. Constitution does provide birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens[.] ...
Dan McLaughlin writes for National Review:
Among the ideas that percolate now and then on the Right is the idea of reforming or eliminating birthright citizenship, the policy by which anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a natural-born citizen.  From a policy perspective, there is fair grounds [sic] for debate: there are reasonable objections to the abuse of birthright citizenship, but also serious problems of principle and practice with changing it.  But from a legal perspective, the answer should be clear: a proper originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as presently written, guarantees American citizenship to those born within our borders, with only a few limited exceptions. [Emphasis added by Breitbart] ...
The Supreme Court, however, has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic citizenship and many legal scholars dispute the idea.
The Supreme Court has indeed not said birthright citizenship is constitutional, and legal scholars have noted that supporters of birthright citizenship, a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, ignore the intentions of those who wrote that amendment.  So much for an originalist interpretation.
Peter H. Schuck, Yale University's Simeon E. Baldwin professor of law emeritus and self-described "militant moderate," reiterated his opinion Monday that birthright citizenship is not required by the U.S. Constitution.  Though opposed to many of the president's positions, he was surprised the administration has not made opposition to citizenship for the children of illegal aliens more central to its immigration policy.
On at least one key immigration stance, however, Schuck appears to be in agreement with President Trump.  In the 1990s, along with Yale Political Scientist Rogers Smith, he determined, in a book called Citizenship Without Consent, that the policy of granting citizenship to everyone born on American soil, including so-called "anchor-babies" – those born to illegal alliens [sic] – was not mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as is popularly trumpeted by open-borders supporters.  Trump came to the same conclusion on the campaign trail, once stating, "We're the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it."
This misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee of birthright citizenship.  Merely being born on American soil is said to make you a U.S. citizen.  Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol; have your baby; and you not only have a U.S. citizen, but what is called an "anchor baby," allowing you to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.
During the campaign, Trump correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship the "biggest magnet" for illegal immigration.  He would end it, and as for family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border.  As the New York Post reported:
Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," and in a position paper he later released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the US.
"They have to go," Trump said.  "What they're doing, they're having a baby.  And then all of a sudden, nobody knows... the baby's here."
Birthright citizenship is the exception and not the rule worldwide.  Even our European brethren, as fond as they are of refugees and open borders, do not embrace it.  As Liz Peek writes on FoxNews.com, birthright citizenship is indeed a big magnet for illegal immigration:
The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world that still bestows citizenship on every person born on our nation's soil.  Having a child become a U.S. citizen is the greatest reward possible for someone who enters the country illegally.  Such status is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education and benefits, not to mention the incalculable value of our country's security and freedoms.  Historically, there was bipartisan enthusiasm for dumping this program; even Democrat Harry Reid had proposed its termination.
The costs of birthright citizenship are staggering, especially when you consider the costs of what is called "chain migration."  Once of age, the baby born here can sponsor others.  It has even given rise to what is called "birth tourism," where pregnant women are brought to the United States, ostensibly as tourists, to give birth here and have their children deemed American citizens by birth. 
Trump said he would end birthright citizenship.  Critics have said the task, even if justified, is well nigh impossible, requiring amending the U.S. Constitution.  In reality, it may not require altering the 14th Amendment – only correctly interpreting it, perhaps through clarifying legislation.
The Fourteenth Amendment, passed on July 3, 1866, reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."  This was done, again, to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves, not illegal aliens.  The 1857 Dred Scott decision held that no black, not even a freed black, could be considered a citizen.
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in October 2008, John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, therefore their children born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens.
During debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole criterion for citizenship.  And if citizenship is determined just by place of birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under the 14th Amendment?        
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it meant that "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself, a natural born citizen[.]"
Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia sought to clarify the situation through H.R. 698, the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born of the United States of parents who are not U.S. citizens or are not permanent resident aliens.
H.R. 698 declared: "It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens."  The bill undertook to clarify "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" to the meaning originally intended by Congress in the 14th Amendment.
The current interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge mistake given the burden illegal aliens have imposed on our welfare, educational, and health care systems, as well as, through increased crime, on our legal system – a very costly one. 
There may be hope of correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with justices of a more "originalist" bent.  As noted, the misinterpretation could be corrected through clarifying legislation.  We can correct it judicially or legislatively, and we should.  Donald Trump was right: becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol.

JUDICIAL WATCH:

America builds the La Raza “The Race” Mexican welfare state

Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. Taxpayers a Stunning $134.9 Billion a Year



THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S LA RAZA WELFARE STATE ON OUR BACKS… Not one Legal voted for it!

Who's coming in and getting that instant customer service legal immigrants don't get? Well, people like Mirian Zelaya Gomez, a single mom with two kids and a fondness for Instagram luxury-life glamour shots who got her name in the news as "Lady Frijoles," the Honduran caravan migrant who disdained donated Mexican food in Tijuana, and who told the press she was migrating to the states to get free medical care for her kids. She's since been arrested for assaulting a relative who had given her housing in Dallas.

MEXIFORNIA: Where La Raza Loots First and by Invitation of the Democrat Party!
Where To Go When Your Local Emergency Room Goes Bankrupt?
During the past ten years 84 California hospitals have declared bankruptcy and closed their Emergency Rooms forever.  Financially crippled by legislative and judicial mandates to treat illegal aliens have bankrupted hospitals!   In 2010, in Los Angeles County alone, over 2 million illegal aliens recorded visits to county emergency rooms for both routine and emergency care.  Per official figures, the cost is $1,000 dollars for every taxpayer in Los Angeles County.  

 

 

 

OTHER FACTS ON MEXICO’S SECOND LARGEST CITY OF LOS ANGELES:

 

93% OF THE MURDERS ARE BY MEXICANS.

 

THE TAX-FREE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY IS ESTIMATED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $2 BILLION YEARLY.

 

Los Angeles County Pays Over a Billion in Welfare to Illegal Aliens Over Two Years

 

In 2015 and 2016, Los Angeles County paid nearly $1.3 billion in welfare funds to illegal aliens and their families. That figure amounts to 25 percent of the total spent on the county’s entire needy population, according to Fox News.
The state of California is home to more illegal aliens than any other state in the country. Approximately one in five illegal aliens lives in California, Pew reported.
Approximately a quarter of California’s 4 million illegal immigrants reside in Los Angeles County. The county allows illegal immigrant parents with children born in the United States to seek welfare and food stamp benefits.
The welfare benefits data acquired by Fox News comes from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services and shows welfare and food stamp costs for the county’s entire population were $3.1 billion in 2015, $2.9 billion in 2016.
The data also shows that during the first five months of 2017, more than 60,000 families received a total of $181 million.
Over 58,000 families received a total of $602 million in benefits in 2015 and more than 64,000 families received a total of $675 million in 2016.
Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow who studies poverty and illegal immigration, told Fox the costs represent “the tip of the iceberg.”
“They get $3 in benefits for every $1 they spend,” Rector said. It can cost the government a total of $24,000 per year per family to pay for things like education, police, fire, medical, and subsidized housing.
In February of 2019, the Los Angeles city council signed a resolution making it a sanctuary city. The resolution did not provide any new legal protections to their immigrants, but instead solidified existing policies.
In October 2017, former California governor Jerry Brown signed SB 54 into law. This bill made California, in Brown’s own words, a “sanctuary state.” The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the State of California over the law. A federal judge dismissed that suit in July. SB 54 took effect on Jan. 1, 2018.
According to Center for Immigration Studies, “The new law does many things: It forbids all localities from cooperating with ICE detainer notices, it bars any law enforcement officer from participating in the popular 287(g) program, and it prevents state and local police from inquiring about individuals’ immigration status.”
Some counties in California have protested its implementation and joined the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state.
California’s campaign to provide public services to illegal immigrants did not end with the exit of Jerry Brown. His successor, Gavin Newsom, is just as focused as Brown in funding programs for illegal residents at the expense of California taxpayers.
California’s budget earmarks millions of dollars annually to the One California program, which provides free legal assistance to all aliens, including those facing deportation, and makes California’s public universities easier for illegal-alien students to attend.
According to the Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers 2017 report, for the estimated 12.5 million illegal immigrants living in the country, the resulting cost is a $116 billion burden on the national economy and taxpayers each year, after deducting the $19 billion in taxes paid by some of those illegal immigrants.
BLOG: MOST FIGURES PUT THE NUMBER OF ILLEGALS IN THE U.S. AT ABOUT 40 MILLION. WHEN THESE PEOPLE ARE HANDED AMNESTY, THEY ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO BRING UP THE REST OF THEIR FAMILY EFFECTIVELY LEAVING MEXICO DESERTED.

New data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that more than 22 million non-citizens now live in the United States.




No comments: