No announcement yet.

300 Workers Arrested At 61 Walmart Stores

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The smoke from the fires over here is awful.....


    • #17
      Why no FREE health care in Mexicio ? Whats up with this SKS

      ruise in Mexican waters takes scary turn
      By Bard Lindeman

      Some vacation trips are worse than others. A few are horrid; indeed, they seem like a bad dream. Our narrative begins then aboard a Carnival cruise ship, bound for 10 days of continuous frolic and fun in Mexican waters.

      "That second day, I didn't feel so well," reports Joseph Palladino Jr. of Highland, N.Y. With a history of coronary artery disease, the 76-year-old retired electrical contractor prudently checked into the ship's infirmary.

      The doctor on duty suggested Palladino, traveling with wife Marie, 74, and other family members, be examined at a Mexican hospital near Cancún, and that they make the four-hour journey by local ambulance.

      Palladino today remembers the expedition, made last spring in complete darkness and at high speeds, as "one long nightmare." He clearly recalls that it cost $3,775.

      Here's a breakdown of the unexpected charges:

      * $1,500 for the ambulance, cash in advance.

      * $1,000 at the hospital "before I even saw a doctor."

      * The doctor subsequently asked for $245, in cash.

      * There was an additional $750 charge on checking out of the hospital.

      * Plus $80 paid to local officials because, at one point and for no good reason, the couple's passports were confiscated.

      "We were told then we were in the country illegally," Palladino explains. For $40 each, however, they could become legal travelers. Cash only, please. Finally, on returning to the cruise ship, there was a $200 bill for the infirmary visit.

      The Palladinos could be excused if they believed that mistakenly someone had booked passage for them on a ship belonging to a reality television show. "Challenges" kept appearing. For example, en route to the hospital, they were stopped and searched by police. At the hospital, the patient was admitted to the maternity ward.

      "We learned later they had no coronary care facility," Joseph Palladino says, adding: "One time I was given pills by a nurse. She came back later, explaining they had been meant for a pregnant woman in the next room.

      "I hadn't swallowed the pills because she previously told me, with hand gestures, not to drink the water."

      "Do you speak Spanish?" I asked.

      "Not even a little bit," Palladino said.

      "How did this fun trip end?" I wanted to know.

      "At the hospital, they told me it was OK to travel."

      "Easy for them to say."

      "Right after that," Palladino continued, "my wife left in a taxi to go to the local bank. The taxi driver left her off, and then disappeared. When Marie paid to reclaim our passports and came out of the bank, she had no idea where she was. She hailed another cab. When he asked: 'Where to?' she says, 'The hospital.' He says, 'Which one?' She panics, thinking: 'Oh, no! Not more adventure!' "

      "Would you consider another cruise?" I interrupted.

      "Probably not to Mexico," answers this diplomatic traveler. "I don't think Marie is up for another one. . . ."

      The end is coming SKS we are tried of it.

      Assessing the California recall
      Tod Lindberg, in his column "The California recall and beyond" (Op-Ed, Tuesday), has given an accurate picture of the bizarre recall election. However, he failed to capture the anger most voters felt over the failure of Gov. Gray Davis to deal with the immigration issue.
      Though there is no doubt that immigration is a federal responsibility, the electorate was quick to retaliate against Mr. Davis' attempt to pander to Hispanics by signing a bill granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens after vetoing two far more restrictive bills.
      Their anger is reflected in the speed with which voters are signing a petition to overthrow this measure by placing a referendum on the ballot. More than 50,000 signatures were gathered in the first week the petitions were circulated.
      This anger also is reflected in a Frank Luntz exit-poll report that shows that voters believed illegal immigration was at least partially responsible for the state's financial problems. The report also indicates that the issue of immigration played both a direct and an indirect role in the recall election because of its impact on the economy.
      There is no doubt that Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger has a tiger by the tail on the immigration issue, in addition to his efforts to solve the budget crisis. There is little doubt that the voters will demand quick results.

      San Diego


      • #18
        acelaw- Don't like my question?? I know, I know, I really didn't expect to get a straight answer from you anyway........

        Maybe the 8th time is the charm. Is it LEGAL to exploit PEOPLE in the US? Yes or No?

        (I don't know, but this seems like a very easy question to me)

        And what do you do next, post some silly article that has absolutely nothing to do with anything......

        "Why no FREE health care in Mexicio ? Whats up with this SKS"

        And, your point is what?? Aren't YOU the one who said we need to focus on the US first?? I know I know, lets pick on Mexico, it's more fun.

        "Our narrative begins then aboard a Carnival cruise ship, bound for 10 days of continuous frolic and fun in Mexican waters."

        Did somebody FORCE you to go there??

        "Here's a breakdown of the unexpected charges:
        * $1,500 for the ambulance, cash in advance.
        * $1,000 at the hospital "before I even saw a doctor."
        * The doctor subsequently asked for $245, in cash.
        * There was an additional $750 charge on checking out of the hospital.
        * Plus $80 paid to local officials because, at one point and for no good reason, the couple's passports were confiscated."

        Cry me a river...........

        "Probably not to Mexico," answers this diplomatic traveler. "I don't think Marie is up for another one. . . ."

        What the hell was the point of this article?? A bad vacation?? WAAAAA WAAAA. Maybe they should try Iraq! I have vacationed in Mexico, and had a great time!! More "hasty generalizations" acelaw?

        "The end is coming SKS we are tried of it."

        Uh, yea, ok.......the end of what??

        "However, he failed to capture the anger most voters felt over the failure of Gov. Gray Davis to deal with the immigration issue."

        And that was not a coincidence....... Arnold knows the score and how things work in politics......Who cares what the voters think, what matters are special interests and not alienating anybody, that is how it works here, unfortunately.

        "Their anger is reflected in the speed with which voters are signing a petition to overthrow this measure by placing a referendum on the ballot. More than 50,000 signatures were gathered in the first week the petitions were circulated."

        Wow, that is a far cry from massive deportations and immigrant house-to-house raids!! So, lets say the driver's license bill is repealed what will happen?? NOTHING, we will just go back to the way things were before it was signed!! Immigrants are going to drive anyway, just a fact. So, lets not allow them insurance and lets not know who they are, ok, that sounds very intelligent.

        That is too much acelaw.........

        "This anger also is reflected in a Frank Luntz exit-poll report that shows that voters believed illegal immigration was at least partially responsible for the state's financial problems."

        You and your silly polls acelaw. Is this just like the others, where people polled say they don't like something and nothing gets done. Looks like that to me.........

        "The report also indicates that the issue of immigration played both a direct and an indirect role in the recall election because of its impact on the economy."

        How, by voting in somebody who is in favor of health-care for illegal immigrant children?? Uh, ok........

        "There is no doubt that Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger has a tiger by the tail on the immigration issue, in addition to his efforts to solve the budget crisis. There is little doubt that the voters will demand quick results."

        AAAAAAHHHHHHH, yes. The voters will "demand" quick results, right? Going by the history of how our politicians work, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you acelaw! Again, I could be wrong, but I don't see Arnold ordering massive deportations and house-to-house raids..........

        Until that happens, more immigrants come to the US, and as every day goes by, the millions already here become ever more a part of our society. Fact not opinion, get it.


        • #19
          How can you exploit people that are not here?Dumb question

          Now cry me a river SKS

          Denying free care to legal immigrants OK'd
          By Howard Fischer

          PHOENIX - Arizona is legally entitled to deny free health care to legal immigrants even if they meet income restrictions, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

          The judges said Congress has broad constitutional authority to determine issues of immigration.

          They also said Congress has determined that those who arrived in this country after Aug. 21, 1996, are ineligible for federally paid health care until they have been in this country legally for at least five years. And they noted the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, which provides health care the poor, is funded largely with federal cash.

          That, according to Judge Patrick Irvine, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, means Congress - and a state such as Arizona that accepts federal money - is free to discriminate despite equal protection provisions under the U.S. Constitution.

          Irvine acknowledged that there is a part of the AHCCCS program that is paid for solely with state funds. That is designed for people whose incomes are too high to meet federal eligibility standards.

          The judge also said the Legis-lature does not have the same broad powers as Congress when it comes to setting policy on legal immigrants.

          But Irvine said the fact that Arizona law on who qualifies mirrors the federal standards permits the state to engage in the same type of discrimination.

          Tuesday's ruling is an about-face for the court, which two years ago barred the state from denying care under the portion of AHCCCS that is funded solely with state tax money. But that decision was based on the fact that the state had slightly different standards for its program than were required under federal law.

          The Supreme Court could have a different opinion.

          In that 2001 decision, appellate Judge Michael Ryan said federal law "cannot excuse states from compliance with the mandates of equal protection." He said the state offers "no legitimate purpose" for discrimination.

          Ryan now sits on the state's high court.

          "The state's desire to preserve limited welfare benefits for its own citizens is insufficient justification for a restriction against a certain subclass of aliens," Ryan wrote at the time.

          The case involves two individuals. One is Bruno Avila, a Mexican citizen whose ailments include end-stage renal disease. The other is Falk Kurti, an Albanian with advanced prostate cancer.

          House Votes to Expand Immigrant Checks

          We got this passed, time to clean out the USA.

          By Associated Press

          October 28, 2003, 8:08 PM EST

          WASHINGTON -- The House voted Tuesday to expand a pilot nationwide program that lets employers check immigrants' identification numbers and ensure they are not in this country illegally.

          Democrats argued that the program could become an invasion of privacy for Americans.

          If taken nationwide, the pilot program being used in Texas, California, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska and New York would "create a single database with no privacy protections that would make it easy for the government to track its own citizens," said Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Texas. "This bill actually comes dangerously close to threatening the privacy of the Americans and non-Americans alike."

          House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said the only change in the current pilot program would be that other states would be able to participate.

          "If anybody is to be scared by this bill, it is the people who are trafficking in counterfeit documents," Sensenbrenner said.

          The bill passed on a 231-170 vote. It now goes to the Senate, which is working on its own version.

          Congress started the six-year pilot program in six states to fight the use of counterfeit documents by illegal immigrants. Under the program, Social Security number and alien identification numbers are checked with the Social Security Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to weed out fake documents and ensure immigrants are legally working. Documents can be demanded of anybody who applies for a job.

          More than 11,700 employers have volunteered to participate in the program, lawmakers said.

          * __

          The bill is HR 2359.

          On the Net:

          Bill text:
          Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press

          Why is Calif becoming a sinkhole with all that cheap labor LOLOLOL
 Return to regular view
          Jobless insurance is nearly bankrupt
          Schwarzenegger urged by Davis to seek U.S. loan
          Robert Salladay, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
          Tuesday, October 28, 2003
          ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


          Sacramento -- Gov. Gray Davis has warned Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger that California's unemployment insurance system will go bankrupt only weeks after he takes office, forcing the state to seek its first-ever bailout loan from the federal government that could top $1.17 billion.

          Schwarzenegger arrives today in Washington for a round of meetings with federal authorities, and the looming failure of the state's unemployment insurance fund presents a major problem for the incoming Republican governor. He must decide within two weeks of being sworn in to seek the federal bailout, ask the Legislature to cut unemployment benefits immediately or raise taxes on business to cover the losses.

          A federal loan would mark the first time California has been forced to beg for money from U.S. authorities for its unemployment insurance program, which is expected to go bankrupt in January. Six other states, including Texas,

          New York and Illinois, have applied for similar bailout loans since last year during the national economic decline.

          In private meetings with Schwarzenegger last week, Davis outlined the problem and told the incoming governor that a federal bailout was required, sources said. State officials already are preparing a loan application to a federal trust fund that needs to be sent three weeks before the insurance fund goes bankrupt. Schwarzenegger is expected to be inaugurated in mid-November, and the loan application currently is set for Dec. 1.

          The unemployment insurance crisis is just one of several major problems facing Schwarzenegger as he takes over. The most prominent is a state budget deficit that could top $10 billion, court rulings that could add an additional $12.7 billion to a projected shortfall and reforms Schwarzenegger says he wants for the overburdened workers' compensation system.

          "It's been clear for some time that the bills passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Davis have been putting pressure on the ability of the unemployment insurance fund to remain solvent,'' said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger. "This is yet another one of the financial migraines the governor-elect is going to inherit.''

          Palmer said Schwarzenegger was studying his options to reform the unemployment insurance system, which is funded entirely by business; he hasn't made any decisions. During his meetings in Washington this week, Schwarzenegger is expected to press the federal government for additional grants to help the state with its deficit.

          California's unemployment insurance system currently pays about 488,000 out-of-work Californians up to $370 a week in cash. Under legislation signed by Davis in 2001, those benefits will increase in January to a maximum of $410 week. In 2005, benefits increase to $450 a week, the last of four increases approved by Davis and the Legislature two years ago.

          The state has steadily increased its benefits to the unemployed, after the system languished without a raise for a decade, and state officials blame the downturn in the national economy for the current failure to pay its bills. Loree Levy, spokeswoman for the Employment Development Department, said other large states such as Texas and New York had applied for similar unemployment insurance bailout loans more than once.

          "I think what ended up happening is the economy just kind of really dwindled far longer than anybody anticipated,'' Levy said. "So we continue to deal with a higher number of people collecting higher unemployment benefits.''

          California is not unique in facing an economic downturn, and the state's leading business group blamed the fund's pending bankruptcy on the recent benefits increase. Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, said his group would have accepted a smaller benefits increase and warned the Legislature that increasing maximum benefits from $230 to $450 over four years would bankrupt the fund.

          "And very unfortunately, our predictions came true,'' Zaremberg said.

          In part because of the emergency facing the fund, the tax burden on businesses will rise 50 percent next year to cover all the claims, as more and more people face layoffs. State businesses are expected to see their unemployment insurance bills increase to around $329 per employee -- a $110 average increase.

          Despite the increased taxes on businesses starting in January, state authorities predict the program will post a $1.17 billion deficit by the end of 2004. The fund will pay out an estimated $6.9 billion in cash benefits next year alone. The fund now has a surplus of only $430 million -- down from $3. 5 billion in reserves at the end of last year.

          To make ends meet, California is expected to apply for a loan from the federal unemployment insurance trust fund managed through the U.S. Department of Labor. The loans are granted in three-month installments to cover whatever losses are incurred during that period. If the first installment is not paid back by Sept. 30, then interest would be charged, adding to the cost to taxpayers. The amount of the federal bailout loan and the potential interest payments have not been determined.

          Union groups that pushed for the benefits increase in 2001 believe the burden to prop up the system should fall again on business. California, for example, requires unemployment insurance taxes to be calculated on the first $7,000 in wages, where 40 other states have higher thresholds. Nathan Ballard, spokesman for the California Federation of Labor, said the state should consider raising that threshold.

          The California Chamber of Commerce has recommended delaying the benefits increase next year and in 2005, saving the fund a combined $370 million in payouts. But Ballard said that would be a bad idea.

          "These benefits are critical for stabilizing an uncertain economy,'' he said. "They help maintain consumer purchasing power in depressed areas and allow working families to preserve their savings.''

          E-mail Robert Salladay at

          ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

          Page A - 1

          [This message was edited by acelaw on October 29, 2003 at 11:02 AM.]


          • #20
            acelaw- Just can't answer a question directly can you........again reading comprehension.

            I'll ask it for a 9th time.

            Is it legal to exploit PEOPLE in the US?? Yes or No?

            (Again, doesn't get any more easier than this)

            "How can you exploit people that are not here?Dumb question"

            So, are you saying there really aren't millions of illegal immigrants in the US?? That is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard!! Talk about dumb!! ALL PEOPLE in this country are guaranteed certain human, civil laws.

            "Now cry me a river SKS"

            Uh, yea, ok..........reality is on my side buddy!

            "Denying free care to legal immigrants OK'd"

            Uh, ok, great. But that isn't going to get rid of anybody........

            "They also said Congress has determined that those who arrived in this country after Aug. 21, 1996, are ineligible for federally paid health care until they have been in this country legally for at least five years."

            So, just wait five years.......... What about those before 1996??!!

            "The judge also said the Legis-lature does not have the same broad powers as Congress when it comes to setting policy on legal immigrants."

            Exactly, so they aren't going anywhere....

            "The Supreme Court could have a different opinion......Ryan now sits on the state's high court."

            Uh, oh...

            "We got this passed, time to clean out the USA."

            How, so??

            "The House voted Tuesday to expand a pilot nationwide program that lets employers check immigrants' identification numbers and ensure they are not in this country illegally."

            Employers can already check the status, they just don't want to.........What good is a program if not many use it??

            "If anybody is to be scared by this bill, it is the people who are trafficking in counterfeit documents," Sensenbrenner said."

            So, those already with jobs are ok!

            "The bill passed on a 231-170 vote. It now goes to the Senate, which is working on its own version."


            "Congress started the six-year pilot program in six states to fight the use of counterfeit documents by illegal immigrants."

            Wow, far cry from illegal immigrant round ups!!! This seems more like a program to fight counterfeiting, and not in removing immigrants.......

            "Documents can be demanded of anybody who applies for a job."

            They sure can!! But if a businesses doesn't want to, and wants to reap the benefits of cheap labor, it ain't gonna happen!

            "More than 11,700 employers have volunteered to participate in the program, lawmakers said."

            Wow, 11,700 in six states.........doesn't sound like many to me. These are volunteers, so obviously they are going to comply with the program...

            "Time to clean out the USA" you say!!!??? HAHAHAHA. How, massive deportations?? No. House-to-house raids?? No. Setting up a program to check documents?? Yes. Wow, that is going to solve our problem.We got this passed, time to clean out the USA. If we really want to "clean out" the US, we need to start with the politicians!!

            "Why is Calif becoming a sinkhole with all that cheap labor LOLOLOL
            Jobless insurance is nearly bankrupt
            Schwarzenegger urged by Davis to seek U.S. loan"

            Talk about spin, that entire article had nothing to do with immigration!!!! What garbage!!

            What was that??!! Another day gone by with the millions of immigrants still here!! That's right, and as the days go by, they become ever more a part of our society....fact not opinion. Reality does hurt acelaw..............


            • #21
              Nevada is next then Ore. so and so on, who needs the politicans, we will take care of it with out them.

              Arizona Uprising
              By Steve Brown and Chris Coon
     | October 30, 2003

              "I think it is a duty in those entrusted with the administration of their affairs to conform themselves to the decided choice of their constituents." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1785.

              The frustration Americans feel with their elected representatives over the issue of illegal immigration has begun a (small 'r') revolution, a revolution most pronounced in those areas that bear the burden of our failed national policy. Using constitutional means to voice their displeasure, a plurality of voters in California recalled Governor Gray Davis earlier this month based in part on his support of licenses for illegal immigrants. That anger is mirrored in the current petition drive in Arizona, in which citizens have crafted a common-sense ballot initiative: Only American citizens should be able to vote or receive non-emergency government services, that is, services paid for with Arizona tax dollars.

              Frustrated with the moves by Democrat Governor Janet Napolitano and their congressional delegation to reward illegal immigration by granting aliens licenses, government benefits, amnesty and the right to vote, concerned citizens are seeking the signatures of 122,612 registered voters before the deadline of next July 1 in order to add the "Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act" to the 2004 ballot.

              The citizen's group behind the initiative, Protect Arizona Now (PAN), describes the ATCP act as a "citizens' initiative to require proof of citizenship and identity to vote and proof of eligibility for non-emergency medical services."

              PAN spokeswoman Kathy McKee explained that Arizona citizens have reached a point where they feel their government is paralyzed and unresponsive to the overwhelming public demand to deal with the state's immigration nightmare.

              "Some of the immigration issues, like employer sanctions, are strictly under the realm of the federal government, but a lot could be done here locally," McKee told "We're the ones who, after the illegals come across the border, are having to pay through the nose for all these services. And then, of course, there's the voting problem. So we just decided that we would try to find a way to bypass the political process and the liberal media and take it directly to the citizens of this state, because most people here...know what's going on."

              PAN would require proof of citizenship before registering to vote and upon Election Day, as well as requiring state workers to check the immigration status of anyone who applies for state services. These measures would present minor changes to the state's constitution and would be applied across the board regardless of race or nationality. People who are already registered to vote would be grandfathered in; thus, it would only affect those who register after the act's passage.

              PAN makes a clear case for reform. On the issue of voter fraud, they cite a report by the Republican former Secretary of State Betsey Bayless showing that in 1998 more than 500,000 unverifiable names were on the voter rolls. Bayless went on to ease the ability to register and removed only 65,000 of those names, doing little to fix the problem. In the past, thousands of deceased people have been found to have voted for years after their deaths. One anonymous citizen registered his dog to show the ease of committing voter fraud in Arizona.

              Current regulations allow voters to register by mail or over the internet with no proof of citizenship required. Mail-in ballots are common, ensuring those who seek to commit fraud never come into direct contact with any election official. If Napolitano and other Democrats in the state legislature are successful in loosening the requirements to obtain a state drivers license, illegals would be eligible to register to vote through the Motor/Voter Act.

              Both the federal "Help America to Vote Act" of 2002 and the Arizona State Constitution require passage of laws that "strengthen the integrity" of voter rolls. As Title 7, Section 12, of the Arizona Constitution states, "There shall be enacted registration and other laws to secure the purity of elections and guard against abuses of the elective franchise."

              Further impetus for the initiative was made dramatically clear after Gov. Napolitano vetoed legislation that would have required identification to register and vote. She stated her fear that such a law would disenfranchise "poor voters" and implied the bill was intended to violate the civil rights of legal Latino citizens. Naturally, Napolitano ignores the fact that 11 other states already have similar voter ID requirements.

              PAN was more blunt. "It was just a bunch of ****," McKee remarked. "She did it with a lot of fanfare in front of the Association of Latino Elected Officials conference that they had here in front of a largely Hispanic audience. I mean, who is she catering to? What a political gesture."

              McKee went on to explain that they are not asking for a new form of ID to be issued to register to vote but "the same photo ID required to cash a check, apply for welfare, sign a lease, go to the Phoenix city dump, or for goodness sake, even get a video rental card at Blockbuster."

              "I guess (Gov. Napolitano) doesn't think voting is as precious as going to the Blockbuster or going to the city dump." McKee said.

              The PAN website declares, "Since Governor Napolitano has shown her intention to veto any legislation that fulfills this portion of the Arizona Constitution, the citizens of this state can and will have our constitution enforced."

              McKee added, "If it weren't for the governor, we probably wouldn't have to be doing this. She's made it plain that she's going to veto anything that the legislature does pass. Why would they want to go through the brutality of getting legislation passed only to have her veto it?"

              Equally important is the provision in the referendum that seeks to prevent non-citizens from availing themselves of Arizona's social services. Census data for Arizona estimated the state's illegal alien population at more than 283,000 as of 2000; anti-alien activists claim millions of people illegally cross the Arizona border with Mexico each year, many on their way to California and other states. An unknown number remain in the state. According to a study by FAIR, more than 450,000 people illegally crossing the border were arrested by the Border Patrol in 2001 alone. The number who successfully made the crossing is unknown.

              The impact these invaders have had on Arizona's state budget has been staggering. Arizona is currently running a $1 billion dollar deficit. This is the amount Republican State Representative Randy Graf, one of the initiative's supporters, claims illegal immigration cost state and local governments. Arizona simply cannot afford to extend this misguided generosity to illegal immigrants.

              While exact numbers are debated by those who support and oppose the referendum, the known facts make a convincing case for the measure. In a two year period, Arizona's Medicare (AHCCCS) costs have skyrocketed from $200 million annually in 2001 to a staggering $1.2 billion in 2003. According to 2001 Census Bureau estimates, approximately 4,400 illegal immigrant households have at least one member fraudulently enrolled in the program. Still, legislators obstinately refuse to even try to determine the exact costs incurred by taxpayers due to the lawmakers' haphazard and destructive immigration policies.

              "The (state) legislature was supposed to convene a subcommittee this summer just to study that very issue: how much is this costing the state? The preliminary figures are that we're spending $75-85 million a year just to house incarcerated illegal aliens, and we've had to build two prisons at about $100,000 a pop just for that overpopulation of illegals who should've been deported before they committed these crimes," McKee explained. But McKee said earlier this year that Arizona House Speaker Republican Franklin "Jake" Flake removed the subcommittee to study the costs from the Appropriations Committee to the Speaker's Committee.

              "He killed it," McKee said. "So there's not going to be a study. I don't know if they would need to convene another subcommittee in Appropriations to revive it but Flake killed the whole thing."

              There is no doubt that these costs are staggering. Federal laws and state court rulings requiring hospital emergency rooms to treat any patient, regardless of medical coverage (or immigration status) threaten any local hospitals with insolvency. Maricopa County Hospital hemorrhages an estimated $2 million dollars every week on this alone. The Tucson Medical Center closed its trauma center and Kino Community hospital stopped providing emergency services due to lack of funding.

              Many area hospitals are following suit. Arizona's hospitals report $1.4 billion a year in losses to uncompensated care. Arizona taxpayers have been stuck with a portion of the bill in the past; now in addition to the monetary cos,t they also face a loss of adequate health care for themselves and their families, because the government mandates these hospitals care for illegal aliens. The impact of providing unlimited medical services to the illegal community has cost Arizonans dearly.

              "Unfortunately in this state the hospitals are providing everything," McKee said, noting that the common definition of what constitutes emergency care required by federal law is "a serious life-threatening emergency.

              "Yet you go to the emergency rooms in this state, and you're in for a seven- or eight-hour wait because illegals are there with poison ivy, insect bites, bee stings, bruises and scrapes. A lot of the illegal aliens have fraudulently registered with our state Medicaid program, so they're going to the family practice clinics and ob-gyn clinics, getting all sorts of family practice care from the emergency rooms and a whole litany of medical services that they are not entitled to."

              In 2001, a University of Arizona study estimated the financial cost of illegals to the Arizona taxpayer. They found that a total cost in Fiscal Year 2001 of over $330 million dollars in three main categories: $140 million in health care costs, $100 million for education and $90 million in criminal justice expenses.

              The welfare reform passed in 1996 by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Clinton clearly stated that the only social services that states must provide to illegal aliens are those mandated by state law. Today, Arizona law does not require any financial aid be given those in the country illegally. This has not prevented the issuance of aid in the form of food stamps, housing subsidies and direct cash transfers to aliens. A recent Center of Immigration Studies (CIS) survey of the state estimated the total amount of welfare going to illegals at $380 million dollars.

              Opponentsof the initiative claim the tax revenue generated by immigrants makes up for their costs. The pro-immigration Thunderbird Mexican Association estimated total taxes paid by immigrants at $599 million; however, they fail to differentiate between legal immigrants and those in Arizona illegally, a vital distinction. Because many aliens work "under the table," finding hard data for taxes paid is more difficult than estimating the net cost.

              University of Arizona polling found over 70 percent of respondents in support of the initiative, (including 40 percent support among Latino voters) the Republican congressional delegation -- including Senator McCain and Representatives Kolbe, Kyl and Hayworth -- have joined with Governor Napolitano in voicing their opposition. Claiming the responsibility for regulating immigration falls to the federal government alone, they have expressed a position that runs counter to the traditional "state rights" standard the Republican Party normally champions. Whether their concern stems from a legitimate constitutional issues or simply fear of alienating the Latino vote and corporate interests, their opposition stands in stark contrast to the will of the voters.

              Both state Republican and Democratic parties have also come out against the measure. This disconnect between average citizens and their political leadership makes passage of the initiative imperative if voters wish their elected officials to take the illegal immigration situation seriously.

              According to McKee, the initiative has produced an outpouring of support. "Most people love us," she said referring to the reception PAN volunteers get as they go about their signature gathering. "Well, not everybody loves us. Obviously the political leaders of both parties don't love us and the liberal media doesn't love us but the actual people, just everyday people, love us."

              McKee said PAN has more than 1,000 volunteers, who have circulated 5,000 petitions to date. "The signatures are going well. People just follow us everywhere to sign them."

              In addition to the daunting array of foes Protect Arizona NOW faces to get the initiative on the ballot, it will have to face a liberal judicial system that may very well strike down the will of the people.

              The language of the initiative resembles California's Proposition 187, which was ruled "unconstitutional" in 1998 by U.S. District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer. Claiming that immigration regulation is the sole province of the federal government, she struck down the portions of the measure that required state officials to verify a person's immigration status, effectively gutting the law. While subsequent challenges to the decision were put on hold by Gray Davis, many think the Supreme Court would overturn her ruling. They point to the 1996 federal law, the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996," which authorizes state and local officials to report immigration offenses and requires local police to enforce immigration laws as primary offenses.

              McKee and her colleagues are also bracing themselves for the inevitable lawsuits challenging the initiative if it passes as it is expected to.

              "There is no doubt in our minds that it will be the subject of a lawsuit. But we were careful and I've had way too many attorneys...tell us that it is safe," McKee said. "Unlike (California's) Prop. 187, we're not creating any new laws or changing anybody's eligibility. We are only requiring enforcement of eligibility; that's already the law under the Constitution for over 200 years in this country in order to vote it's been required that you be a citizen. We're just requiring that you prove that."

              Polling indicates overwhelming support for the enforcement of immigration laws. The government serves at the citizens' pleasure, but when those elected into office fail them, they must shoulder the responsibility of governance themselves. In recent months we have seen citizens rally to patrol and protect our borders, citizens have led a recall that unseated a governor who failed them, and now through the initiative process, average people seek to protect their fellow citizen taxpayers from the abuses their government allows. We the People have the power to effect change in our nation's immigration policy; we have only to use it. In Arizona, the voters may soon do just that.


              • #22
                And people wonder why American's are so unpopular in the world.


                • #23
                  I dont know about americans but AMERICA is the most popular in world....


                  • #24
                    Interesting that we are hated in your view, HMMMM why are we the only country that you should just be able to "walk into " when ever you feel like it, we care less who hates us as a mater of principle , there is no other nation that has helped this world more then the U.S. So love it of LEAVE IT

                    VDARE.COM -
                    October 29, 2003
                    The New York Times Says Japan Needs Immigrants. The Japanese Politely Disagree
                    By Jared Taylor
                    [Recently by Jared Taylor: Will America Take Up The New White Man's Burden?]
                    Japan's post-World War II forty-year economic growth surge without immigration has always been an embarrassment to the immigration enthusiasts. In 1990, the then-Designated Enthusiast Economist Julian Simon was reduced to admitting: "How Japan gets along I don't know. But we may have to recognize that some countries are sui generis." [Click here for Peter Brimelow's answer: technological innovation.]
                    More recently, Japan's growth has slowed, although it still compares reasonably to Western Europe. But immigration enthusiasts are coming up with a new argument: with its falling birth rate and aging population, Japan will soon run out of workers.
                    The United Nations, which is staffed largely with Third-Worlders, loves to publish reports about how the West is withering away and can save itself only with immigration from, of course, the Third-World. Japan is another rich country the UN wants to help repopulate. If current trends continue, it says, there will be only 90 million Japanese by 2050. The Japanese government says the correct figure is about 103 million, but no one doubts the long-term trend is down. There will be fewer Japanese and more old people.
                    The New York Times recently carried a typically condescending article telling us that the question is "whether this country remains an economic powerhouse or its population shrivels and the slow fade of the Japanese economy turns into a rout." Quoting a UN study, the Times claimed Japan needs 17 million new immigrants by 2050 in order to "restore demographic equilibrium." The Japanese, suggested the article, will have to get over their dislike of foreigners and become multicultural - just like America! ["Insular Japan Needs, but Resists, Immigration," By HOWARD W. FRENCH, July 24, 2003]
                    Does Japan face a crisis? The current population is 126.6 million, the highest it has ever been, and is still slowly rising"”about a tenth of a percent last year. In 2002 there were 1,152,000 births, so the Japanese are not exactly vanishing. Still, the average Japanese woman is now having only an estimated 1.3 children in her lifetime, so barring more births or immigration the population will eventually shrink.
                    The average Japanese reaction: "So what?" Japan is about the size of California but with the equivalent of nearly half the population of the United States crammed into it. A drop from today's 127 million to 100 million or even 75 million would make for a more comfortable number.
                    And even 75 million would be more than the current populations of Britain or France. The Swedes don't sit around feeling sorry for themselves because there are only nine million of them.
                    The alleged problem is not simply in the numbers, but in the age distribution"”the prospect of lots of old people having to depend on a small labor force for their pensions. But this is not so daunting for Japan as for some other countries. Japanese have the quaint idea that the primary social support organization is the family. Their retirement programs are not as generous as in Europe, and require a smaller work force. For decades, Japanese have had high savings rates for just this reason: they look to their own resources. Although we Americans fancy ourselves "rugged individualists," we are more dependent than Japanese on government handouts.
                    Moreover, Japanese are healthier and live longer than we do, and more every year are working past retirement age. Japanese companies have begun to institutionalize a system of immediately rehiring their retired employees as contract workers at fewer hours and lower salaries. The company benefits from their experience and the employees stay active and in the workforce.
                    And there are many other things Japanese can do if labor really gets tight. Even with falling birth rates, more Japanese women stay home with children than in the West, and some of them could work. The agriculture and retail distribution sectors are still notoriously overmanned and could be rationalized. As a long-term measure, the government could directly subsidize child-bearing as some European governments do. This has not been very effective in Europe, but Japanese are more group-oriented than Europeans, and might respond to a serious more-babies-for-the-fatherland campaign.
                    But open the country to Turks and Bangladeshis? Never!
                    Most Japanese are determined to find solutions that do not involve importing foreigners because they are deeply attached to their ancient, subtle culture. They believe that only native-born Japanese can understand or maintain it.
                    This conviction goes back centuries. In 1635, the Shogunate passed laws forbidding overseas travel, and cut off virtually all contact with the outside world. Japan might have stayed locked up tight as an oyster if Commodore Matthew Perry had not forcibly opened it in 1853. The Japanese remain convinced they are a unique, homogenous people with an island-nation mentality, unfathomable to outsiders.
                    Some years ago in Tokyo I recall leafing through a book whose title would be translated as "The Japanese Brain." It claimed the brains of Japanese process sounds and language differently from those of Europeans. I also recall a serious work on evolution called "From the Fossil Apes to the Japanese."
                    This almost biological sense of uniqueness has many consequences. Before the Second World War, Japan ruled Korea and Taiwan, and brought over a number of colonial subjects to work in Japan. Today, the second- and third-generation descendents of these workers"”who speak fluent Japanese and are physically indistinguishable from Japanese"”are not Japanese citizens. They are snubbed socially and have a hard time getting jobs. (This population must be borne in mind when considering the official count of immigrants at one percent of the population: one third to a half of those are Asians who were born in Japan, and speak Japanese as their first language.)
                    Japanese do not dislike foreigners"”they sell cars and cameras to them very cheerfully"”but they prefer familiar company. Apartment ads often say "no foreigners," and silence may settle on the neighborhood bar if outlanders walk in.
                    Public bath houses on the northern island of Hokkaido were in the news last year because they wouldn't let in foreigners. There was a stink about discrimination, and pro forma pledges of reform. The fact is, when Japanese take their clothes off for a soak, they'd rather be among their own kind.
                    So far as I know, it has never been reported in the press, but many of Japan's legal houses of prostitution are off-limits to non-Japanese, too. Maybe disappointed customers are too embarrassed to protest, but "soap lands," as they are called, have bouncers"”often dressed in tuxedos"”who make sure the girls do not have to grapple with uncouth foreigners.
                    Japanese who visit the United States are appalled by what they find here: ethnic politics, bilingual education, ballot papers in Chinese, racial preferences, interpreters in hospitals and courtrooms, jail-house race riots, foreign criminal gangs, etc. They wonder if millions of aging American whites can really count on blacks and browns to pay for their retirement. They have seen diversity in action, and they want none of it.
                    Of course, the profit motive ensures they are getting some of it. As in all rich countries, there are menial jobs natives "don't want." Even with a limping economy, Japan is paradise compared to the rest of Asia. Millions would love to come, and just like Mexicans, they are willing to pay traffickers to get them into a country that works. Construction companies put illegal Africans and Middle-Easterners on the job at night and less obtrusive Asians during the day. The police are always breaking up sweatshops and fining employers.
                    The mostly Chinese networks that sprang up to handle the human traffic have branched out. Japan, which for generations considered itself the safest place on earth, is in the middle of a crime wave. From 1998 to 2002, robbery was up 104 percent, car theft 75 percent, purse snatching 48 percent, and burglary 42 percent. A general index of six serious crimes was up 75 percent. Japanese now even have surveillance cameras and neighborhood crime watches.
                    The politically incorrect Japanese are not shy about who's to blame. The media routinely run stories like "Number of Foreigners Arrested Jumps 13 Percent." In an interview earlier this year, Deputy Director of the National Police Agency Shinichiro Kuwahara said:
                    "Chinese criminals are making a fool of the Japanese criminal-judicial system. Even if they get arrested, they only get suspended sentences for the first offense and get deported. Then they come back with a forged passport and commit the same crime. Even if they get convicted, they can endure one or two years in prison, and in the meantime the money is transferred and their relatives build gorgeous houses with it."[Crime Rattles Japanese Calm, Attracting Politicians' Notice, September 6, 2003, New York Times, By Norimitsu Onishi]
                    Many American newspapers are notoriously too squeamish to describe crime suspects as black or Hispanic. But the Japanese media routinely report that the robber "looked Iranian or Iraqi" or "spoke broken Japanese with a Chinese accent."
                    Japan is a tightly-run country that does not yet have a broad underworld of legal and semi-legal aliens into which foreigners can disappear. If the authorities wanted to, they could clean up the immigrant problem. But deporting illegal aliens is (as usual) a matter of balancing growing public anger with industry's demand for cheap labor.
                    Nor is Japan entirely free of the let's-all-hold hands sentimentality of Western liberals. Lefty academics write earnest editorials about globalization, and the need for Japanese to open their hearts to foreigners. There are even a few fledgling advocacy groups for immigrants that try to make sure illegals get their wages before they are deported.
                    But perhaps the recent episode to best capture the Japanese mood was Mitsuo Fukumura's brush earlier this year with globalization. Mr. Fukumura is the mayor of a city on the island of Kyushu, close to South Korea. He preaches closer ties with Korea, and wanted to capitalize on what he thought was the goodwill generated by the joint Japanese-Korean-sponsored Soccer World cup of 2002. He proposed that Korean tourists be allowed into Japan without visas if they come through Kyushu.
                    The result was a huge anti-Korean, anti-foreigner backlash, with protestors swamping the local government. Not only do Mr. Fukumara's constituents not want more Koreans, many of them don't want any foreigners in Kyushu.
                    Mr. Fukumura's "Gateway to Asia" plan sank without a bubble.
                    Although such sentiments have been run out of respectable society in America, the Japanese actually like their country the way it is. They intend to keep Japan for the Japanese.
                    Jared Taylor (email him), the editor of American Renaissance, was born in Japan and speaks fluent Japanese. He is the author of Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle.


                    • #25
                      Walmart services are pretty cool. Now all Walmart employees can make use of Walmartone portal to get all the benefits.
                      Last edited by relein; 08-12-2019, 06:15 AM. Reason: to make it better.


                      • #26
                        thread reply after a decade. Interesting. Anyways, walmarton portal is the easiest way to interact with the employees and to train them as well.


                        • #27
                          Our soaps are handcrafted in small batches in Brentwood, CA USA Vegan , No Palm Oil, No Alcohol, No Parabens, No Sulfates, No Soy, No GMO's, Gluten-Free, No Phthalates, Not tested on animals, follow this link and go to shop Coconut Lavender artisan soap No plastic and No Artificial colors.


                          Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                          Home Page

                          Immigration Daily


                          Processing times

                          Immigration forms

                          Discussion board



                          Twitter feed

                          Immigrant Nation


                          CLE Workshops

                          Immigration books

                          Advertise on ILW



                          About ILW.COM

                          Connect to us



                          Immigration Daily