I N V A S I O N !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[acelaw]

Acelaw,
Can you define Human Rights for me please?
since, according to you illegal immigrants violate human rights in America! never heard anything so ridiculous in a loooooooong time! 

Of course you think its ridiculous because you see no problem Victimizing the citizens of this country. Human Rights as defined by the United Nations :
Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

READ THIS AGAIN
law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others

The morals or the rights and freedoms of others; DO YOU GET THAT ????So when you cross a border into another country and cause economic harm , over crowed schools, bankrupt hospitals, violate our laws ,our Bill of Rights , Our Constitution ETC>>>>violate international laws as well ,GUESS WHAT???Your violating my basic human rights as set forth by the U.N
.Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.



The United Nations
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Article 12

Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Article 13
An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.

[Kalla]

SO in this case whio are you? The competent authority to assess the violation or the citizen whose rights were violated by an immigrant?
I asked the definition because I already knew it! (I study HR!!!!) but most of all I still don't see the link you want to make....unless (without repeating myself) you are an authority....
Further on if your HR were violated by an "illegal" immigrant, there is a procedure you can engage offline!!
Your "copy-paste: of the Covenant on Civil and political rights is not a clear answer....ythe words you are using are out of proportion, it's liek trying to kill a fly with a tank!!!

[acelaw]

Kalla

SO in this case whio are you? The competent authority to assess the violation or the citizen whose rights were violated by an immigrant?
I asked the definition because I already knew it! (I study HR!!!!) but most of all I still don't see the link you want to make....unless (without repeating myself) you are an authority....
Further on if your HR were violated by an "illegal" immigrant, there is a procedure you can engage offline!! 
Your "copy-paste: of the Covenant on Civil and political rights is not a clear answer....ythe words you are using are out of proportion, it's liek trying to kill a fly with a tank!!! 



SO in this case whio are you?

I am a follow human being who has every right to object to folks who force there will upon a nation of folks who do not want them here. Explain where they have the "RIGHT" to degrade some one else's life with their behavior????? All we hear about is they just want a better life , we should show them compassion, but at who's expanse does it come at ? Mine. My children's ?Where is there compassion for the problems they cause us?. The costs of there presences here is well documented and unfair to those here legally.If I break into your house and force you to pay for all my children's schooling ,Medical , food ETC...What would you do ?
Welcome me and mine or call the cops????

The competent authority to assess the violation or the citizen whose rights were violated by an immigrant?
I asked the definition because I already knew it! (I study HR!!!!) but most of all I still don't see the link you want to make....unless (without repeating myself) you are an authority....


The excuses you hear from folks who try and justify there illegally behavior is we have Basic Human rights to do this.Well that does not fly does it????They have no RIGHT legally or morally to invade another country....Your attitude is typical of the majority of illegal aliens
" The competent authority to assess the violation or the citizen whose rights were violated by an immigrant?"
You act as if we/I have no business questioning your behavior here that you should be able to do as you want without question.Pretty arrogant HUH???

SO in this case whio are you?

You see!!! Well I am ONE of the 80% of USC who object to illegal aliens invading MY country.Of course you will say this is not your country, but then you need to stop studying HR and learn our history and form of government.
A consistent principle of American immigration law since colonial times has been to turn away aliens who are likely to become a "public charge." While public charge immigration laws, originally set by the states and, after 1885, by the federal government, often failed to keep sizable numbers of immigrants off relief, the principle they stated was clear: American welcomes the immigrants, but it expects them to be supported by their own work or wealth or that of their sponsors--not by the taxpayers. The Supreme Court first upheld the principle of public charge laws in 1837.



Further on if your HR were violated by an "illegal" immigrant, there is a procedure you can engage offline!! 
Your "copy-paste: of the Covenant on Civil and political rights is not a clear answer....ythe words you are using are out of proportion, it's liek trying to kill a fly with a tank!!! 

I known only illegal aliens can use the RACE CARD and only they deserve to have Human Rights!!!The words are out of proportion????Of course you must attack us,
because if you look at the damage done to your follow Human Beings with there behavior it is pretty outrageous to then think they are being discriminated and victimized
by all us sick raciest that stand up for OUR RIGHTS...OUR LAWS, MY COUNTRY!!!!Maybe you can explain to the folks here victimsvoice.org/wall/social/index.html ythe words you are using are out of proportion, it's liek trying to kill a fly with a tank!!! 

[E.]

Oh, I see we love cocktails here

Mix things up, confuse people, and make everyone beleive that YOU are the victim...
hehe...
Clever, but not very wise tactics.

Well,here is the thing:

Murdering someone or breaking into a private property to steal is a FELONY.
It is a CRIMINAL offence.

Violation of SOME Immigration Laws is a CIVIL offence(just as speeding on highway).

Now, both murderer/thief and speeding limit violator are law breakers.
But you can't say they are both CRIMINALs.

Also, Public Charge is the loved mantra of those who day and night preach against Mexicans and other Immigrants.

If your concern is REALLY Public Charge, then WHY NOT TARGET IT?
Let's target those *******s who fake Citizenship documents or lie about their status to get Cash Welfare, Foodstamps, Medicare and etc.
Even if 60% or 80% of Illegals do it then let's target those 60%-80% for being a burden on US Taxpayers.
Let's also propose and help Congress pass Laws that would eliminate any loophole for any Illegal Immigrant to get any Public Benefit at the cost of taxpayers.

But some people seem to suggest that since certain number of Immigrants fake documents and illegally use those benefits, let's pubish them ALL, so that we can solve the problem quickly and effectively.

How about saying: hey, Mr. Such and Such, since there are some drug peddlers who live in your block, we decided to round YOU ALL UP, your ENTIRE neighborhood and send you all to Folsom for 30 years, so you could learn a lesson there.
By the way, there wouldn't be no more crime in your neighborhood, since no one would be left there to commit one.

Great, brilliant logic!

The reality is complex, but together we, as a Nation, could fix this problem.

First, the Nation could set its priorities and make them clear:
Suppose it is decided and made CLEAR that all Illegals must leave, without conditions.
Then, I suppose, all branches of Government should make consistent statements,declare consistent policies and implement them accordingly.
No lawmaker should make Amnesty proposals and heatedly argue for it, thus making an impression that it could EVER pass.
No executive office should make proposals favoring granting some sort of legal status to Illegals, now or anytime in the future.
IRS should NOT allow ANYONE to use Tax Id numbers instead of Social Security numbers, and any and ALL tax filers whose numbers don't match the records or who are not supposed to file taxes should be immediately reported to DHS for speedy apprehension and deportation.
ALL these procedures should be announced loudly on all major TV networks.
Judges should uphold all these rules and regulations and throw out any case of absconder who tries to prolong his/her presence here by fyling appeals.
Employers who hire Illegals should be liable of commiting a Federal Offence, and there should be some Jail time (even 6 months would be enough) if ANY Employer is found to have hired at least ONE undocumented Alien ( I guarantee, VERY FEW employers would wilfully hire Illegals if there was a possibility of getting a JAILTIME for it).
Next, new law should be passed by Congress that would allow all Illegals to leave the territories of the United States within certain time frame, let's say 1 year.
No harm should be inflicted on those who remain within that time frame to comply with this Law, but it should be made very clear that whoever is found in US past that date will be a FELON under new Federal Law, and could be imprisoned for up to 5 years and must pay a fine of at least $12000 to cut his/her sentence down to 6 months in general population prison and will be immediately deported after that[no hearings, proceeding and etc].
Just a few thousands of incarcerations would be enough to show the credibility and determination of Government to crack down on the rest.

How feasible all these proposals about the deportation of 12 million people, most people ask? [note: I DON'T say it's impossible, that's only a question].
Perhaps, it is possible to streamline the mass deportation proceedings by making certain changes to the Law: for instance, DHS can first check its database of existing overstayers (it has statistics of how many are approximately here, overstaying, so it must have sources to have those statistics. Consequently, it should have some kind of knowledge about those who are here and overstaying).
In regards to those who are beleived to be overstaying, DHS should send hundreds and hundreds of thousands of letters to the last known addresses asking "to show cause".
If Alien doesn't appear before Officer, then he/she is ordered deported in abscntia and under NO(!!!) circumstances his/her case can be re-opened(make that specific addition to Law).
Now, all these people would technically become absconders and if ever caught by Police-they would be transfered to Federal Authorities and immediately deported, without any Court hearing and etc. (since they didn't show up, they gave up the right to due process, and thus can't have the same privilege as others).
Elimination of "hearings" and "appeals" would releive the burden from Prison Authorities, who would otherwise have to struggle trying to accommodate tens of thousands of people in lenghty detention while those are in deportation proceedings.
In case if someone has left country before the "show cause" letter and then denied visa for overtaying beyond it, he/she could have a burden of proof to show that they indeed left country before receiving such letter (stamp in passport, air tickets and etc.)
Now, what about those who EWI?
Well, here Police could do a great job in colloboration with other intelligence sources, by apprehending and transfering to DHS for immediate deportation those folks who have no proof of legal presence here.
You don't need to be a $200000/year paid CIA analyst to find and apprehend all these Illegal guys: they are all in open, in construction sites, in retaurants, washing dishes, cleaning toilets, trimming the grass and etc.
Every day you wake up and walk on the street you see someone cutting a grass: I bet there are 1 out of 1 chances that one of those grass cutters are EWI's or otherwise Illegally present here.
Now, how many of those you could spot and apprehend if you were a Police?
At least a couple a day (that is if you are super-lazy).
And you don't have to catch all 12 millions, it is enough to catch several hundred thousands and most others will run out of US faster than a bullet.

And no need to say it's abuse of Constitutional Right for Police to ask for ID.
It is no less abuse of Right to treat someone as Criminal under constant threat, while never actually doing anything about it: it's like putting a gun on someone's head and clicking it day and night with blanket bullets.
And it is better to be swift,determined,tough and resolute than to be wishy-washy and needle them day-by-day.

Again, as I said:

FIRST THING is to set a priority:
Is it really in the best interests of US to have ALL ILLEGALS OUT?
If so, if they really cause more damage than benefit, if ALL of them damage the fabric of society and do great harm in long run, then ALL should be forced out in shortest possible timeframe.

Otherwise, if it is determined that costs of speedily forcing them all out of country far exceeds the benefits of doing so, then the that should be made clear as well.

Why not target CRIMINALS first?
Those who rape/murder/sell drugs/plot terrorist attacks or just are out there looking for trouble?
Why not then target those who fake Citizenship documents to get Welfare, Medicaid, Foodstamps and etc?
Why not target those who have no LPR spouses or parents here?
And then why not think clearly what to do with rest?

WHY CAN'T IT ALL BE DONE IN CALM AND ORDERLY MANNER?
Why there must be all that heat and hatred and rhetoric about "murderous and marauding Mexicans" and other b/s?

Why can't ,YOU, ACELAW, who advocate MORALS and claim to hold LAWS so dear to your heart don't follow the simple MORAL code:
Be consistent, be plausible, be JUST?
Since when preaching a HATRED against ENTIRE ethnic or Immigrant group is a Justice or Defence of Human Rights?
Since when tactics of Taliban are recognized as legitimate means of protecting one's Right to enjoy a life without abuse?
Since when,Acelaw, you learned to make an equation between protecting your Constitutional Right and preaching a hatred against Mexicans or other Illegals?
Yes, the only word to define your attitude is HATRED.
And there are no word-tricks you can hang on everyone's ears to make them beleive otherwise.

Marmaduk is also against Illegal Immigration.
Marmaduk also advocates closing the borders and forcing criminal aliens out of country.
Marmaduk too beleives that he has a Right to decide destiny of HIS country.
Marmaduk too admits that life is not always FAIR.
Marmaduk too doesn't like the massive influx of Immigrants from South here, and he too advocates controlled immigration.

But UNLIKE YOU he doesn't HATE.
UNLIKE you there is a RATIONALE in his thoughts and reasoning.
Unlike you, he is not intending to vindicate or witch-hunt people, but rather calmly accepts tough realities that we live in and proposes choices that everyone must to make, including the rounding up and deportation of those who must be deported.
And unlike you he is more likely to gain the support and understanding of everyone, no matter where one or the other person stands on this issue.


Anyway, this should be enough for now.

Good luck to all other members of this board.

[Kalla]

Acelaw,
since America is YOUR country I would assume that you are a Native Indian! lets hope it's the case, and if it is..you indeed have a...case against first generation IMMMIGRANTS who performed a genocide on the Native Indian population, and then parked the one they couldn't ill in reserves.
So Acelaw, since this is your country, answer the question are you a native Indian?
In case your answer is "NO" you have some IMMIGRANT blood!
I am against anything criminal, but IMMIGRATING is not a crime. I truly believe that wherever you go you should follow the rules in place.
To conclude, if you were an Iraqi citizen, wouldn't you feel that YOUR Human Rights are violated everyday by the unconstitutional presence of a foreign army on YOUR soil? Because that's what I call an HR violation.
Give me a break, we are making this country, and for most us, we came here LEGALLY to study with no plans to stay but got caught by LOVE. Why the USC marrying us could not find better local USC partners? I have the answer, but I don't want to exacerbate your anger.

[acelaw]

Acelaw,
since America is YOUR country I would assume that you are a Native Indian! lets hope it's the case, and if it is..you indeed have a...case against first generation IMMMIGRANTS who performed a genocide on the Native Indian population, and then parked the one they couldn't ill in reserves.
So Acelaw, since this is your country, answer the question are you a native Indian?
In case your answer is "NO" you have some IMMIGRANT blood!
I am against anything criminal, but IMMIGRATING is not a crime. I truly believe that wherever you go you should follow the rules in place.
To conclude, if you were an Iraqi citizen, wouldn't you feel that YOUR Human Rights are violated everyday by the unconstitutional presence of a foreign army on YOUR soil? Because that's what I call an HR violation.
Give me a break, we are making this country, and for most us, we came here LEGALLY to study with no plans to stay but got caught by LOVE. Why the USC marrying us could not find better local USC partners? I have the answer, but I don't want to exacerbate your anger.

Kella


MY,My, the old tried you're an immigrate too!!! There is no such thing as a native American Indian since they also emigrated here too !!!! They just beat Columbus here , since America was founded in 1876 long after the "Indian" had walked across the land bridge to get here .History is full of the same offenses you accuse America of for taking land, like where did Spain get the land that is now Mexico? HMMMMMMMM Who did they kill and STILL ARE TO THIS DAY??? Indians RIGHT?????You make me laugh the same Spaniards came North into the Southwest Territories to KILL WHO FOR THERE LAND ? The American Indians fool!!!!! We are the only country that has made reparations to folks who were wronged 200 years ago Mexico still will not recognize them will they???
Indians in Chiapas protest massacre, police killing
January 15, 1998
Web posted at: 12:03 a.m. EST (0503 GMT)
OCOSINGO, Mexico (CNN) -- Thousands of Indians blocked highways and occupied government buildings in southern Mexico Wednesday to protest the recent massacre of 45 Indians and the killing by police this week of a young woman and the wounding of her 2-year-old daughter.

I am against anything criminal, but IMMIGRATING is not a crime. I truly believe that wherever you go you should follow the rules in place. REFFER TO UNINTED NATIONS ARTICLE 13 WRONG!!!!!
WHAAAAAT? Well we have a law that you must enter country legally , also international law is the same, even laws of Mexico say you must have permit to leave country ,then of course the Human Rights you all throw around at us that tell you are WRONG!!!!!!just as I posted them prove you have no RIGHT to Immigrate to where ever you wish !!!

To conclude, if you were an Iraqi citizen, wouldn't you feel that YOUR Human Rights are violated everyday by the unconstitutional presence of a foreign army on YOUR soil? Because that's what I call an HR violation.


What is the difference here , oh you do not have a gun in your hands , its an invasion any way you cut it !!!!!You crossed a border with intent to stay unwelcome and illegally in another country, quit mixing apples and oranges.Do you think mass graves and using chemical weapons on your own people is an OK HR violation ?????Do you think invading Kuwait and killing and raping there woman was a minor HR Violation ???Do you think we want to rule and own Iraq ???You can find fault in this country if you look hard enough but you find more outrages acts of other governments a lot easier but you do or say anything about them ? Only blame America first HUH????

My family has NOT BEEN a immigrate for seven generations ,GET IT ????90% of the people here today were BORN here, we are not a nation of immigrates but a nation who allows immigration and it is our RIGHT to decide who comes here just LIKE ANY OTHER NATION ,GET IT !!!!!

[Kalla]

Acelaw,
If frustration was an attribute of power..you would be above God!

[acelaw]

Kella


Give me a break, we are making this country


Making it a what ? 3rd world country
you are RIGHT ON THERE!!!!!
THE academic literature investigating the economic impact of immigration on the United States has grown rapidly in the past decade. The assumptions that long dominated discussion of the costs and benefits of immigration were replaced during the 1980s by a number of new questions, issues, and perceptions.

Consider the received wisdom of the early 1980s. The studies available suggested that even though immigrants arrived at an economic disadvantage, their opportunities improved rapidly over time. Within a decade or two of immigrants' arrival their earnings would overtake the earnings of natives of comparable socioeconomic background. The evidence also suggested that immigrants did no harm to native employment opportunities, and were less likely to receive welfare assistance than natives. Finally, the children of immigrants were even more successful than their parents. The empirical evidence, therefore, painted a very optimistic picture of the contribution that immigrants made to the American economy.

In the past ten years this picture has altered radically. New research has established a number of points.


The relative skills of successive immigrant waves have declined over much of the postwar period. In 1970, for example, the latest immigrant arrivals on average had 0.4 fewer years of schooling and earned 17 percent less than natives. By 1990 the most recently arrived immigrants had 1.3 fewer years of schooling and earned 32 percent less than natives.

Because the newest immigrant waves start out at such an economic disadvantage, and because the rate of economic assimilation is not very rapid, the earnings of the newest arrivals may never reach parity with the earnings of natives. Recent arrivals will probably earn 20 percent less than natives throughout much of their working lives.

The large-scale migration of less-skilled workers has done harm to the economic opportunities of less-skilled natives. Immigration may account for perhaps a third of the recent decline in the relative wages of less-educated native workers.

The new immigrants are more likely to receive welfare assistance than earlier immigrants, and also more likely to do so than natives: 21 percent of immigrant households participate in some means-tested social-assistance program (such as cash benefits, Medicaid, or food stamps), as compared with 14 percent of native households.

The increasing welfare dependency in the immigrant population suggests that immigration may create a substantial fiscal burden on the most-affected localities and states.

There are economic benefits to be gained from immigration. These arise because certain skills that immigrants bring into the country complement those of the native population. However, these economic benefits are small -- perhaps on the order of $7 billion annually.

There exists a strong correlation between the skills of immigrants and the skills of their American-born children, so that the huge skill differentials observed among today's foreign-born groups will almost certainly become tomorrow's differences among American-born ethnic groups. In effect, immigration has set the stage for sizable ethnic differences in skills and socioeconomic outcomes, which are sure to be the focus of intense attention in the next century.

The United States is only beginning to observe the economic consequences of the historic changes in the numbers, national origins, and skills of immigrants admitted over the past three decades. Regardless of how immigration policy changes in the near future, we have already set in motion circumstances that will surely alter the economic prospects of native workers and the costs of social-insurance programs not only in our generation but for our children and grandchildren as well.


Kella


Give me a break, we are making this country



Your making it a third world cesspool alright, we can never understand why you would bring the conditions of the country you left here??? Lets see what you "make"

The current wave of mass immigration is not benefiting Americans overall. "All of the available estimates suggest the annual net gain is astoundingly small," writes Professor Borjas, "... less than 0.1 percent of the Gross Domestic Product." Roughly: less than $10 billion in a $7 trillion economy.

They costs us 70 billion a year PLUS but Kella thinks Give me a break, we are making this country LOLOLOL

Illegals escape subsidy scrutiny
By S.A. Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 5, 2004
Immigration researchers estimate that the number of illegal aliens has surged to about 10 million today and that 34,000 of them receive rent assistance as heads of households.

Los Angeles Daily News
Valley hospitals in crisis
By Dana Bartholomew and Evan Pondel
Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - The health care system in the San Fernando Valley is on the edge of collapse -- with fewer hospitals serving more people(illegal aliens)or services, according to a report by area hospital leaders.
In the past 15 years, 12 of the Valley's 33 hospitals have closed -- with more hospitals expected to shut their doors as the Valley's population continues to grow, according to the report, to be released today.
VDARE.COM - http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/educating_illegals.htm
Educating Illegals Costs $900 per American Child
Because illegal aliens typically earn so much less than natives, their economic contribution is much less than their numbers would suggest"” and immigration enthusiasts incessantly claim.
But illegal aliens' cost to the American taxpayer is another matter. For example, the children of illegal aliens are currently being educated at American taxpayer expense because of the Supreme Court's disastrous 1982 Plyler vs. Doe decision. The expense of this is high and disproportionate:
 An estimated 1.1 million school-aged illegal immigrants are living in the U.S. [Source: Michael Fix and Jeffrey Passel, "U.S. Immigrants"”Trends and Implications for Schools," The Urban Institute, 2003.]


 The U.S.-born children of illegals, technically citizens by virtue of the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, could easily be twice that number (my conservative estimate, based on the overall ratio of children to immigrants"”see table.) That's another 2.2 million.


 At $8,745 per pupil (the average annual cost of K-12 public education in the U.S.) the cost of educating illegals and their children comes to $29 billion ($8,745 times 3.3 million children).


 ESL, bilingual, and other immigrant-oriented programs can raise per-pupil costs by 15 to 25 percent. That pushes the cost of educating illegals to $36 billion.

To put it another way, illegal aliens are imposing an additional cost amounting to $900 per American child (i.e. child of American-born parents) in the public school system.
What about the total impact of immigration on education? More than one in five K-12 students are immigrants (legal or illegal) or the children of immigrants. We know this thanks to the Current Population Survey, a sort of mini-census taken each month by the Census Bureau. The survey asks respondents if they are immigrants and if their parents were immigrants"”legal status unspecified"”thus allowing us to isolate the impact of immigration on school enrollment.
Our children in school must sit next to those who thinkthis is another stupid law to ignore, RIGHT KELLA
HERE'S WHAT THE MEDIA WON'T TELL YOU ABOUT TUBERCULOSIS:
It's killing more people today than ever before. TWO BILLION PEOPLE – 1/3 of the world's population - are infected with LATENT tuberculosis. TEN PERCENT OF THOSE INFECTED WILL DEVELOP ACTIVE TB IN THEIR LIFETIMES.
Almost eradicated by antibiotics half a century ago, TB has returned in a new shape. Multi-drug resistant TB is impervious to outmoded drugs. The World Health Organization predicts 36 million more TB deaths by 2020 - and you get it simply by breathing.
Although the U.S. has extensive TB control measures in place, this epidemic sweeping the rest of the world will continue to affect us. The numbers of people illegally flooding across our borders is our worst public health threat.
Immigrants entering the United States LEGALLY must be screened to verify they are not TB carriers. Most of the growth of tuberculosis in the United States is in the unscreened (that's why all immigrants must be LEGALLY DOCUMENTED) illegal alien population.
Secure borders keep more than terrorists, criminals, and drugs out of the country, they protect Americans from deadly diseases that sneak through, too.
Legal immigration mandates screening for communicable diseases with specific medical tests required for AIDS and tuberculosis. That's one of the most important reasons for why we have immigration laws. And that's why not making the distinction between legal and illegal immigration jeopardizes the public health of American citizens.
Neither the Atlanta Journal Constitution nor the Gwinnett Daily Post makes any mention of the citizenship or immigration status of the infected family. This is public health. The public has a right to know.Non-citizens are putting the hurt on our hospitals. A study by the Florida Hospital Association estimates that uninsured non-citizens cost the state's hospitals an average of $63,612 per patient last year.
The tab is rising as the number of immigrants continues to swell from coast to coast. The American Hospital Association reported that its member facilities provided $21 billion in uncompensated health-care services last year.

They represent the worst of what is common in the Third World. In her recent scathing report, ?THE ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIME WAVE? by brilliant investigative reporter, Heather MacDonald, our country is being assaulted by a crime wave that grows steadily and viciously. A full 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide, which totaled 1,500 last year in Los Angeles, pointed to illegal aliens. Soberingly, two thirds of all fugitive felony warrants, totaling a horrifying 17,000, were for illegal aliens. To make matters worse, in 1995 a report showed that 60% of the 20,000-strong 18th Street gang in southern California was composed of illegal aliens. That gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia on drug distribution schemes, extortion and drive-by assassinations. They commit assault and robberies every day of the week. A night of crime to them is like a day of work for American citizens.
Over 400,000 deportees continue walking around free in our country. The ones that commit crimes and are caught make up a full 29% of our prison populations. They cost American taxpayers nearly $1 billion annually to feed, house and care for them in our prisons.
Illegals' Crime, Drugs, Health
Care, Education Costs Staggering
By Linda Bentley
Sonora News.com
1-18-4
Acording to a 2001 FBI Uniform Crime Report, Maricopa County's crime rates, compared to the rest of the United States in offenses per 100,000 people, were as follows: Murder in Maricopa County was 50 percent higher; robbery 32 percent higher; aggravated assault 5 percent higher; auto theft 173 percent higher; burglary 53 percent higher; and larceny 43 percent higher Rape, the only category where Maricopa County came in below the rest of the nation was 19 percent less. In 1996, criminal offenses made up 17.9 percent of Maricopa County Superior Court's caseload. Criminal offenses have increased each year and in 2002, made up 25.2 percent of all case filings. The Bureau of Justice Services inmate census data indicates that violent offenders accounted for the largest source of growth for all state inmate populations from 1995 - 2001. Those serving time for violent crimes made up 58.7 percent of the white inmate population, 56.9 percent of the black inmate population and 81.5 percent of the Hispanic prison population. From 1995 to 2000 the number of inmates for all federal, state and private correctional facilities, by race, increased by 17 percent for white inmates, 28 percent for black inmates, 53 percent for Hispanic inmates and 20 percent for other races. Identity theft continues to be one of the fastest growing crimes in Arizona, which now ranks third in the nation with 88 identity thefts reported per 100,000 people. Washington D.C. is number one with 123.1, followed by California with 90.7. Twenty percent of Arizona's identity thefts are employment related offenses.

Mexico and Columbia rising stars of the heroin trade

Steve Camarota, director of research for the CIS, dismissed many of the economic theories used to support an open-border policy.

While some argue that Mexican immigration - legal or otherwise - is crucial to the economy, Camarota introduced statistical data showing that Mexican immigrants comprise nearly one-third of California's population but account for approximately 3 percent of the state's economic output.

According to Camarota, California's estimated population of more than 35.5 million people includes some 10 million Mexicans, 70 percent of who are in the state illegally and 65 percent of who have less than a high school education.

"The idea that Mexican immigration is vital to the U.S. economy is simply false," Camarota said.

Next, Camarota noted that Mexican immigrants pay significantly less in taxes compared with native Californians but use disproportionately more welfare benefits than those born in the state.

Camarota's data showed that the average taxes paid by Mexican immigrants in California amount to about $1,535 per year, while native-born Californians pay $5,600 in taxes.

While Mexican immigrants pay one-third the taxes of native Californians on average, they also consume roughly three times more welfare, Camarota said.

The CIS data showed that 41.5 percent of Mexican immigrants used "major welfare programs" like Medicaid and food stamps, while those same welfare programs were used by only 14.2 percent of native Californians.

"There's a very big difference between what Mexican immigrants are supposed to pay in taxes and what natives are supposed to pay," said Camarota. "This fact, coupled with their extremely high use of public services, means that there's a very high cost for cheap labor."

The net cost of immigration is $70 billion a year." - George Borjas, Harvard professor. 2002 "Immigration is estimated to cost Californians $1,300 per household annually in additional taxes." -- Costly immigration, Paul Craig Roberts
"Immigration costs U.S. born workers $133 billion a year in job losses." - Economics professor George Borjas
Overall, migrants from around the world send $30 billion to relatives back home. $23 billion last year to Latin America and the Caribbean. $10 billion was sent home to Mexico alone. Filipino workers send $6 billion a year and 10,000 cash transfers are sent to China each month, averaging $2,000 to $3,000 each.



The current wave of mass immigration is not benefiting Americans overall. "All of the available estimates suggest the annual net gain is astoundingly small," writes Professor Borjas, "... less than 0.1 percent of the Gross Domestic Product." Roughly: less than $10 billion in a $7 trillion economy.

Note carefully what Professor Borjas is saying here. Sure, those immigrants who work do raise overall GDP. But the bulk of that increase goes to the immigrants themselves, in the form of wages. The benefit to native-born Americans, after everything is taken into account, is infinitesimally small.

Current mass immigration is not benefiting Americans overall -- but it is transforming their country. For nothing.

[acelaw]

Get your foot in the door and then!!!!!

http://vdare.com/francis/mexican_lawsuit.htm

March 29, 2004



Mexico Sends A Message Even Big Business Can Understand
By Sam Francis

After decades of hiring illegal aliens and lobbying against any and all restrictions on immigration, Big Business is about to find out the real costs of the Open Borders it has subsidized.

In California, the Washington Times reported last week, thousands of Mexicans who have worked for some of the state's and the nation's largest supermarket chains are joining in a class action suit against their employers.

They also have the aid of the Mexican government. [Mexico urges immigrants to join class-action suit, By Jerry Seper, March 22, 2004]

The grounds of the suit, brought by the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), one of the most radical Open Borders lobby groups, are that the supermarkets have discriminated against the workers "because they were employed as independent contractors."

The claim is that the supermarket chains since 1994 or so have fraudulently hired workersÂmainly for menial jobs like cleaning floorsÂas independent contractors and thereby "reaped millions of dollars in annual labor costs savings" by paying less than minimum wages, avoiding paying benefits costs and forcing workers to work seven days a week.

Well, what else would you expect? What, after all, is the point of hiring illegal aliens if you can't exploit them in ways that you can't exploit Americans?

Whether the companies are guilty or not is not really of much interest. What's interesting is first of all El Grande Pollo that is finally coming home to roost on the hefty bank accounts of the supermarkets.

The suit's plaintiffsÂ700 so farÂare seeking what attorneys say is "millions of dollars" in compensation for back wages, overtime and benefits for the nine-year period covered by the claims as well as forfeiture of "all profits acquired by means of any unfair business practices."

Of course, if the suit succeeds, it will set a precedent for similar court actions against meat packers, food processors, agribusiness, the hotel and restaurant industry, construction firms and any other businesses that for years have wallowed in the cheap labor that Americans supposedly won't do.

The other point of interest in the case is the involvement of the Mexican governmentÂin a lawsuit brought in American courts on behalf of all those "new Americans" of whom the Open Borders gang is so fond, as long as they shut up, get to work and don't bring lawsuits.

The "new Americans," of course, are not necessarily Americans at all, and manyÂprobably mostÂare illegal aliens. The judge in the case has ruled that the workers' immigration status at the time of their employment is not relevant to whether they were fairly compensated. Hence, millions may be eligible to join.

The Mexican consulate in San Diego, the Times reports, held a news conference last week to urge workers to join the suit. "This lawsuit is important," pronounced Mexican Consul General Luis Cabrera Cuaron [Email the consulate] at the news conference, "because it involves large numbers of our nationals and because it insists that their rights be respected, regardless of their legal status."

It's also important because through its open involvement in the case the Mexican government is officially siding with the workers against American businesses.

And what the Mexican government is thereby announcing is that the Mexicans involved in the suit don't need to look to the American government for help. The U.S. government is not their real government any more than the United States is their real country. Mexico is their real country, regardless of whether they're here legally or not. And the government in Mexico City is their real government.

The message is in part to the thousands of Mexicans who are or might become part of the suit, but it's also in part a message to the U.S. government that the "new Americans"Âover whom President Bush, most Republicans, all Democrats, Big Business and the heavy-lifters in the Open Borders Literary and Cogitation Society have long gushedÂare not Americans at all.

The message tells us what critics of mass immigration have tried to explain for years, that when you have millions of people coming from one country to another, you do not have an addition to the receiving country. You have an invasion by the sending country.

For decades the Mexican government has encouraged massive emigration, using its own population and our weakness and greed to conquer a good part of our country, and has firmly denounced and resisted any effort by us to control immigration.

Americans, including the president, may not yet get this message, though some signs suggest that many are starting to.

But after the Mexican government sends it a few more times and helps bankrupt the businesses that have served as the best allies of Mexico's re-conquest of their own nation, the message will be received and understood.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

[Sam Francis [email him] is a nationally syndicated columnist. A selection of his columns, America Extinguished: Mass Immigration And The Disintegration Of American Culture, is now available from Americans For Immigration Control. Click here for Sam Francis' website. Click here to order his monograph, Ethnopolitics: Immigration, Race, and the American Political Future and here for Glynn Custred's review.]

[Kalla]

Acelaw!
You have to check the census report..focus on the level of education and the income bracket of African immigrants! then you can come back to me!
By the way i am giving in my thesis soon, wanna make a couple of $$ on the side typing it for me? it looks like you have both the skills and the time! boooooooy you can type and type!
you are really violating your fingers Human Rights!

[acelaw]

Kalla
You said they were "making this country" did you mean they were making it Bankrupt? Perhaps you should read the thread for E and others ??????to learn "why" we need/have/use to control immigration from 3 world countries, it is a net loss to this county and its natives GET It YET!!!!When it comes illegal it is a real slap in the face of us Americans who built this country , we took in less then 15 million immigrates between 1930 and 1980's that means less then 300,000 per year, a drop in the bucket , replacement level was what it was, we did the jobs , we built what you see today , it was not done on the backs of immigrates .Now they sneak in like thieves in the night to steal what others have worked there butts off for and the worst insult is to say they are responsible for this country success!!!! What a joke and an insult !!!!What is your thesis ??I hope not immigration related or Human Rights !!!!You might want to take some critical thinking classes!!!

[Kalla]

Acelaw!
What about the census? no word on it heuh! my Thesis is actually a mixture of Human Rights, cultural relativism and their impact on development...critical thinking, the classes won't by delivered by you right?
Because then who will give the **** TYPING classes?????

[acelaw]

Acelaw!
You have to check the census report..focus on the level of education and the income bracket of African immigrants! then you can come back to me!

What does African immigrants have to do with the last 20 or 30 years of immigration to this country? We defiantly have enough poor ,under skilled and under educated folks here to do these jobs we won't do and to pay for.LOLOL. In fact, Mexico alone accounted for 43 percent of the growth in the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000.

my Thesis is actually a mixture of Human Rights, cultural relativism and their impact on development

Well now understand your lack of critical thinking skills .

Cultural relativism is the position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual and his or her environment. All ethical, religious, political and aesthetic beliefs are truths that are relative to the cultural identity of the individual. Relativism can include moral relativism (ethics are relative to the social construct), situational relativism (right and wrong depend on the particular situation), and cognitive relativism (truth is relative and has no objective standard). Cultural relativism pervades today's society. As long as we don't "hurt" anyone, anything goes. Absolute truth has been discarded along with God. We live in a society of pluralism and tolerance. We reject the idea of universal right and wrong. With a diminishing list of objective standards, our legislative system is having a harder time defining the laws, and our court system is having a harder time interpreting them. In just a few decades, our entertainment industry has pushed the "acceptance" of lewdness and indecency to levels we never imagined. Our children are losing their moral compass and lashing out in violence like never before. Our schools teach that we are an accident of evolution. Our institutions teach that we must accept all types of lifestyles or be deemed "intolerant," or worse, "hate mongers." Relativism encourages us to accept ****ography in the media and fornication in our colleges and universities. Many things that were deemed a "sin" only a few years ago are now either accepted or promoted in our culture. According to the relativists, all points of view are true except for those that teach absolutes -- absolute truth, absolute right or wrong, or an absolute God.



In contrast, the number of immigrants from Europe increased by less than 700,000 and those from Sub-Saharan Africa increased by about 400,000.

During the 1990s, the nation's immigrant population grew by 11.3 million "” faster than at any other time in our history. Using newly released data from the 2000 Census, this report examines the changing distribution of the nation's immigrant population by country of origin at the state level. The findings show that in one sense, today's immigration is more diverse than ever because people now arrive from every corner of the world. In another sense, however, diversity among the foreign born has actually declined significantly. One country "” Mexico "” and one region "” Spanish-speaking Latin America "” came to dominate U.S. immigration during the decade. The report also found that immigrants from some countries became more spread out in the 1990s, while the dispersion of others changed little.
"¢ The dramatic growth in the nation's immigrant population has been accompanied by a significant decline in diversity. In 1990, immigrants from the top sending country "” Mexico "” accounted for 22 percent of the total foreign born. By 2000, Mexican immigrants accounted for 30 percent of the total.
"¢ In fact, Mexico alone accounted for 43 percent of the growth in the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000.
"¢ In 39 states the share of the immigrant population accounted for by the top sending country increased. The decline in diversity was most dramatic in Arkansas, North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Tennessee, Utah, Nebraska, and
Alabama.
"¢ Even those states with little diversity among immigrants in 1990 experienced a continued decline in diversity between 1990 and 2000. In Arizona, for example, immigrants from Mexico grew from 55 percent to 67 percent of the foreign born and in Texas, Mexicans increased from 59 to 65 percent of the total.
"¢ Looking at diversity as measured by the share of immigrants from just one region of the world also shows a significant decline in diversity. Nationally, immigrants from Spanish-speaking Latin American countries increased from 37 percent to 46 percent of the total foreign-born population during the 1990s.
"¢ Immigrants from Spanish-speaking Latin America accounted for more than 60 percent of the growth in the foreign-born population nationally in the 1990s.
"¢ In 2000, there were 33 states (including the District of Columbia) in which immigrants from Spanish-speaking Latin American countries were the largest single group. Europeans were the largest group in 11 states, East Asian immigrants were the largest in four states and Canadian immigrants were the largest in three states.
"¢ Declining diversity was mainly due to very uneven growth in the size of different immigrant groups. For example, the number of immigrants from Spanish-speaking Latin America increased by seven million and those from East Asia rose by over two million. In contrast, the number of immigrants from Europe increased by less than 700,000 and those from Sub-Saharan Africa increased by about 400,000.
"¢ Immigrants from some countries became much more dispersed during the decade. For example, the percentage of immigrants from Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador concentrated in only one state fell significantly during the
decade.
"¢ In contrast, immigrants from Cuba became more concentrated, while the share of immigrants from such countries as Iran, Columbia, Jamaica, and Haiti concentrated in one state remained virtually unchanged in the 1990s.

Using the newly released 2000 Census data, this report has examined the changing settlement patterns of immigrants across America. The data show that along with a historically unprecedented increase in the number of immigrants, there has been a significant decline in the diversity of the nation's foreign-born population. The decline in diversity occurred not only at the national level, but also in many states. Most states saw the leading sending country increase its share of the total foreign born during the 1990s. When immigrants are grouped by the region of the world from which they came, the same general pattern exists. Mexico, specifically, and Spanish-speaking Latin American countries in general now comprise a larger percentage of the foreign born than any other country or region of the world.
Of course, diversity could be defined in other ways. Race or language diversity are other possible ways of examining the issue. But these variables are highly correlated with country and region of origin so the results are likely to be very similar. It is unlikely there exists one best way to examine diversity among immigrants. The data show that the top sending country and region increased their share of the total foreign born nationally and in many states over the last decade. This decline in diversity was the result of very different rates of growth among immigrant groups.
There is also the question of the starting point for any comparison. While we compare 1990 to 2000, we could have compared 1980 to 2000. This does not mean the decline in diversity would necessarily be any less dramatic. For example, Mexico, the top sending country in 1980, increased it share of the total from 16 percent in that year to 22 percent by 1990 and 30 percent in 2000. In 1970 the top sending country "” Italy "” accounted for only 10 percent of the foreign born. Thus there is 30-year decline in diversity, at least as measured by the share represented by one country. It also should be pointed out that when mass immigration was beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, Ireland accounted for an even larger share of the foreign born than Mexico does today. However, Ireland's standing as the top country was temporary and transitory. It was soon replaced by the nations that became Germany, though it probably makes more sense to see "Germany" as a cultural-linguistic collection of countries through much of this period, the way Spanish-speaking Latin America is today. Germany was later displaced by Italy. For at least the last 120 years, no country has accounted for such a large share of the foreign born as Mexico does today.
We also examined the changing settlement patterns of immigrants by country and found significant variations between countries. While immigrants from some countries tend to be very concentrated, those from other countries tend to be very dispersed. In general, European and South Asian immigrants tend to be the most dispersed, while those from Spanish-speaking Latin America tend to be the most concentrated. We also found that those countries that were the most concentrated in 1990 tended to exhibit the largest relative increase in dispersion, though they often remained among the most concentrated even in 2000. However, increasing dispersion was not a universal trend; the concentration of immigrants from many countries changed little or not at all during the decade.
What of the costs or benefits of the declining diversity or the changing distribution of immigrants by country across the United States? It seems reasonable to assume that the changing nature of immigration must have some implications for American society. While outside of the scope of this study, the most serious potential problem associated with a larger and less diverse immigrant population is that it may hinder the assimilation and integration of immigrants by creating the critical mass necessary to foster linguistic and spatial isolation. In contrast, a more diverse immigrant population may increase incentives to learn English or become familiar with American cultural more generally. The English language and American culture are the means by which diverse groups communicate with each other and the larger society. But if one group dominates in an area, then this could fundamentally reduce the need to Americanize.


Seems to be just what is happening in the USA HUH???

[Kalla]

Acelaw,
I hope the fact that you have masterminded the "copy-Paste" function is not fooling you about your synthesis/critical analysis abilities.

[acelaw]

Kella
Acelaw,
Can you define Human Rights for me please?
since, according to you illegal immigrants violate human rights in America! never heard anything so ridiculous in a loooooooong time!

Kella
Your "copy-paste: of the Covenant on Civil and political rights is not a clear answer....ythe words you are using are out of proportion, it's liek trying to kill a fly with a tank!!!

Thought I would help you with your critical thinking!!!!!!!

Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Maastricht, 22-26 January 1997


(c) The active support for measures adopted by third parties which are inconsistent with economic, social and cultural rights;


(g) The reduction or diversion of specific public expenditure, when such reduction or diversion results in the non-enjoyment of such rights and is not accompanied by adequate measures to ensure minimum subsistence rights for everyone.


Alien domination or occupation

17. Under circumstances of alien domination, deprivations of economic, social and cultural rights may be imputable to the conduct of the State exercising effective control over the territory in question. This is true under conditions of colonialism, other forms of alien domination and military occupation. The dominating or occupying power bears responsibility for violations of economic, social and cultural rights. There are also circumstances in which States acting in concert violate economic, social and cultural rights.